I am honestly surprised that there is not already a thread of at least two pages on this......

In the second review of the case against protections for whistle-blowers, Judge Alito provided the swing vote in the Court's decision stripping protections from workers who speak out, even in cases of fraud or wrongdoing. The new Bush court has made it clear in their opinion that the employee needs to keep his or her mouth shut and follow orders, or seek other work; it is not the employee's concern if rampant waste can be corrected, or unethical procedures are being carried out, or contracts are being given to companies for $500 hammers. Speaking out on these matters can now result in whatever action the employer sees fit to impose.

Basically, the Court has decided that it is better for government to work in wastefull and inefficient ways, and even fraudulent, than for a government employee to feel free to expose that and let the public know how bad things are. Kind of like the middle ages when speaking out against the king's tax collector was the same as speaking against the king, and could get you beheaded.

That's a horrible decision...


Fandros

That's a horrible decision...


Fandros

It sure is...but hey....its keeping government off of our backs...isnt it? :devil

Wow I can't believe I didn't hear anything about this. Damn the liberal media for not following it closely enough /end sarcasim.

That is just down right disgusting, and everyone was worried about abortion being over turned. :(

Bad decision.
Yet another reason to hate the current Administration.
The American People should hold the Court accountable.
But that's not as sexy as Taylor Hicks winning American Idol.

Interesting Fact: Taylor Hicks got more votes than any American Presidential in history.
Ronald Wilson Reagan won 54,455,472 popular votes in 1984 against Walter Mondale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1984
580 Million votes were cast in the last American Idol that Taylor Hicks won.
http://realitywanted.com/index.php/news/167
This country is going to Hell in a handbasket...

Bad decision.
Yet another reason to hate the current Administration.
The American People should hold the Court accountable.
But that's not as sexy as Taylor Hicks winning American Idol.

Interesting Fact: Taylor Hicks got more votes than any American Presidential in history.
Ronald Wilson Reagan won 54,455,472 popular votes in 1984 against Walter Mondale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1984
580 Million votes were cast in the last American Idol that Taylor Hicks won.
http://realitywanted.com/index.php/news/167
This country is going to Hell in a handbasket...

Yeah you're stats would be impressive to an uninformed person. But lets take a closer look shall we?

1. What age does a person have to be vote in this country?
2. What age does someone have to be to vote for American Idol?
3. What process is used to vote for a person running for office?
4. What process is used to vote for a person on American Idol?
5. How many times can you vote in an election for a person running for office?
6. How many times can you vote for someone on American Idol?

Get off it already, I am sick to death of the alarmists saying OMG OMG OMG more people voted for American Idol than for the president. Think about it for 30 seconds before you spout off. It makes you look dumb.

In American Idol people could vote early and often. Some voted hundreds of times.

And unless your a Republican in a key swing district in Ohio with a Diebold machine, that option isnt available to people in Presidential elections.

Yeah, crap decision, one that will have a chilling effect for a long time to come. The White House has made a habit of punishing whistleblowers; unfortunately, this ruling strips what little protection they had.

I had to dig a little bit on CNN's page but here is some more info.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/30/scotus.whistleblower/index.html

I am honestly surprised that there is not already a thread of at least two pages on this...... Yeah me too, since this is the echo chamber for the left. Or did I miss the thread about Jefferson and his $$$$$ suitcase? Or how about the esteemed Democrat congress woman who assualted a police officer? Oh, and I didn't even have time to read about Reid's latest victory for advancing our great democracy's sport of boxing. Those threads were getting awfully dull, so let's talk about something really exciting...

http://fsnews.findlaw.com/articles/ap/o/51/05-30-2006/a2370011ccc0f5ff.html

Just a quick glance, the decision hinged on the fact the guy wrote a memo to his upper management... Ok, you can disagree with this being First Amendment protected speech. I could probably see it both ways...

BUT THE CHILLING EFFECT .... watch out, this is going to hurt.... more whistle-blowers are going to go to the press in the future instead of writing memos to their bosses.

Seriously people, get some perspective.

I have to admit after reading more about it I can't understand why this would be protected by the 1st Amendment. I guess I don't see how this is such a horrible blow to protections.

Yeah you're stats would be impressive to an uninformed person. But lets take a closer look shall we?

1. What age does a person have to be vote in this country?
2. What age does someone have to be to vote for American Idol?
3. What process is used to vote for a person running for office?
4. What process is used to vote for a person on American Idol?
5. How many times can you vote in an election for a person running for office?
6. How many times can you vote for someone on American Idol?

Get off it already, I am sick to death of the alarmists saying OMG OMG OMG more people voted for American Idol than for the president. Think about it for 30 seconds before you spout off. It makes you look dumb.

My point was, more people pay attention to American Idol, than something far more important, like the Government taking over our lives.
And it took a while (more than 30 seconds) to come up with that info...

and his point is that more votes in American Idol doesn't = more people. The voting on American Idol as he said includes votes from children that can't vote for President either.

Idol got approx 35 million viewers a week. If each of those voted each week(which didn't happen, I watched and never voted), it would be less than an election for President in the US. Again that 35 million viewer number includes tons of people under the legal voting age in this country.

It's easy to poke fun at Idol and it's easy to skew their voting figures to make false assumptions.

I know that the voting is skewed on Idol.
But do you think people that aren't interested in voting for President 1 time could be motivated to vote multiple times for something they don't care about?
Motivation was the key to my post. I wish our Presidental elections were awash with the kind of excitrment you see displayed on shows like American Idol.
Or the kind of excitement that the editors let you see....

Seriously, guys, if you want to post about McKinney (rather old news now), Jefferson (caught red-handed but now a cause celebre for Hastert), or Reid (legally accepted boxing passes then voted against those who gave them), by all means do so. There's fun to be had, especially with the Jefferson case.

"Kind of like the middle ages when speaking out against the king's tax collector was the same as speaking against the king, and could get you beheaded."

I can almost see the rabid foam at the corners of your mouth as the left-wing blogosphere has worked you up into a frenzy over the decision.

You're right, the decision, Garcetti v. Ceballos, is "kind of like" your scenario except that it did not concern speaking out, or a king, or taxes, and I believe (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), that Ceballos still has his head and is not awaiting execution. Other than that, Mr. Little, your analogy is spot on.

Shame on those of you, *cough* Fandros *cough*, for agreeing with the OP instead of reading the opinion and dissents and arriving at your own conclusions. Props to Fildien for manning up to his overreaction.

"I wish our Presidental elections were awash with the kind of excitrment you see displayed on shows like American Idol."

Perhaps if we had a candidate that looked like Katherine. :eek:

LOL, Fild is always 1 to admit when he's wrong.
Kudos for at least coming out about it, instead of being too proud to admit fault.
We are all entitled to change our minds, when presented with new facts.

more whistle-blowers are going to go to the press in the future instead of writing memos to their bosses.

Really, is this a good thing? As a public employee, myself, if I find misappropriation of funds, for instance, my first inclination would be to bring it to my director, not run off to the press. My employment should be protected despite, say, my director being financially tied to the beneficiaries of the misappropriation (or other fallout from my raising this concern).

Yes I changed my stance after I read a little bit more about it, it can happen from time to time :p

But comparing Idol to Presidential Elections? hahahaaha

Thor, no it's not a good thing but this was about whether an employee is proteceted by the 1st amendment for reporting it. That is the part that I don't agree with. I'm also not saying that the other protections are adequate but I am not for using the Constitution as a means of protection for reporting wrong doings in this enviorment.

On a personal note, I wouldn't want to work for a company that was doing criminal activites. I'd be afraid for my job secruity as a low man on the totem seeing the activity and begin seeking employment elsewhere and turn their asses in.

