Sad story. This case is a perfect illustration of the incentives of State-paid judges in action and how the mutual back-scratching between the courts and the State works. Sotomayer's quote is absurd, infantile, "We are required ... to read the statute according to its text." Most notable is that this decision was unanimous, that is, all the judges agreed with Sotomayer's silly pretense that the Supreme Court is bound to simply reading statutory law! Why would the Court disavow its own power to strike down laws which are un-Constitutional (and we understand that "un-Constitutional" can be interpreted, through the infinite flexibility of natural language, to any extent whatever)? For the simple reason that it is protecting itself.
The Supreme Court is at once a court of law and an agent of the State. As a court of law, its job is to lend the aura of legitimacy, gravity and justice to the edicts of the State and the actions of its agents. But, as an agent of the State, the Supreme Court seeks shelter under the immunity that comes with falling under the umbrella of the State's protection. That is, the judges of the Supreme Court would never willingly accept liability for the consequences of their decisions. So long as they enjoy the position of being "supreme" - a position conferred upon them by fiat of State violence - they need never worry. They confer this blessing downward to all the judges and prosecutors which operate under the auspices of the Federal and State courts. Most importantly, they legitimize the blessing of immunity to whatever extent a justification, however mutilated, can be made for it for operational agents of the State, namely, soldiers and police officers and their support personnel. In this case, they happen to be prison doctors.
It is plain to see this man's medical maltreatment was the simple result of the very immunity granted by this statute! The obvious conclusion is that such a statute that places the life of an individual at risk for the "benefit" of granting legal immunity to another person must be violative of human rights and, by extension, the Constitution (which, under its "penumbral aura," protects the unspecified right to privacy, among others). But to make these doctors liable for their actions - for which they had been granted strict immunity under statutory law - opens a very slippery slope that terminates in the liability of Supreme Court justices for their actions. Hence the unanimous assent of some of the smartest people in the world to a patent absurdity... that the Supreme Court is bound to simply read and enforce statutes-as-written.
Clayton -
The legal question seems to me to be over who can actually be sued for negligence. In other words, whether the individual government employees are on the line or whether the federal government as a whole is on the line.
As the Court wrote: "This case presents the question whether 42 U. S. C. § 233(a), as added, 84 Stat. 1870, precludes an actionunder Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), against U. S. Public Health Service (PHS) personnel for constitutional violations arising out of their official duties. When federal employees are sued for damages for harms caused in the course of their employment, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U. S. C.§§1346, 2671-2680, generally authorizes substitution of the United States as the defendant. Section 233(a) makes the FTCA remedy against the United States "exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding" for any personal injury caused by a PHS officer or employee performing a medical or related function "while acting within the scope of his office or employment." Based on the plain language of §233(a), we conclude that PHS officers and employees are not personally subject to Bivens actions for harms arising out of such conduct."
http://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2010/05/hui-v-castaneda-no-08-1529.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+FindLawUSSC+(FindLaw+Opinion+Summaries+-+USSC)
Btw, I'm like 95 percent sure that nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say that individual government employees will be legally responsible for any legal wrongs committed while working for the government.
This is an issue over procedure, not substance. It seems to me the federal government admits negligence was committed, they're just saying that the individuals who committed that act are immune from prosecution. As far as I understand, the government can still be sued.
ClaytonB: that the Supreme Court is bound to simply read and enforce statutes-as-written.
that the Supreme Court is bound to simply read and enforce statutes-as-written.
Also, I found this interesting, what's the point of having the statute if they're not going to read it and enforce it as is? Would they not be acting as legislators (and thus outside their constitutional bounds) if they could just make the law up as they see fit?
Btw, I'm like 95 percent sure that nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say that individual government employees will be legally responsible for any legal wrongs committed while working for the government. This is an issue over procedure, not substance.
This is an issue over procedure, not substance.
Pffft. No, this is absolutely an issue over substance. The substance is whether the doctors can be sued for their actions and decisions for a person who is compulsorily under their care. The incentives could not be more important. If they are immune, they have no incentive to care for the patient.
It seems to me the federal government admits negligence was committed, they're just saying that the individuals who committed that act are immune from prosecution. As far as I understand, the government can still be sued.
That's the same as saying nobody can be sued because the taxpayers are the ones who pay the damages. One of the purposes of civil damages is to inflict real property loss on an individual or organization that will, in turn, give other individuals and organizations an incentive to exercise self-restraint. The government has no revenue restrictions, it can simply export its costs onto the taxpayers. The government would have to pay an astronomical amount like, say, $250 billion before it could feel any meaningful budgetary pain.
ClaytonB: that the Supreme Court is bound to simply read and enforce statutes-as-written. Also, I found this interesting, what's the point of having the statute if they're not going to read it and enforce it as is? Would they not be acting as legislators (and thus outside their constitutional bounds) if they could just make the law up as they see fit?
Well, the intent of the founders was to have the Supreme Court act as "Constitution-police" to strike down acts of Congress which went outside the strict confines of its enumerated powers in the Constitution. What they missed is that the powers of the Supreme Court itself are aggrandized along with the power of Congress. The Supreme Court has utterly and completely failed to delimit the power of the Federal government along Constitutional boundaries. Not that it would have mattered if the Supreme Court had, the other branches would have just ignored them or played legal word games as they have done in the past whenever the Supreme Court started cramping their style. But the Supreme Court, according to the doctrine of separate-but-equal, is supposed to (in theory) have the power to strike down any act of Congress, other than an amendment to the Constitution, which it interprets as unconstitutional. For an act to be unconstitutional, it need not contradict some explicit prohibition within the Constitution, it only needs to be violative of the rights of the individual (which, by the 9th amendment - and common sense - are not restricted to the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights) or the States or exceed the enumerated powers granted to the Congress within the Constitution. So, it's absurd to suggest that the Supreme Court is limited to reading and applying statutes. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to evaluate the statutes themselves according to the Constitution and the established principles of Western (specifically, American) jurisprudence.
Ok, but where does it say in the Constitution that individual government employees are to be personally liable for the things they do while under government employ?
I submit to you that it doesn't, which is why the Congress passed the act the SCOTUS is now enforcing. The Constitution is mum on many things which is why they gave so much power to the Congress, they wanted the representatives of the people to be able to decide.
The Supreme Court, I believe, is doing its job here in enforcing the statute.
If people want the statute changed then the best way to do it is through the Congress. I think the the Framers intended to keep lawmaking in the people's representative's hands. They did not want judges to be making laws, simply interpreting them. That's what's happened here imo.
And while you or I might not be happy with the statute, it is the law. If we want to change the law, the proper way to do it is through Congress, not through the courts.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not arguing with the proposed praxeological consequences of the law. You're probably right about its consequences. I'm simply saying that the court did its job here imo.