Abstract
Advances in public policy theory and research on the conspirators against President Lincoln shed new light on the alleged conflict between Bradley, the attorney for John Suratt, and the presiding judge Fisher, during a case culminating in Suratt’s release. Moreover, a fundamental error in logic occurs in Bradley v. Fisher when the majority cites Anglo-Saxon common law but ignores a critical aspect of government policy. Particularly, the high court assumes that respect in the community for judiciary follows from the degree of independence that absolute immunity from suit affords judicial actors. This majority opinion, which is actually a proof by contradiction against absolute immunity from suit for judicial acts, infests relevant case law from the mid-1900’s to present day.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
