Another loss for America

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

In a 5-4 decision yesterday (with the deciding vote cast by Bush's most recent appointee Samuel Alito) the court ruled that government employees are not afforded Bill of Rights protections in reporting misconduct on the job (whistleblowing). The ramifications of this decision are fairly far-reaching and open the door for retribution against employees that "blow the whistle" on government misconduct discovered in the course of doing their jobs.

Obviously, the Bush administration is lauding the decision as a "step forward".

So let's see, we've got:

"Freedom of speech", except for government employees, soldiers, or while on private property (which is pretty much everywhere), or on public broadcasts.

"Freedom to keep and bear arms" except anything that could meaningfully be used to protect onesself from government oppression, and of course there's the matter of having to file a mountain of paperwork and open onesself up to scrutiny by the oh-so-objective and easy-to-understand regulations of the ATF.

"Freedom of the press" except in matters of covering government-sanctioned wars or for failing to name government informants "blowing the whistle" on illegal policies (sound familiar?) Of course there's that little provision in the so-called "Patriot Act" whereby media offices can be raided and materials siezed at any time without a warrant, and there's a gag clause preventing any employee or witness from mentioning such raids of siezures under penalty of secret prison. Very free indeed.

"Freedom of assembly", so long as you have proper permits and have (naturally) paid the proper fees. Unless you're illegal aliens, then you can assemble wherever you want.

"Freedom from unreasonable searches and siezures", except for . . . . . . . . (don't even get me started).

And of course the recent ruling whereby private property can be siezed by eminent domain for PRIVATE development, not just "public good" public developments and improvements. . .

Yep. No wonder our enemies "hate our freedom".

Sorry if this sounds like a gripe-fest but in wake of Memorial Day, I suggest we all take a minute and pay tribute in our own way not only to our fallen soldiers, but to the memory of a once-great nation with great ideals and that actually lived according to those ideals. It obviously isn't the same country any more. I've officially lost faith in our system of government.

Jim Richards · 05-31-2006, 10:09 AM

So, we've finally made it back to the 50's. Now, we can all live wholesome lives like the Cleavers.

Superman · 05-31-2006, 10:14 AM

Freedom marches on under the watchful protection of the Boosh Administration. These wide-open freedoms for gubmit agencies and our elected officials, combined with the insane secrecy being asserted, is going to play real nice when the Dems are back in power very soon. Yup, you guys have a real nice "president" there. He must be quite a genius, since almost nobody can see how his policies will improve our gubmit or our nation.

dd74 · 05-31-2006, 10:17 AM

Don't worry: the decision will be tested, contested and overturned, possibly before Bush's term ends.

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by dd74
Don't worry: the decision will be tested, contested and overturned, possibly before Bush's term ends.

By whom?

dd74 · 05-31-2006, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by widebody911
By whom?

A whisteblower, and their lawyer, petitions. It can happen.

M.D. Holloway · 05-31-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
...Yep. No wonder our enemies "hate our freedom"...

With that sort of freedom who needs tyranny? Seriously, if our ‘enemies’ really knew what a raw deal that is being propped up you would think they would take pity on us?

Rodeo · 05-31-2006, 10:40 AM

This is what the Republican Party looks like after 20 plus years of ever-growing influence by what used to be rather quaintly called the "Christian Coalition."

A benign view of the "conservative" movement today is Colonial Puritanism, with the state assuming the role of the religious elders, peering into our bedrooms, homes and offices for any sign of deviance from societal norm.

A more realistic view, in my view, is that the Republican Party is fast becoming the Socialist-Fascist Party of America.

Think Mulhollandose. That’s what passes for a “conservative” nowadays. Some deranged system of forced compliance with the religious/moral edicts of those that wield power in America, backed by the vast resources of the federal government.

If I wasn’t a “liberal” before, I am now. The alternative is too scary.

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Sorry if this sounds like a gripe-fest but in wake of Memorial Day, I suggest we all take a minute and pay tribute in our own way not only to our fallen soldiers, but to the memory of a once-great nation with great ideals and that actually lived according to those ideals. It obviously isn't the same country any more. I've officially lost faith in our system of government.

There is no more appropriate time to do it.

Hundreds of thousands died either really "protecting our freedoms" or believing they were.

Meantime, some of our elected officials were throwing those freedoms away with both hands.

The day voters give as much attention to govenment as they do to American Idol contestants or their favorite pro sports teams, we'll have the beginnings of a great country again.

Jim Richards · 05-31-2006, 10:45 AM

So, we should rise up against TV, and restore America to her glory? I'm OK with that. TV sucks nowadays, anyway.

Overpaid Slacker · 10:49 AM

Is it really too much to ask for you to get a clue before you go spouting off the latest leftoid disinformation mantra?

