June 24, 2020

"Senate Democrats on Wednesday blocked a Republican-drafted bill aimed at overhauling the nation’s policing practices..."

"... spelling a potential death knell to efforts at revisions at the federal level in an election year. In a 55-to-45 vote, the legislation written primarily by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) failed to advance in the Senate, where it needed 60 votes to proceed. Most Democratic senators said the bill fell far short of what was needed to meaningfully change policing tactics and was beyond the point of salvaging. ‘The Republican majority proposed the legislative equivalent of a fig leaf — something that provides a little cover but no real change,' Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a floor speech Wednesday morning. 'The harsh fact of the matter is, the bill is so deeply, fundamentally and irrevocably flawed, it cannot serve as a useful starting point for meaningful reform.'... On one major point of dissension between the parties, the Republican bill leaves intact the 'qualified immunity' standard that Democrats want to erode to make it easier for law enforcement officials to be sued for misconduct.... In its veto threat, the Trump administration called the Democratic legislation an 'overbroad bill' that 'would deter good people from pursuing careers in law enforcement, weaken the ability of law enforcement agencies to reduce crime and keep our communities safe, and fail to bring law enforcement and the communities they serve closer together.'"

WaPo reports.

59 comments:

rhhardin said...

The Republican majority proposed the legislative equivalent of a fig leaf — something that provides a little cover but no real change

Poison ivy leaf would give little cover and real change.

rhhardin said...

Both sides should have blocked it. The mob is an idiot.

mccullough said...

The bill should be very short. Use power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to ban municipal
police unions in all cities with more than 250,000 people.

Inga said...

“On one major point of dissension between the parties, the Republican bill leaves intact the 'qualified immunity' standard that Democrats want to erode to make it easier for law enforcement officials to be sued for misconduct....”

There you go, Republicans are trying to do with police reform what they’ve always done with gun reform. That is how you get Biden.

jeff said...

Thanks Ann for all your work today. I think your best day blogging in the 10 years I’ve been following you, great mix of local and national news. Needs to be archived to put into the Smithsonian some day.

tim maguire said...

Odd that the Democrats oppose qualified immunity and Republicans support it. Should be the other way around.

Wince said...

Seems to me a repeal of qualified immunity for all public officials could be taken up in stand alone bill.

RMc said...

Good Reason #47832 to elect Republicans.

Sprezzatura said...

How long before Insty posts to tell us that the Senate Ds won’t support reform?

Mark said...

Why are you perpetuating disinformation, AA?

If the Dems had not prohibited even considering the bill, they could have submitted all the corrections and additions and amendments they want. But they refused.

Are here you highlight and promote the dishonest corrupt lies of Schumer as if it were accurate.

Again, you are complicit.

Gahrie said...

I actually agree with the Democrats on immunity.

Yancey Ward said...

I agree with Wince- call the Democrats' bluff here- offer to remove qualified immunity from all government workers.

Readering said...

politics ain't beanbag.

stevew said...

So nothing is better than something, however it may have fallen short. Got it. When do the Democrats advance their bill?

DavidUW said...

Eliminate qualified immunity

Add “loser pays”

Watch heads explode.

n.n said...

The legislature conceived and birthed the laws. The attorney general, district attorneys uphold the laws. The police follow established protocols to enforce their laws.

effinayright said...

anti-de Sitter space said...
How long before Insty posts to tell us that the Senate Ds won’t support reform?
*****************

No need to wiat ---- I'll tell you.

The Dems had the entire eight years of the Obama administration to support, push and pass policing reforms --- and they did bupkis.

Care to tell us why?

Tommy Duncan said...

Blogger jeff said...

"Thanks Ann for all your work today. I think your best day blogging...

Agree. The posts today document an important political shift that aligns politicians with mob rule. Where have we seen that before?

Birkel said...

I imagine Tim Scott has been more influential drafting legislation and pushing it into the public sphere that jackasses who are using racist language to talk about him. And yes, I mean Durbin, Pelosi, and Schumer.

Automatic_Wing said...

The practical effect of ending qualified immunity is that it encourages cops stay in their squad cars and eat donuts rather than doing something that gets them sued into oblivion.

In any case, the message that cops should stay in their squad cars and eat donuts is being sent other ways, like the prosecution of the cop in Atlanta and public statements from various public officials. Cops know that vigorous policing is not wanted these days.

MayBee said...

