Georgia Senate votes to allow lawsuits over questionable laws

Discussion in 'Georgia In the News' started by tmoore912, Mar 26, 2019.

  1. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,825
    830
    113
    Quick redo of law/policy scrogged up by Ga Supreme Ct 2 years back.

    Good Job Legislature.

    Nemo
     

  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    "The proposal previously passed the state House this month, but because it was amended in the Senate, the House needs to vote one more time on the final version of the bill before sending it to Gov. Brian Kemp for his signature."


    Wait and see what the final version looks like . . .
     
  3. phantoms

    phantoms Senior Mumbler

    6,208
    187
    63
    So the government is breaking the law and you can't sue them to correct that without first getting the very same government that's breaking the law to agree to let you sue them. :shakehead:
     
  4. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,631
    1,712
    113
    Completely logical. What's the problem? Have you no sense of humor?
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    That has always been the law in this country. I am a little shocked that you are just now learning this.

    The sovereign can do no wrong. <---- Real legal maxim ("Rex Non Potest Peccare"). The courts could not bind the sovereign to the laws he created for the protection of his subjects. He was there by divine appointment.
     
  6. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,458
    510
    113
    I support waivers (or abolition) of sovereign immunity, but this particular bill does not really do anything to improve anyone's situation. Under current SCOGA precedent, if you have a beef against a state official, you are supposed to sue him in his individual capacity, on the theory that he has no immunity in his individual capacity, and he must by definition be acting without authority if he is violating the constitution. Under the bill, sovereign immunity is waived for alleged unconstitutional acts for declaratory and injunction relief (but not damages), so you will be able to sue officers in their official capacities. But the bill also immunizes suits against them in their individual capacities.

    So now you are able to sue in individual capacities, but not official. Under the bill, you will be able to sue in official capacities, but not individual, and you cannot collect damages. I don't really see any improvement. Just creates more confusion and will result in several more years of litigation over when you can sue. At least under the current law, SCOGA has pretty well laid down the rules.
     
  7. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,494
    601
    113
    But it's in an official capacity that the state strips me of my Constitutional (U.S. and State) Right to Keep and Bear Arms merely for exercising my citizen right to vote.

    Wouldn't this bill allow me to sue and get relief for that?
     
  8. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,458
    510
    113
    No more than you can do right now. Say you believe it is unconstitutional to ban carrying at a polling place. Your polling place is in Georgiaville. You contact the Georgiaville PD and talk to the chief, Joe Georgiaguy. You say you think it's unconstitutional an ask if he enforces it. He says he's going to have a cop at every polling place in Georgiaville, and he has given them orders to arrest anyone seen carrying in violation of the statute. Today, you can sue Chief Georgiaguy in his individual capacity for violating the constitution by threatening to arrest you for something that is constitutionally protected. If you win, you can get declaratory and injunctive relief. You cannot sue him in his official capacity.

    If the bill passes, you could sue Chief Georgiaguy in his official capacity and get the same relief, but you could not sue him in his individual capacity. How are you better off?
     
  9. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,494
    601
    113
    In his individual capacity he could claim the protection that he is just following the law. It is his official capacity (the government's enforcement of an unconstitutional law) that must be challenged.
     
  10. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,494
    601
    113
    On the other hand it doesn't matter either way if a judge rules the law unconstitutional. Just thought this bill would give a better lever, so to speak, to pry that lid off.
     
  11. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,458
    510
    113
    That's not the case. The Supreme Court ruled in 2017 in Lathrop v. Deal that the proper vehicle was to sue the officer in his individual capacity, and if he cannot claim following the law as a defense because an unconstitutional law offers no protection.
     
    Phil1979 likes this.
  12. Clark

    Clark Well-Known Member

    1,003
    84
    48
    So why did we hand the power to create laws in this state (and this country) to a few brain-dead idiots who dress like 19th century hookers? The "courts" have seriously gone power-mad creating nonsense like "sovereign immunity." That kind of garbage may have flown in feudal England, but has no place in a modern well-run society. Society may not be currently well-run, but why add to the imbalance? That's like when someone says "that's not fair!" and someone inevitably shoots back "life isn't fair" I seriously want to fire back "then stop trying to make it more unfair!"
     
  13. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,458
    510
    113
    There seems to be a misconception about the source of sovereign immunity. While it can be traced back to Roman times, the current form as it exists in Georgia is derived from the state Constitution, ratified by the people of Georgia in 1983. If they wanted to retain the right to sue the government, they should not have given it up 36 years ago.