Posted on 05/30/2006 8:18:39 AM PDT by RWR8189
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder for government employees to file lawsuits claiming they were retaliated against for going public with allegations of official misconduct.
By a 5-4 vote, justices said the nation's 20 million public employees do not have carte blanche free speech rights to disclose government's inner-workings. New Justice Samuel Alito cast the tie-breaking vote.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the court's majority, said the First Amendment does not protect "every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job."
The decision came after the case was argued twice this term, once before Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retired in January, and again after her successor, Alito, joined the bench.
The ruling sided with the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, which appealed an appellate court ruling which held that 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Guess some of the leakers about the NSA and in the CIA are sweating now?
Kennedy voting with the majority is the big news, not Alito's vote. I bet Roberts is doing a good job of working Kennedy's ego to get his votes.
Kennedy was the swing vote here, not Alito. Good news!
Excellent.
Well I don't know that I'm actaully right. I just expected the usual MSM sources who love lots of Bush Administration leaks to make the usual lame "chlling effect" prediction - just another platitude from their playbook.
It is in employment policy -- you take an oath not to divulge information that comes across.
So if that's the case, the SCOTUS has overstepped their bounds and passed judgement on something that they have no right judging, no?
I feel like I'm missing something on this issue, so if anyone has information that can brighten it up for me, I'm a willing listener.
All the court said is if somebody squeals out of turn, and they get fired for it, they can't sue the government for redress.
Same as the civilian sector.
There is NO criminal law involved.
This decision is proof positive, if any be needed, that President Bush's appointments to the bench are moving our courts back to the correct role of enforcing the law as it is written, rather than taking upon themselves the task of rewriting the laws however they choose.
And because of the lifetime tenure of federal judges, this influence of a President who understands that the Constitution is meant to be obeyed, not waved at in passing, is his most durable legacy, lasting 30 years or more.
P.S. info. My primary is over, but because of legal and ethical problems, the incumbent may withdraw/be forced out. He is also losing in the latest poll (5/28) to the Democrat challenger. I seek to be the replacement nominee. For more information see my website. I still need your help.
Congressman Billybob
Don't forget the flip side -- an incompetent make a claim of wrong-doing then declares him or herself protected. If this decision went the other way this might have ended up being the case.
Sometimes doing the right thing means losing your job.
Seems to me a tad shortsighted for "conservatives" to be cheering a ruling which protects big government from its internal critics.
and Senator Leaky...
He said government workers "retain the prospect of constitutional protection for their contributions to the civic discourse." They do not, Kennedy said, have "a right to perform their jobs however they see fit."
Indeed. And I wonder how the Slimes is so certain that it was Alito's vote that was the tie-breaker. Unless they are privy to the voting sequence, seems to me it could have been any of the other 4 justices.
This explains what the ruling was in a nutshell. When you work for the Government, you don't have the same rights of free speech when it concerns your job or what you are privvy to in daily work. If you go public and get fired, you are now out of luck in suing Uncle Sam thanks to this ruling! You violated your oath and IMHO should be fired. It is not easy to get fired by the Government and usually takes years and lots of manhours.
Getting more conservatives on the SCOTUS is a HUGE reason to continue to support the party, despite the constant irritation from the RINO's.
Those appointments will not happen by abandoning the GOP or staying home on election day as advocated by so many malcontents here on FR.
We need to weed out the RINO's by supporting conservative opponents in the primaries.
I agree PKM, thanks for putting it so concisely. Good to see you btw
:^)
I think it was because the case had to be re-argued after O'Connor left. If the decision was not 4-4 at that time, there would have been no need for Alito to have joined the ruling on either side, and hence no reason to re-argue.
Apparently Kennedy fell prey to that old Jedi mind trick.
That's a thought..
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.