Posted on 05/30/2006 7:07:28 PM PDT by RDTF
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that government whistle-blowers are not protected by free-speech rights when they face employer discipline for trying to expose possible misconduct at work.
By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled against a California prosecutor who said he was demoted, denied a promotion and transferred for trying to expose a lie by a county sheriff's deputy in a search-warrant affidavit.
Adopting the position of the Los Angeles prosecutor's office and the U.S. Justice Department, the high court ruled that a public employee has no First Amendment right in speech expressed as part of performing job-required duties.
Writing for the court majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said there is protection for whistle-blowers in federal and state laws and rules of conduct for government attorneys.
The case had been closely watched for its affect on the at-work, free-speech rights of the nation's 21 million public employees. About 100 cases involving internal communications are brought each year in federal court.
(Excerpt) Read more at today.reuters.com ...
So Mr. and Mrs. Joe Wilson's vendetta against Bush's Iraq policy is not protected free speech?
ping
My thoughts exactly. Those POS and other CIA fifth column types have had a narrowing of their protections.
Seditious bustards!
There is deep worry in donk circles, such as senators (Rocky, Durbin, et al, congressmen, their aides, rogue cia active and retired (VIPS), msm reporters and editors.
Time to pay up for your conspiracy to bring down an elected sitting adminstration.
Also donks, good luck on appeals to SCOTUS after you are convicted. Ha Ha, the laugh is on you!
The first installment of hopefully many sensible decisions from Justice Alito. Thanks owed to President Bush and the Republicans on this one.
Bush's Fault...
Another Ninth Circus opinion bites the dust. I don't think the Ninth Circus has EVER had an opinion upheld by the US Supreme Court.
I am not sure I understand the decioion. It sounds like it allows consequences when an employee acts in an official manner to push policies that vary from the company policy. It does not address leaks to media outside the company.
So, if the CIA position is to support the war, official statements from employees that did not support the war could be sanctioned but a quiet phone call to opposition media might be protected.
I read the ruling - it was great.
He made some stupid quibbles over a valid search warrant - what they called an extended driveway he felt should be called a seperate road. And he quibble over whether the road material allowed the tire marks to be tracked to the house in question.
The courts allowed the warrant over the defenses objection.
They said that they did not discipline him because of this memo - but they should have.
The courts ruled that even if they had disciplined him (by reassigingin him) over this memo it was okay and he could not sue them over it.
I AGREE.
Back that up. This whole thing was supposed to be about managerial DISCRETION. D-I-S-C-R-E-T-I-O-N.
"but the should have".
I think you misread my post.
Yes, his managers should have removed him from his position. His opinion was boneheaded. The warrant was good. The courts even agreed that the warrant was good after the defense attorney challenged it and used his opinion to try to get it tossed.
They claimed that he was removed from his position for 'staffing reasons'. The Supreme court basically said that even if they removed him for his opinion - they had the 'discretion' to do so.
He deserved disciplining for taking a boneheaded position on the warrant and pushing it to extremes.
No I did not "misread your post" -- you claimed the Supremes said he "should have" been canned.
Yes, you did - or I was unclear.
No, I said that I thought he should be canned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.