• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

High court trims whistleblower rights (1 Viewer)

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct Tuesday, a 5-4 decision in which new Justice
Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote.

In a victory for the Bush administration, justices said the 20 million public employees do not have free-speech protections for what they say as part of their jobs.

Critics predicted the impact would be sweeping, from silencing police officers who fear retribution for reporting department corruption, to subduing federal employees who want to reveal problems with government hurricane preparedness or terrorist-related security.

Supporters said that it will protect governments from lawsuits filed by disgruntled workers pretending to be legitimate whistleblowers.

Exposing government misconduct is important, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "We reject, however, the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties," Kennedy said.

The ruling overturned an appeals court decision that said Los Angeles County 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.

Kennedy said if the superiors thought the memo was inflammatory, they had the authority to punish him.

Stephen Kohn, chairman of the National Whistleblower Center, said: "The ruling is a victory for every crooked politician in the United States."

Justice David H. Souter's lengthy dissent sounded like it might have been the majority opinion if O'Connor were still on the court. "Private and public interests in addressing official wrongdoing and threats to health and safety can outweigh the government's stake in the efficient implementation of policy," he wrote.

Souter was joined by Justices
John Paul Stevens and
Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice
Stephen Breyer also supported Ceballos, but on different grounds.

The ruling upheld the position of the Bush administration, which had joined the district attorney's office in opposing absolute free-speech rights for whistleblowers.
President Bush's two nominees, Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, signed onto Kennedy's opinion but did not write separately.

"It's a very frightening signal of dark times ahead," said Tom Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project.

Employment attorney Dan Westman said that Kennedy's ruling frees government managers to make necessary personnel actions, like negative performance reviews or demotions, without fear of frivolous lawsuits.

Ceballos said in a telephone interview that "it puts your average government employee in one heck of a predicament ... I think government employees will be more inclined to keep quiet."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060530/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_free_speech

Was this a good decision or a great loss of oversight? Democrat or Republican run, the Government is always going to be up to illegal and questionable activies and now we are possibly losing one way to know about those activities.
 
This ruling is a very scary indication of things to come from the current court. It is now clear that both Roberts and Alito will join the opinion of Scalia and Thomas in protecting big corporation and government corruption from being unmasked. Although frightening, it is not surprising. The only thing surprising is that years from now when people begin to see the ramifications of this ruling in action in their daily lives people will say how could we let this happen. This is what you voted for people.

The truly sad thing here is that I work with Richard Ceballos, the Los Angeles District Attorney who is the subject of this case. Richard did a truly courageous and honorable thing that not too many District Attorney's would do, come forward when there was evidence of misconduct on the part of the police. Unfortunately, it is because of the code of silence of police officers and Judges and District Attorneys that look the other way in the face of police and government corruption that allow things like the LA Rampart Scandal and other injustices to occur.
This is a huge strike to true justice and a victory for business as usual in the corrupt criminal justice system.
 
Last edited:
I'll be honest, I work in government and the right (it is still a right that will be reestablished once the court moves more to the center) is necessary to weed out corruption and scandals that the public deserves to know about. Now, this court is one in which they believe that the public does not always have the right to know, but the government is run for the people, by the people and thus they always have a right to know if something bad is going on.

Now, the swifties might have actually been hampered by this due to the fact that some of them served in government (they were in the military) they would be hampered to say what happened in this scandal....theoretically. Whatever, I am saying it can be argued that way and frankly I don't have the time or patience to do so.

If someone was taking bribes, and the chief of staff knew about it, they can still report it, but now they face reprisals...that is just how it is. And those reprisals are legal. That goes against the integrity of the system and the theory of American government being for the people.
 
scottyz said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060530/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_free_speech

Was this a good decision or a great loss of oversight? Democrat or Republican run, the Government is always going to be up to illegal and questionable activies and now we are possibly losing one way to know about those activities.

I think on the legal substance of the issue, the majority opinion got it right. I don't think the first amendment really extends protection to public employees being disciplined by other public employees for the things they say.

With that said, I think Congress can and should pass some kind of Whistleblower's Protection Law.
 
Kandahar said:
I think on the legal substance of the issue, the majority opinion got it right. I don't think the first amendment really extends protection to public employees being disciplined by other public employees for the things they say.

With that said, I think Congress can and should pass some kind of Whistleblower's Protection Law.
Well, if you believe what you say, then that law would be unconstitutional under the new court's ruling. See the inherent contradiction there?
 
ShamMol said:
Well, if you believe what you say, then that law would be unconstitutional under the new court's ruling. See the inherent contradiction there?

No it wouldn't. The court is just ruling that the First Amendment doesn't protect whistleblowers. A federal law could still do so.
 
Kandahar said:
No it wouldn't. The court is just ruling that the First Amendment doesn't protect whistleblowers. A federal law could still do so.
I don't think you get law then. A federal law is always inherently governed by the bill o rights. There is no way around this issue. Any law in the country that is not an amendment is subject to the bill o rights. If it is unconstitutional (and they could certainly find a legal loophole to make it constitutional), then they can't make a law saying it is constitutional.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom