DB readers may recall Bachmann's bizarre radio rant about "The Flying Imams". There was a recent ruling by federal Judge Ann Montgomery allowing a lawsuit by the imams to proceed. MNObserver at The Cucking Stool has an excellent post explaining the constitutional reasons behind Judge Montgomery's decision...
On Friday of last week, federal Judge Ann Montgomery issued a decision on motions to dismiss in what has been called the "Flying Imams" case. Background can be found here. I have only read very quickly through Judge Montgomery's order, but the length and detail of the opinion demonstrate the thorough analysis she undertook in the case. In the end, she dismissed some of the claims and allowed others to proceed to trial.
Predictably, this upset those Powerline guys.
But reading through the Powerline guy's post, you'd think that uncharted territory of official immunity had been created, that vast precedent had been thrown aside by some activist judge. He's wrong, of course. What he misses first is that there were claims that were dismissed. Judge Montgomery dismissed the false arrest claims, she dismissed the claims against US Airways in their entirety, and she denied the Imams' request for more discovery against US Airways.
What remains is a claim for a pretty standard constitutional tort under the longstanding law in Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, a 1971 US Supreme Court case. It's a well-accepted legal vehicle for addressing deprivations of constitutional rights by law enforcement, and the Imams now get to present that claim to a jury.
Read the whole thing.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
No comments:
Post a Comment