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.