I honestly try not to flip out at the news. It more or less has become a part of life and others might argue one should be aware of current events in order to be a good citizen.
Then something like this comes up, and breaks my chill.
This is my review of La Cumbre Piña Quercus
So what part of this aggravated me? Was it the part where a US District Judge overruled a lower court’s ruling the Covington Catholic school boy’s lawsuit for libel in the wake of a 16 year old kid having the temerity to smirk at a guy banging a drum and shouting in his face, and to eventually be called racist by social media, the legacy media, and some politicians? No, of course not—it was this part:
The students sued the Massachusetts congresswoman and 11 other public figures who criticized the students, including New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, actress Kathy Griffin, activist Shaun King and U.S. Rep. Deb Haaland.
U.S. District Court Judge William Bertelsman ruled Tuesday that Warren acted within the scope of her employment when she tweeted and is therefore protected by sovereign immunity.
“The Court concludes that the challenged statements by defendants Warren and Haaland — whether one agrees with them or finds them objectionable — are communications intended to convey the politicians’ views on matters of public interest to their constituents,” Bertelsman wrote.
The judge also dismissed Haaland, of New Mexico, from the suit. Haaland had tweeted that Phillips was “harassed and mocked by a group of MAGA hat-wearing teens.”
Attorneys for the students claimed the boys became the target of “a social media lynch mob” that spread misinformation and led to the boys receiving death threats and hate mail.
Sovereign Immunity. What is that you ask? Let me preface that I am not an attorney, nor do I intend to convey the idea that I am one. That said my graduate degree is in Public Administration and I not only wrote a paper on the matter, I did particularly well on the assignment. Should one of the law dogs here wish to weigh in, please do so.
Sovereign Immunity is a legal concept Americans borrowed from the British. The idea is to avoid the circular logic in filing a lawsuit against the Crown. The British Crown set up the courts in part to settle civil disputes between subjects, the rulings which hold the force of law because the court is acting directly on behalf of the British Crown. Quite frankly, the queen and the rest of her family is either (supposedly) drinking beyond her own government’s recommendation, flying in private jets while whining about climate change, or (allegedly) hitting up jailbait with Epstein…they simply do not have that kind of time. A subject therefore can file a lawsuit against an individual, or a company that violated that individual’s rights under common law. What happens if you are wronged by somebody working on behalf of the government? The Crown enabled the official that wronged you, and you are now asking a court who’s power is derived from the discretion of Crown…
You see where I am going with this, you cannot sue the Crown. Even if you could, do you think they will rule honestly?
But this is America, and we fought a war to get away from this, right? We did indeed fight the war but didn’t get away from from it. From the pocket Constitution on my desk, Article III, Section 2 says:
Unfortunately, if you have a problem with a particular person in the US Government acting under the Constitution, you are stuck going through the courts set up under that same Constitution. This concept is further reinforced under the 11th Amendment.
Unfortunately, there will be no lawsuits affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Counsels, and those in which a State shall be Party. Can you sue a government agency or the state itself for violation of rights? Of course, but the asshole that did it is immune because he was just doing his job.
The problem I have with this is the lawsuit is for libel, which is knowingly spreading false information that disparages the subject in print or other forms of media. Unlike slander, which is spoken, libel has a record of happening making it easier to prove. Even after an unedited version of the video suggested the story the media told about the incident was wrong, they continued telling the same story saying the MAGA hat wearing Covington kids started an altercation and the dude banging the drum was trying to keep the peace, and it was racist to smirk at the guy. Only a racist would wear a MAGA hat.
Well, Lizzy got busy spreading this misinformation on Twitter. Per this clown’s ruling, a senator is immune from spreading what any reasonable person can determine is a lie, because a senator giving her opinion on current events falls under a senator’s daily duties. I for one say this is bullshit, and she should be held personally responsible for spreading this lie. Being a senator and now a candidate for president means the lie will spread faster from the press coverage she will recieve, harming the subjects further than had she done the sensible thing and said nothing at all.
…but her inability to simply not lie is another matter.
So what in the hell kind of beer is this? This is a pineapple sour ale aged in tequila barrels. I thought this was going to suck. Arizona has a rather popular pineapple wheat beer that I go for from time to time that I find a bit sweet, but chuggable on a hot day. This is not like that. I thought it was going to to be too sour for me to enjoy. This is not like that either. Finally, I thought this was going to be a blast of tequila; no, this is not like that at all. It is interesting, rather expensive ($16), but otherwise well done. La Cumbre Piña Quercus 3.5/5.