Did you read what the case that brought this before the supreme court was about filaden? It's about a law enforcement agency. I'm sorry but your:
On a personal note, I wouldn't want to work for a company that was doing criminal activites. I'd be afraid for my job secruity as a low man on the totem seeing the activity and begin seeking employment elsewhere and turn their asses in. doesn't make a whole lot of sense here. Should the first amendment protect him? I don't know. Do I think the guy had a moral obligation to tell the defense that the police were using illegal tactics to try and get a conviction and tried to suppress the prosecuter bringing it to their attention? You damn well better believe it. I wish all prosecutors were this honest. Should his lawsuit have been thrown out by the Supreme Court? It's horrible precidence for the Supreme Court to stand up for a law enforcement agency that's trying to put away a defendent by means that aren't legal.

No I didn't read much more than what was in that CNN article. And even with the info you reported I would still feel the same way. When you take a stand for the right sometimes the treatment you get isn't what you deserve but some still choose to take a stand. I still would seek employment elsewhere and I would still report them.

I do not think the 1st Amendment should protect me. I think this case could have been presented with a different argument other than the 1st Amendment. I do not know what.

Also if you read the first paragraph of my reply you would see that I agreed that not enough is done to protect people.

So if you had a dream since you were little to work in law enforcement, you saw someone doing something illegally, instead of speaking out, you'd quit instead of doing what's right? Seriously, this is about misconduct in law enforcement, if there's any field where we'd want people to speak out when they see wrong doing, this would be it.

How would you feel if you had a family member get wrongfully convicted and put in prison by a law enforcement agent that basically framed them? Now how would you feel if you found out later the prosecutor knew about this and still went forward with the case?

If prosecutors have to fear for their jobs when they speak out against what happened here, it's just carte blanche to allow it to happen again and again.

Taleren I am not disagreeing with you. I am saying that this is not something the First Amendment protects.

also i'm not here debating the exact Supreme Court ruling, and I do agree that he should have argued something other than first amendment in his suit. I'm just debating your statement that you should leave the job if you see somethign going on you think is wrong. I feel someone should try and fix the problem and bring the proper people to light, if that doesn't fix it, then go over their heads.

And I agree with you on that too. But I would not stay as a personal choice. There are other places to work and you can still report it. Regardless whether it was a childhood dream or not I still have to think I would do the right thing because if it were my dream to be in law enforcement I couldn't imagine NOT reporting the offenders no matter what the reaction would be. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't blow the whistle.

I did not see the CNN piece, and am going by the article in the St Paul Pioneer Pressby Stephen Henderson of the Washington Bureau.

I am going by Kennedy's opinion that said employees that speak out while acting in an official capacity essentially forfeit the First Amendment rights they have as citizens, no matter what they say.

"When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes. The Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."

Now folks can argue that the merits of the case they were deciding did or did not meet certain criteria, but the point of the ruling is to take away and/or limit protections from public employees, and this will now be the rule of thumb until a future SC ruling alters this.

And Furt, I really got a chuckle out of your silly comments regarding foaming at the mouth and left wing, hehe. But I guess anyone who is a staunch Goldwater republican looks left wing compared to the freak-show masquerading as Republicans these days.

Bush and Cheney want big business and big government as long as they are in the drivers seat, and this ruling is directly in line with their practices.

edit: I omitted the word compared initially, and did not mean to infer that I considered Furt the freak-show. Sorry.

"Kind of like the middle ages when speaking out against the king's tax collector was the same as speaking against the king, and could get you beheaded."

I can almost see the rabid foam at the corners of your mouth as the left-wing blogosphere has worked you up into a frenzy over the decision.

You're right, the decision, Garcetti v. Ceballos, is "kind of like" your scenario except that it did not concern speaking out, or a king, or taxes, and I believe (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), that Ceballos still has his head and is not awaiting execution. Other than that, Mr. Little, your analogy is spot on.