In Garcetti et al. v. Ceballos the question at hand, according to the majority opinion (and not some moron source) was "whether the First Amendment protects a government employee from discipline based on speech made pursuant to the employee's official duties."

Anyone who knows anything about free speech (which isn't a prerequisite to opine hereon, evidently) knows that all speech isn't "free" or without consequence, and all the First Amendment says, in pertinent part is that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..."

What it does not say is anything like "nobody should ever be held responsible for saying whatever they want, even if you really really really agree with why (they claim) they're saying it in the first place."

Did Alito cast the "deciding vote" Whatever TF that means... maybe. But that means that, after the original arguments to the Supremes, they were split 4-4. So four other justices also cast the deciding vote. Pinhead.

Hmmmm.... having scrolled down while typing this, I notice my esteemed "let's get our facts straight first and then decide whether we should open our gaping bongholes later" colleague, the Right Honorable John Cramer, has weighed in as well. I think between us we've covered the base(head)s. So I'll spare all the vivisection of the rest of the "logic" in the original post.

Kudos, Kos.

JP

lendaddy · 05-31-2006, 10:51 AM

I knew you couldn't stay away forever

Superman · 05-31-2006, 10:55 AM

Thanks, John. I've admired your contributions on a number of occasions, and am always eager to read your thoughts on SC decisions.

And thank again to Techweenie, who nails it about 99% of the time.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
Is it really too much to ask for you to get a clue before you go spouting off the latest leftoid disinformation mantra?

In Garcetti et al. v. Ceballos the question at hand, according to the majority opinion (and not some moron source) was "whether the First Amendment protects a government employee from discipline based on speech made pursuant to the employee's official duties."

Anyone who knows anything about free speech (which isn't a prerequisite to opine hereon, evidently) knows that all speech isn't "free" or without consequence, and all the First Amendment says, in pertinent part is that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..."

What it does not say is anything like "nobody should ever be held responsible for saying whatever they want, even if you really really really agree with why (they claim) they're saying it in the first place."

Did Alito cast the "deciding vote" Whatever TF that means... maybe. But that means that, after the original arguments to the Supremes, they were split 4-4. So four other justices also cast the deciding vote. Pinhead.

Hmmmm.... having scrolled down while typing this, I notice my esteemed "let's get our facts straight first and then decide whether we should open our gaping bongholes later" colleague, the Right Honorable John Cramer, has weighed in as well. I think between us we've covered the base(head)s. So I'll spare all the vivisection of the rest of the "logic" in the original post.

Kudos, Kos.

JP

The first step towards embracing tyrrany is to rationalize it.

Congratulations. The Vichy government would love you.

Overpaid Slacker · 11:00 AM

Thanks, Len. I lurk every now and again, but most of it is the same 'ol wet diaper dance by the same 'ol folks w/ the same 'ol "arguments."

Unfortunately for y'all, I've just taken a "real" job again, so I'm in front of a computer again most of the day...

Though one thing I forgot to mention in my original post is the super-double-happy-elation of the Supremes smacking down the 9th Circuit (AGAIN!!!) with this gem Underlying our cases has been the premise that while the First Amendment invests public employees with certain rights, it does not empower them to "consitutionalize the employee grievance." POW!!! The 9th Circuit geniuses are going to be on soft foods for a while after that shot.

JP

Overpaid Slacker · 05-31-2006, 10:59 AM

Hey, a vapid, unprincipled, craven response from P-o-P; snarky and without detail.

Wow. He's abandoned defending even his own thread.

Hie, fool. Hie!!!

JP

Rodeo · 05-31-2006, 11:04 AM

I didn't read the decision yet either, but I'm familiar with the issue, and it's NOT as limited as you make it out to be. It sides with the federal government and secrecy over the little guy, openness and accountability.

This is typical Alito. I would bet 3 of the other 4 are Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.

How'd I do?

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

I'm still trying to figure out how Scalia operates Thomas' remote control...guess there's plenty of room to hide it under the robes.. But notice that Scalia never drinks water while Thomas is talking...

Rodeo · 05-31-2006, 11:14 AM

I remember reading that Thomas has NEVER asked a question during oral argument of ANY case on which he sat. Pretty amazing.

If that's true, maybe nostatic is on to something ...

304065 · 05-31-2006, 11:37 AM

Justice Thomas holds the honor of being not only an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, but is also the second African American in history to hold that position. That means that he is smarter than me and probably smarter than you. Please show him the respect he deserves for having the PERSONAL COURAGE to sit on the bench by not likening him to a ventriloquist dummy.

Would you care to explore the many variations between Justice Thomas' and Justice Scalia's opinions over the years? Oh, right this is Pelican OT, where reality doesn't matter.

Nice to see you again JP, the place is even more of an RSS server for the Drudge Retort.