Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
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 ...
I want MORE conservatives on the SCOTUS!!! Let's hope Stephens and Ginsburg retire!!! :)
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
OBVIOUSLY he WAS NOT a democrat...
A few things:
1. This ruling was most likely 5-4 the OTHER way before Alito replaced O'Connor. Based on case assignments for the portion of the term when the case was initially reargued, and noting who did not eventually author a major opinion from that portion, one can conclude that Souter had the majority opinion before the case was reargued.
2. Breyer, once again, seems a bit more reasonable than the other three libs. In his dissent, he says that he agrees with a lot of Souter's analysis, but he feels that it gives too little weight to the legitimate managerial and administrative concerns that are mentioned in the majority opinion.
3. Stevens joined Souter's dissent, but he also wrote separately. I can see no purpose in his writing a separate dissent; he make no unique statement about the law. His dissent just contains some snarky comments. That, to me, is a good sign. It indicates he is frustrasted by the direction the Court is taking. While I expect us to lose the Guantanmo case, that's a good sign for the other cases that remain on the docket.
The Roman Catholic Hammer has thundered! I don't know anything about this case in particular, but I like seeing the Catholic majority on the court acting in unision. Let's hope they keep it up!
Three dissenting opinions?
Good bet --- our five RC's.
Thanks for the ping, Mo1.
That characterization of the decision would appear to be hyperbole. The decision does not appear to "stifle whistleblowers". Rather, (at least after a quick reading) it finds no First Amendment right was breached by the government's action, but recognizes the importance of whistleblowing protection as contemplated by various state and local laws. It is important not to fall into the trap of advocating rulings based on some desired outcome while disregarding the law and precedent.
As noted in the decision:
Exposing governmental inefficiency and misconduct is a matter of considerable significance, and various measures have been adopted to protect employees and provide checks on supervisors who would order unlawful or otherwise inappropriate actions. These include federal and state whistleblower protection laws and labor codes and, for government attorneys, rules of conduct and constitutional obligations apart from the First Amendment. However, the Court’s precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job.
Makes sense to me...
I agree. People cheerleading the strengthening of the executive branch must have forgotten that some day, a Democrat will be in that office again and will have benefited from all of these changes.
I think people have forgotten what President Clinton was like.
Yes you are. The Supremes have voted!
Was that reply sarcasm ?
There is a fine line between a whistleblower exposing corruption and a hack exposing government secrets to advance a political agenda.
There has been far too much of the latter going on, and not nearly enough of the former.
Yet almost daily the trolls on this site whine that we don't KNOW that Alito is a conservative.
At some point, if something is bad enough, you are willing to sacrifice your job for that greater good.
However, if what you are doing is in fact illegal, then you will lose your job and your freedom.
Seems to me the case is pretty narrow, preventing people who do write memos from suing claiming they lost a promotion. I don't think it's draconian or necessarily stifling, nor do I think it will prevent all such suits. Similarly, this prevent everyone from writing CYA memos simply as a preemptive strike.
I do agree it may have a slight chill for people who don't "play ball" but I also don't want to see proliferation of somewhat frivolous lawsuits over lost promotions. 20 million employees, sheesh!
that's right.. they're sweating buckets while holding to top secret memos.. lmao
My presumption is that since they only ruled some things not covered by squealer rights, things such as illegal activity would be okay to be a whistleblower on, and you would be protected.
They didn't strike down protection for all whistleblowers.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, GOVERNMENT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
Garcetti v. Ceballos, No. 04–473 (U.S.S.C. May 30, 2006)
When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/04473.html
Hillary's Plantation analogy is starting to make better sense.
My HL more accurately reflects the facts.
From SCOTUS: GARCETTI ET AL. v. CEBALLOS (WARNING pdf)
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.