Shame on those of you, *cough* Fandros *cough*, for agreeing with the OP instead of reading the opinion and dissents and arriving at your own conclusions. Props to Fildien for manning up to his overreaction.

Excellent response, I agree completely.

The money quote of the CNN piece is right here:

"The nine-member bench seemed to struggle balancing the need for preserving discretion in many aspects of the workplace with the need to ensure those who expose wrongdoing are not unfairly punished. The majority concluded not every aspect of government work deserves free-speech protection." (emphasis mine)

This is very, very far from being the insideous, purposeful blow to free speech and government accountability that the OP characterized it as. I hope he has the good sense to be embarassed over such childish, transparent histrionics.


S

Shame on those of you, *cough* Fandros *cough*, for agreeing with the OP instead of reading the opinion and dissents and arriving at your own conclusions. Props to Fildien for manning up to his overreaction.

Heh, Furtivus jumps on Fandros for not reading the opinion and dissents and "arriving at [his] own conclusions," but then gives props to Fildien who admittedly based his decision on an article from CNN. Comedy gold.

I originally intended to present excerpts of the dissent that I found compelling in the face of the majority's argument, but there's really too much that is relevant to repeat here. I agree: read it and reach your conclusions. It's certainly not black and white regarding First Amendment applicability. My feeling is that the rather absolutist view of the majority (i.e., "We reject, however, the notion that the First Amend-ment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties.") too broadly negates recourse for public employees seeking to bring wrongs to light. That synopsis does faint justice to the arguments presented in the dissent; those who disagree might investigate for themselves and see if they change their mind.

I do have one quote from the dissent that I wish to make sure I understand correctly, and which might ultimately present some manner of relief in assessing this case. From the dissent written by Justice Souter:
As I mentioned, the Court of Appeals saw no need to address the protection afforded to Ceballos’s statements other than the disposition memorandum, which it thought was protected under the Pickering test. Upon remand, it will be open to the Court of Appeals to consider the application of Pickering to any retaliation shown for other statements; not all of those statements would have been made pursuant to official duties in any obvious sense, and the claim relating to truthful testimony in court must surely be analyzed independently to protect the integrity of the judicial process.
This sounds to me like the case will be reheard in the Court of Appeals, and that Ceballo may have the opportunity to present new argumentation designed to take advantage of other statutes not originally applied due to the belief that the Pickering test would pertain to the case. Is that a fair reading?

Stephen Kohn, board chairman for the National Whistleblower Center, has handled whistleblower suits for 25 years, and points out that most employees that expose wrongdoing do so through official channels, and that for federal employees it is actually a part of their job to do so.

Souter in dissenting said that "a public employee can wear a citizen's hat when speaking on subjects closely tied to the employee's own job", and cited prior cases in which the court had decided in support of that idea. Clearly though, the majority opinion written by Kennedy which will be cited in cases to come for who knows how long states that public employees are not to be considered citizens when speaking out, and are not afforded First Amendment protection.

So, the federal employee who is required to report wrongdoing is now being told that doing so is no longer protected speech and may result in disciplinary action.

Odd as it may seem Byl yeah. When you're a federal employee you give up more than this. You sign agreements stating you will not riot or protest, at least I did back in '99-02. Who know what it's like now.

LOL, and don't even ask what soldiers give up when they join the Army.
Freedom of speech? That's the tip of the iceberg.

I hope he has the good sense to be embarassed over such childish, transparent histrionics.

And I hope you have the good sense to realize what a moron you are. I doubt it, but I can hope.

To state that this is not a blow to government accountability is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. How can it not be? If your government is doing something that is, I don't know, like say, ILLEGAL - like lying to obtain search warrants - you won't know about it since the Supreme Court has just solidified more power to the top giving them carte blanche to quell any question of improper activities.

You can dance on the head of the legal pin all you want, we both know the mesage this sends. I am most surprised at Furtivus, apparently his "big tent" now includes not only tax and spenders but also big government.