So they couldn't pass the bill or even consider the bill and then work with the house to...what is that word....
compromise?

The Democrats would rather have nothing than have something? Yeah, that makes sense. It makes sense if you don't want to fight against police unions but you do want to say Republicans won't reform the cops.

Curious George said...

"Inga said...
“On one major point of dissension between the parties, the Republican bill leaves intact the 'qualified immunity' standard that Democrats want to erode to make it easier for law enforcement officials to be sued for misconduct....”

There you go, Republicans are trying to do with police reform what they’ve always done with gun reform. That is how you get Biden."

Inga denounces Republicans for not removing Qualified Immunity standards put in place and defended by Democrats for decades.

doctrev said...

The wizards who are the real masters of the Dems won't tolerate a lack of security for their mansions and cottages. Private security, mercenaries, whatever. Their main goal is to sabotage any police reform that doesn't advance the real goal of terrorizing law-abiding police and citizens.

The problem is, most people see the game is up, and this won't work much better than Pelosi's attempts to block the USMCA from passing.

gilbar said...

Most Democratic senators said the bill fell far short of what was needed to meaningfully change policing tactics, and that therefore, we were FAR BETTER off; with no bill at all

Those Democrats! they keep outthinking me!

Michael K said...

the Republican bill leaves intact the 'qualified immunity' standard that Democrats want to erode to make it easier for law enforcement officials to be sued for misconduct....”

That would certainly accomplish the left's plan to abolish the police. Who would take a job that could destroy his family at the whim of a DA or politician?

I could see limits on the immunity of prosecutors.

I could see some limits on rules that allow unions to obstruct discipline.

Those Atlanta cops an d probably the Minneapolis cops will be acquitted if they get a fair trial. Why do you think those body cam videos have been hidden ?

Inga, you truly are an idiot.

Michael K said...

In any case, the message that cops should stay in their squad cars and eat donuts is being sent other ways,

Second City Cop calls this "going fetal."

Fritz said...

It's simple, they want an issue to run on, and not a solution to the problem.

Nichevo said...

Automatic_Wing said...
The practical effect of ending qualified immunity is that it encourages cops stay in their squad cars and eat donuts rather than doing something that gets them sued into oblivion.


What did they do before QI?

They'll have to maintain liability coverage, that's all. Insurers will ensure clean cops because cops with a bad track record will be too costly to insure or be uninsurable.

But it should be stripped from all guvvies not just cops.

Drago said...

wholelottasplainin: "No need to wiat ---- I'll tell you.

The Dems had the entire eight years of the Obama administration to support, push and pass policing reforms --- and they did bupkis.

Care to tell us why?"

According to Inga, whatever the dems do or don't do is now, officially, the fault of Steve Bannon.

And Confederate statues.....particularly the non-Confederate-y ones....which are still far too Confederate-y. Especially the ones of people who fought against the Confederacy. Those are the sneakiest Confederate-y statues of all!

William said...

What's to keep some city or state from passing whatever reform they think is necessary? That might be the better idea anyway. See how these visionary ideas actually work out. How about an arson reform law while they're at it. Many scholars believe that burning people to death is a more serious offense than choke holds.

Curious George said...

The Dems talk about ending qualified immunity, but Schumer and the Dems will only talk about it. They control the Senate....where's your bill Chuckie?

The real hold-up is that all the powerful Dems running these fucked up cities where the cop on black violence is happening don't want it. It's a political wedge issue. They don't want it enacted. Sure now it's the police...but once that cat's out of the bag it's hard to argue that mayors, alderman, prosecutors, DA's etc. are next.

Think back to the John Doe investigation. Without qualified immunity John Chisholm would be scrounging dumpsters for chicken scraps.

Wa St Blogger said...

Dems can posture all they want about the reform and Qualified Immunity, but until they propose a bill abolishing QI and vote yes to pass it, I will not trust their words. It is easy to play games and do political posturing. Harder to actually make a stand and a vote.

wild chicken said...

So, cops would have carry malpractice insurance? Great.

Keep both immunity and the unions. Jobs carrying such big risks need all the protection they can get.

Curious George said...

"Mark said...
Why are you perpetuating disinformation, AA?

If the Dems had not prohibited even considering the bill, they could have submitted all the corrections and additions and amendments they want. But they refused.

Are here you highlight and promote the dishonest corrupt lies of Schumer as if it were accurate.

