Absolute Immunity Doctrine -

Although 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 "on its face admits of no defense of official immunity," "certain immunities were so well established in 1871, when 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (civil rights law) was enacted, that 'we presume that Congress would have specifically so provided had it wished to abolish' them." Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 113 S.Ct. 2606 (S.Ct. 1993. (quoting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554-555 (1967)).

The United States Supreme Court has held that absolute immunity for actions under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 accorded with the common-law absolute immunity of prosecutors and other attorneys for eliciting false or defamatory testimony from witnesses or for making false or defamatory statements during, and related to, judicial proceedings. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 113 S.Ct. 2606 (S.Ct. 1993)

Note the gradual immunization of all public officials - Who will be next?:

• - legislators in 1951
• - judges in 1967
• - prosecutors in 1976
• - Presidents in 1982
• - Social Workers in1994

Inept American Courts

What do lazy, good for nothing bums complain about when they want a free ride? Read below, excerpts from a certified Supreme Court case, how the U.S. Supreme Court complains about their workload. Notice carefully the extreme remedy the Court proposes.

- the majority of the Court's rationale threatens added appeals, not simply in qualified immunity cases, but wherever an immunity-type doctrine (or any other important legal rule) seeks to protect litigants, from trial. See, e.g., Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 121 L. Ed. 2d 605, 113 S. Ct. 684 (1993) (Eleventh Amendment immunity); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 73 L. Ed. 2d 349, 102 S. Ct. 2690 (1982) (absolute immunity); Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 52 L. Ed. 2d 651, 97 S. Ct. 2034 (1977) (double jeopardy guarantee against successive prosecutions). It thereby threatens busy appellate courts with added numbers of essentially similar, if not repetitive, appeals, at a time when overloaded dockets threaten the federal appellate system. . . . . . . . ("One of the chief needs of our generation is to deal with the current appellate capacity crisis in the Federal Courts of Appeals. Few could argue about the existence of such a crisis, born of spiraling federal filings and an increased tendency to appeal District Court decisions"); Judicial Conference of the United States, Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts 132 (Dec. 1995) ("If conditions seriously deteriorate in the courts of appeals, it may be necessary to consider some limitations on the right to appeal"). See generally T. Baker, Rationing Justice on Appeal: The Problems of the U.S. Courts of Appeals 31-51 (1994). The preceding case was taken from Behrens vs. Pelletier, 116 S. Ct. 834 (S.Ct. 1996).(emphasis added)