QIdude215

Is liability under Section 1983 simply just a species of tort liability? If so, is there anything wrong with government officials being entitled to the immunity they had for torts at common law?

Seems like a bit of an an oversell to call the millions of lawsuits filed every year that don't involve the government or a corporation "pointless."

Bivens tells you whether you can sue a federal official. Qualified immunity tells you whether, after you sue that official (state or federal), the official can escape liability.

I'll let you sit with your claim that millions of people are doing pointless things every year. Seems to make a lot of sense.

How is it a difficult argument to say that an employee was acting negligently, recklessly, or intentionally *and* acting within the scope of their employment? Courts find both to be true all the time. That's what makes the doctrine of respondeat superior so beneficial for plaintiffs.