Meme Thread for Memes and other assorted Lulz

[Hastur]

Why do US police hate dogs? Seriously, Google "police dog die in hot squad car". What's wrong with them?

[Speaker to Animals]

It's just a product of a culture of wannabe soldiers combined with low standards.

The pay is generally not bad, so really we just need higher standards. Police unions don't make it easy, especially in cities where they have a lot of political influence.

[Fife]

Why do US police hate dogs? Seriously, Google "police dog die in hot squad car". What's wrong with them?

Qualified Immunity (among other things) leads to reckless, crazy, horndog Barney Fifes with a real desire to cause harm. The made-up statist judicial doctrine is a pernicious pile of . . . well, you know where I'm headed.

Check out recent sentiments of the guy who *should* have just been put on the SCOTUS:

Judge Willett Questions Qualified Immunity
In a concurring opinion, Fifth Circuit Judge Don Willett expresses concern about the " kudzu-like creep of the modern immunity regime."

But owing to a legal deus ex machina—the "clearly established law" prong of qualified-immunity analysis—the violation eludes vindication. I write separately to register my disquiet over the kudzu-like creep of the modern immunity regime. Doctrinal reform is arduous, often-Sisyphean work. And the entrenched, judge-made doctrine of qualified immunity seems Kevlar-coated, making even tweak-level tinkering doubtful. But immunity ought not be immune from thoughtful reappraisal.

* * *

To some observers, qualified immunity smacks of unqualified impunity, letting public officials duck consequences for bad behavior—no matter how palpably unreasonable—as long as they were the first to behave badly. Merely proving a constitutional deprivation doesn't cut it; plaintiffs must cite functionally identical precedent that places the legal question "beyond debate" to "every" reasonable officer. Put differently, it's immaterial that someone acts unconstitutionally if no prior case held such misconduct unlawful. Today's case applies prevailing immunity precedent (as best we can divine it): Dr. Zadeh loses because no prior decision held such a search unconstitutional. But courts of appeals are divided—intractably—over precisely what degree of factual similarity must exist. How indistinguishable must existing precedent be? On the one hand, the Supreme Court reassures plaintiffs that its caselaw "does not require a case directly on point for a right to be clearly established." On the other hand, the Court admonishes that "clearly established law must be 'particularized' to the facts of the case." But like facts in like cases is unlikely. And this leaves the "clearly established" standard neither clear nor established among our Nation's lower courts.

[pineapplemike]

[Hastur]

[Fife]

[Fife]

[Fife]

[Fife]

Dumb cow; why don't you just move to India?? Herpaderpa

[Kath]

True story, but even truer if you replace "Republicans," with "Entire fucking federal government."