Again, you are complicit."

She just quoted Wapo. For discussion. You should take this up with WAPO.

Iman said...

You know the Democrats are lying when you see their lips move.

rcocean said...

Didn't really understand Schumer. How can a bill that doesn't really change anything be "deeply and irrevocable flawed"? Seems like the kind of bill would be more of starting point - a blank slate - for the D's to add amendments that had REAL change.

But honestly, who cares. We don't need a Federal Police Reform bill from anyone. This is all just politics. The best thing was the D's blocking the R's bill, and hopefully the R's will block the D's bill. The last thing we need is fire-breathing Pelosi and weak-kneed Mitch getting together and cobbling together some horrible compromise.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Not particularly revelatory that Democrats put party dynamics above the good of the people of the US, specifically the good of blacks, a demographic they can't help patronizing and pandering to. You don't have to be Thomas Sowell or Larry Elder to see that blacks are being played once again, and when this travesty is over they will once again be relegated to helpless, hopeless urban environments designed and presided over by Democrats.

jeremyabrams said...

This is the right opportunity to nuke the filibuster for good, given the importance of the bill and the political and cultural moment, but McConnell is not up to the task.

Temujin said...

Because...Black Lives really don't Matter much at all. Retaining or gaining power, does. Hello, November.

Inga said...

“According to Inga, whatever the dems do or don't do is now, officially, the fault of Steve Bannon.”

Anarchists, are the fault of Bannon’s “Burn it all down” ideology, not Dems or Progressives. We Dems and progressives are PRO government and anarchists on the right and the left are ANTI government.

Propagandizing is getting harder for you to do lately, eh? As ARM keeps saying, “Drago hardest hit”.

Curious George said...

Tim Scott's response on the Senate floor: "https://twitter.com/i/status/1275911366428299270"

cubanbob said...

The best reform is to eliminate qualified immunity for all including prosecutors, judges, cops mayors, city councilmen and regulators along with loser pays which includes the plaintiffs lawyers. To keep things from getting out of hand, the evidentiary level and jury determination level being that of criminal trials.

Automatic_Wing said...

They'll have to maintain liability coverage, that's all. Insurers will ensure clean cops because cops with a bad track record will be too costly to insure or be uninsurable.

You're assuming that the lawsuit awards will track with the goodness or badness of the cop. That's assuming way too much in my opinion. The lawsuit awards will be all about the demographics and politics of the jurisdiction. Think about the implications of that for a minute.

mikee said...

The Republican Bill is reported upon so artfully that there is no mention of any contents, except for an omission in the proposed legislation: the lack of repeal of qualified immunity.

Gosh, it would be nice to have reporters again. I'm done with journalists.

n.n said...

re: qualified immunity

In light of abortion... cancel culture, there really is no viable alternative. The reform begins with the legislature, progresses with the attorney general and district attorneys, and the regulatory bodies they setup and oversee. Whether eroding immunity, cancelling officers, or hold "protest" (e.g. witch trials, warlock judgments, redistributive change, riots), the reform cannot begin at the end a la Obamacare, selective-child, political congruence, diversity, etc. with shared/shifted responsibility.

Rick said...

Everything happening in Washington is theater, the only reforms that matter are in our large cities afflicted with one party rule for most of a century. If you want to understand the future of "progressive" government take a close look at those cities. They are run entirely for the benefit of the government employees - including cops - and their top priority is job security.

People are finally noticing this has an impact on policing. If they're smart they can apply this message to recognize a similar impact on teaching and other government functions.

Michael K said...

Anarchists, are the fault of Bannon’s “Burn it all down” ideology, not Dems or Progressives.<

So, all those rioters burning down blue cities are Bannon supporters ?

Not even Freder is that crazy. Well, you lefties are all pretty much crazy.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Well, the GOP is wrong on "qualified immunity." The Chief Executive's (King's) "dispensing power" went the way of James II in the Glorious Revolution. Somehow sneaked back in, I guess. Along with asset forfeiture, eminent domain takings for sale to private developers, and FISA warrants.

But why, after all, should the Feral Gummit be legislating matters of City responsibility?

Been listening to lectures on Eric Blair (George Orwell) while out weeding the garden. That and Friedrich Hayek, appropriate to the times.

Rick said...

Inga said...
We Dems and progressives are PRO government and anarchists on the right and the left are ANTI government.


Inga labels anarchists are demanding more government. So note the result:

She first applies the wrong label, then uses the label from that erroneous definition create a conflict that doesn't exist. Propaganda 101.

Nichevo said...


wild chicken said...
So, cops would have carry malpractice insurance? Great.

Keep both immunity and the unions. Jobs carrying such big risks need all the protection they can get.

6/24/20, 7:43 PM


White people suffer from police abuses, too, you know. Many innocent people do. QI only dates back to 1967 per wiki. How did they manage before that?

What's wrong with the market solution of liability insurance? You would be skeptical of seeing a doctor without it.

Nichevo said...


Blogger Automatic_Wing said...
They'll have to maintain liability coverage, that's all. Insurers will ensure clean cops because cops with a bad track record will be too costly to insure or be uninsurable.

You're assuming that the lawsuit awards will track with the goodness or badness of the cop. That's assuming way too much in my opinion. The lawsuit awards will be all about the demographics and politics of the jurisdiction. Think about the implications of that for a minute.


Well, yes. Blue areas hardest hit.

I'm not indifferent though; what reform would you suggest? Arbitration?

wendybar said...

The harsh fact of the matter is, the Democrats don't want Trump to get a win...no matter what. Even if it costs black Americans their lives, because their lives really don't matter to Democrats if they are alive...things go better for Democrats if the police defend themselves and shoot to kill. That's when they have something they can run on. What a bunch of fools. Who votes for these idiots who don't care about anything but getting reelected???

Bob Loblaw said...

The legislature conceived and birthed the laws. The attorney general, district attorneys uphold the laws. The police follow established protocols to enforce their laws.

That's the theory. Here in the real world, SCOTUS dreamed up the doctrine of qualified immunity in 1967. There's no legislative basis for it.

Kevin said...

If Tim Scott threw in qualified immunity there would arise something else to block the bill.

And the Dems could control all of government next year and they still won’t pass a bill removing qualified immunity.

Stop giving credence to anything Nancy says.

We should be smarter than that by now.

iowan2 said...

As far as liability, civil suits only get started if the pocket is deep enough. A lawyer can stucture assets in such a way as to protect assets from judgement.
Talk to the good Reverend Al Sharpton. He doesn't own anything. Not the Rolex on his wrist, or the $5000 suit. None of it is owned by Sharpton.

Or, I can see Police Depts hiring through a contractor. So the cops would not work for the city, but an agency the city uses to staff the police.

Todd said...

"The thing that I believe more than anything is that Donald Trump needs the roar of a crowd to feel he is in charge. And Joe Biden was born to be in charge."
Said Democratic convention CEO Joe Solmonese


DNC convention CEO Joe Solmonese actually, literally said those specific words.

Does he truly mean them or is he saying it because "DNC"? I can't quite decide which would be worse.

"Joe Biden was born to be in charge"

Of what? When has Joe Biden ever actually been in "it is all on me and I take the blame if it fails" charge of anything other than tying his shoes and wiping his butt?

As of "right now" Biden can't seem to string 4 words together in a fluent and intelligent fashion, on video, where his handlers have literally days to work with him to get it right. Can cut/splice/edit the video till it is perfection. Even with all that, we get the disjointed word salad that is the current Joe Biden AND Solmonese claims to think THIS Joe Biden is still the ideal man for the most important job in the world.

WOW, just WOW.

RichAndSceptical said...

Tim Scott should put together a road show and saturate urban markets with attacks on Democrats for being all talk and no action. There are many "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking" African Americans who would gladly join him in exposing the Democrat's failure to support the black community.

SensibleCitizen said...

Good that bill was killed. Civilians don't understand the basics of policing.

To deescalate a tense verbal assault, give the suspect a hearing, soften your voice, acknowledge the grievance, then continue with the arrest using a soft but firm tone.

To deescalate a violent attack, use disproportionate force. Mechanical advantages are crucial, such as choke holds (carotid pressure), forcing joints to the point of extreme pain, and face planting if possible.

It looks terrible on video, but ending the fight before it begins is the most humane approach and protects the officer, which should be the paramount objective when a suspect resists arrest.

Jenster said...

this is all too common. after the 2008 financial meltdown state and federal law was changed to protect home owners from being overtaxed after they renegotiated their loans. state law was allowed to expire because a REPUBLICAN sponsored its extension. he took his name off of it and it passed.