Slashdot Mirror
High Court Trims Whistleblower Rights
iminplaya writes "In yet another blow against free speech rights, the Supreme Court decided that government employees who report wrongdoing do not enjoy 1st Amendment rights while on the job. From the article 'The Supreme Court scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct Tuesday, a 5-4 decision in which new Justice Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote [...] The ruling was perhaps the clearest sign yet of the Supreme Court's shift with the departure of moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the arrival of Alito. [...] Stephen Kohn, chairman of the National Whistleblower Center, said: "The ruling is a victory for every crooked politician in the United States."'"
Read Kyllo. (Not Kelo, which is the New London case you cited) Then get back to me when you understand what "conservative" and "liberal" mean in the supreme court context. Fourth and Fifth amendment law are good examples of where everything you know about "conservative" and "liberal" get shot to hell. (More or less: Scalia generally votes to free the felon, Ginsburg generally votes to lock them up.)
There is nothing at all "funny" about the eminent domain rulings if you understand where the "conservative" moniker comes from.
For 200 years, "social" and "constitutional" conservatives were basically one and the same. This stopped being the case 50 or so years ago, and has only grown profoundly since Reagan. This is not a "no brainer" and one of the dissents hits the nail on the head: A teacher protesting hiring decisions in a school would be protected, but a school HR employee protesting the same decisions would not be.
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
Read the opinion -- the entire opinon. The motion to suppress was denied on /other/ grounds. The warrant was facially invalid for the reasons he cited in his memo. The judge (in what some would call "judicial activism") denied the suppression motion based on other evidence in the record NOT in the warrant affidavit.
Basically, he blew the whistle that the government was using illegal tactics to catch a bad guy. The trial judge threw out the whistleblower by looking at the bad guy and saying "yeah, he's bad, so whatever." At the end of the day, this wasn't an accusatory memo. The majority glosses over the facts because they need to use the rhetoric. One of O'Connor's "totality of the circumstances" eleven pronged tests would have helped nicely here.
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
But the court's decision says that if you try to complain within the system, you can be disciplined for that. Conversely, if you go public with your complaint, you are protected by the first amendment. So the court is reversing your argument and giving higher protection to the public disclosure than going through "proper channels."
Peace and love, y'all
(1) A private employee's statements to his employer are not protected by the First Amendment. (If you go on TV and call your boss an asshole, he can fire you and you are NOT protected by the first amendment.)
(2) The government CANNOT stop citizens from bringing up issues in the public interest.
Which brings us to this case...
The majority of the court simply said that in this case, the petitioner was acting in his official duties and falls in category (1) and not category (2). Federal whistleblower laws etc... might protect him, but he has no CONSITUTIONAL right of action under the First Amendment.
Before you go crazy and mod me down, take a moment to read the opinion. IMHO it's a quite reasonable outcome.
FTFA...The ruling overturned an appeals court decision that said Los Angeles County prosecutor Richard Ceballos was constitutionally protected when he wrote a memo questioning whether a county sheriff's deputy had lied in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos had filed a lawsuit claiming he was demoted and denied a promotion for trying to expose the lie.
"Official communications have official consequences, creating a need for substantive consistency and clarity. Supervisors must ensure that their employees' official communications are accurate, demonstrate sound judgment, and promote the employer's mission," Kennedy wrote.
A public offical was trying to expose a lie used to obtain a search warrant.
Justice Kennedy seems to think that is not the employer's mission. I think Justice Kennedy is confused on who the employer actually is. Hint: US Citizens.
The government isn't censoring people because of this decision but it does make whistleblowing an even more daunting challenge. Look at Siebel Edmonds for a good example of how difficult government whistle blowing was before this decision. note: her saga isn't over yet.
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
You know, I keep hearing about this "real world" thing! Certainly is different from what I learned about in school, though I sure started learning about that well before I was out.
I've seen many strange things here. See, they told me this "Constitution" thing was the highest law of the land, and that the President even swore an oath to defend it! Must not work so well in this "real world" place, so it seems-and no one even minds when he admits to blatantly violating it!
But the strangest thing I've seen here is that one attitude is the EXACT one they tried to drill into my head at school, too:
"The way it is always is the way it should be. Don't work for change."
As long as I'm getting rid of everything they tried to cram into my head at school...I'm getting rid of that first.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
A capitalist society that embrace large companies and monopolies (with ever stronger "IP" laws) and weakened anti-trust laws is moving towards a kind of feudalism.
EU is actually moving (incredibly slowly, and with many backslashes) the opposite direction, from a feudal economy dominated by national monopolies and trust, into a competitive European market backed by strong anti-trust legislation.
Over the past 40 years I have lived in the Czech Republic, Australia, America, and now Austria. I have seen repressive governments and efforts of citizens to defeat it. I have seen protectionist governments and the efforts of citizens to enhance it. I have seen clueless governments and the astounding apathy of citizen inhabitants. I remember when the US was commonly thought to be the best place in the world to live. And I remember all the efforts my parents made to get US citizenship for my family.
This recent decision of the Supreme Court of the US isn't going to instantly change the US into a regime more repressive than North Korea (despite what the left says the right is claiming). But it will make government whistle blowers think a fair bit more or more likely be a lot more cautious when they decide to go public. This is just one more little thing the government does to keep people in line and to keep secret things secret. I find it interesting that these days more & more unsavory things are kept secret.
But still as a few raving conservatives have pointed out America is not worse than North Korea or China. So I suppose the events ongoing within the American civil system can be compared to those events that went on during the "Second Red Scare" in the 1950's, only now it's terrorists, gays, free thinkers, and non-Christians. I didn't live in the US then but I assume that McCarthyism did not affect most Americans or should I say if 1950's Americans are anything like 2000's Americans I doubt most even recognized how what was going on was wrong until their children learned it in school. McCarthyism went on for about 5 years but I fear this new scare will last longer... maybe we should call it the "Long Nebulous Scare".
I wonder when the low point of this new scare will be, I'm getting sick of it already. I'm tired of clueless conservatives, reactionary liberals, rapacious capitalists, and the American theocrats. I'm tired of the vitriolic deception spewing from the mouths of the American political activists.
"Not as Bad as North Korea" may be good enough for them... but it damn sure isn't good enough for me.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Honestly while that was a good write up you posted from, I would disagree that the US is a facist state. The near-invasion of Mexico into California pretty well proves it, as does the presence of mostly free speech.
The disturbing trend is that certain political parties are starting to align too heavily with religions, and the SCOTUS is not acting like as much of a balancing influence as it used to. I wouldn't argue we're becoming facist, but I would argue that the US is starting to fracture. Pity so much of the world is, too. The UK and EU are prime examples of this. If someone can point out a shining example of good, noble government I'd love to see it.
-WS
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
All that stuff - all 14 traits - are very easy to derive. Most of the regimes were authoritive regimes - with male figure on the top. Some sort of freaked out dictatorship. My homeland Belarus with Lukashenko looks very much like it.
/rights/ and his /privacy/ are respected.
For easiness, figurehead of such regime below will be called "the president". Anyway all such modern regimes claim to be democratic or republic.
1. "Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism." See (3).
2. "Disdain for the importance of human rights." There is only one man is such system - president. Everything else is just cogs that need to mesh. What doesn't mesh - is broken cog. We do not need broken cogs. And of course rest assured the president's rights are well respected.
3. "Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause." Closely related to (1). Since there is only one man - president - in the whole country, everyone else is mere servant. Sparing between servants isn't welcome - that might look like call to the power of our beloved president. But servants need something to make a carrier on. Neighbors are good candidates for such enemies.
4. "The supremacy of the military/avid militarism." Only real man can be soldier. Only man can protect his country from evil enemy's conspiracies ploting against us. Since there is only one man in whole country - sooner or later he becomes head of army. (e.g. Putin & Lukashenko are heads of respective armies.)
5. "Rampant sexism." No comments. This is the man's world. And we his name - president. Every other male cog has to mimic example set by president. Women, well, they cannot mimic president since they are women. Blame God. Etc.
6. "A controlled mass media." Option 1. Elite which wants to control the president need to cut all independent channels of information for the president. Option 2. In fact media are not controlled. It's just president makes sure that his
7. "Obsession with national security." Nation == president. Since president is the only man of the country, sure we do not want to loose him. Thus we have to protect him no matter what.
8. "Religion and ruling elite tied together." That's clear. The Man - the president already stands so high above mere mortals, that only Maker is left above him. Since he is closest to the God, everyone else has to respect his as if he was God. (e.g. Russia has more or less officially integrated churce and gov't)
9. "Power of corporations protected." No, no. You got it wrong. It's just our president need some cash. To have cash he needs a cash cow. Since mere mortals cogs do not have money, indistry has to be tightened to produce something valueable for export. (All such regimes live off export: e.g. Russia lives 80% off crude oil export.)
10. "Power of labor suppressed or eliminated." What you talking about? The cogs? The mortals and rights? We have only one man in the country and his rights have priority above anything else.
11. "Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts." Funniest part, is that dictators and presidents often protect such people. It's just elite closest to the president do not like people who can break plans of their. Of course people who can think and think freely - are the people who might give wrong idea to others. God save if they would give wrong idea to his highness president. Also the artists are quite weak in bureaucracy - that makes them good target for carrierists.
12. "Obsession with crime and punishment." See (2) and broken cogs. We do not need them.
13. "Rampant cronyism and corruption." This is the curse of all such regimes. That creeps slowly in. The president ends up living in some sort of condom: sterile tightly controlled environment made up by his closest ministers. Influencing environment would obviously influence the president. The elite of course charges premium for such interventions. (e.g. post of minister in Russia costs about $2.5mln, hiring person to be
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
1. We're not a dictatorship
Define "dictatorship". 700 "signing statements" in which the president says he's above the law pretty much seals that definition in my book.
2. Bush certainly isn't forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism
Unless you consider "free speech zones". Or covert republican operatives posing as reporters in the White House press pool.
3. We're a capitalist society. The government doesn't control industry.
No, it only invades countries as an excuse to subsidize industry.
4. Nationalism isn't necessarily bad, unless it goes to extremes, which we haven't
Define "extreme". (I would argue that the word is poorly used in your sentance, and seems aimed towards making the entire statement non-declarative, because the meaning of the statement depends on one's individual definition of what is or is not extreme. - it belies an underlying attitude of intention to deter actual debate - it smells like an attempt to assert an indisputable non-fact).
5. I haven't seen any signs of racism in the current administration
Just because they have a couple of colored people on staff, does not mean that racism is not enshrined in policy.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.