Fil

As a postal letter carrier, I am a federal employee. Our oath prohibits us from striking, the Hatch Act prohibited us from being candidates in partisan elections and even engaging in any supportive campaigning while in uniform or on the clock, and now we are facing possible disciplinary action if we disclose knowledge of wrongdoing, even tho we face the same action or worse if we do not come forth.

Yeah, makes ya proud:rolleyes:

Holy Shit..

I cannot believe what a bunch of snivliling crybabies the conservatives on this board can be sometimes..

"Boohoo this board has liberal bias... blah blah.. liberal echo chamber.. wahhhhh"

Gee Im sorry, was your "post new topic" button broken?
I cant say I really blame you though.. Its kinda like Limbaugh, Oreilly and Hannity crying about how unfair the MAINSTREAM MEDIA is..
What the fuck? They have like 20 Million listeners every day. THEY ARE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. Everyday beating the same drum, drilling their propaganda unendlingly, repeating lies and half truths till reality doesnt matter, only volume.

I suppose it is necessary though, to have to drive home the "message" so overwhelmingly... as Colbert said "Reality has a well known liberal bias"

"In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
-Goerge Orwell


"Liberty means responsibility that is why most men dread it."
-George Bernard Shaw

And I hope you have the good sense to realize what a moron you are. I doubt it, but I can hope.

Well no, of course not. Being a moron and all. ;)

To state that this is not a blow to government accountability is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. How can it not be? If your government is doing something that is, I don't know, like say, ILLEGAL - like lying to obtain search warrants - you won't know about it since the Supreme Court has just solidified more power to the top giving them carte blanche to quell any question of improper activities.

This is exactly the same sort of histrionics as the OP's post.

The decision we're talking about here in no way gives the government "carte blanche to quell any question of improper activities". All it says is that not every single statement, question, and accusation made by a government employee is protected speech. It says that sometimes a potential wistle-blower might have to consider more than his own personal well-being when bringing an accusation; it says that under certain circumstances he might not be garaunteed 100% immunity from the repurcussions of what he says.

I think you need to go look up the meaning of terms like "carte blanche".

One of the things that has steadily driven me from the moderate left to the moderate right over the past decade is this tendency towards histrionic behavior among modern liberals. Every action taken by conservatives is automatically seen in the worst possible light, filtered though a lens of quick judgement and reflexive hatred. And it's often done intentionally, to make that reflexive hatred seem justified.

My position is not that there's nothing to debate on this issue. It is rather that the issue is not the kind of extreme and malevolent tyranny that the OP so quickly mischaracterized it as.

You can dance on the head of the legal pin all you want, we both know the mesage this sends. I am most surprised at Furtivus, apparently his "big tent" now includes not only tax and spenders but also big government.

I never made a legal argument, so I can only assume that this part of your post was directed at someone else.


S

...it says that under certain circumstances he might not be garaunteed 100% immunity from the repurcussions of what he says.

Those circumstances being anything that falls under or can be construed as falling under "job duties." Which, depending on how the job description is penned, can be quite broad, perhaps even including something like, "Will report alleged impropriety to management." One of the dissents focuses precisely on this point: the majority opinion leaves little recourse under the circumstances it describes.

Those circumstances being anything that falls under or can be construed as falling under "job duties." Which, depending on how the job description is penned, can be quite broad, perhaps even including something like, "Will report alleged impropriety to management." One of the dissents focuses precisely on this point: the majority opinion leaves little recourse under the circumstances it describes.

*Runs around Flailing his arms*
"MY HAIR'S ON FIRE! MY HAIR'S ON FIRE! MY HAIR'S ON FIRE!*


Maybe, possibly, perhaps; All words used to justify hysteria when no real danger exists....

Those circumstances being anything that falls under or can be construed as falling under "job duties." Which, depending on how the job description is penned, can be quite broad, perhaps even including something like, "Will report alleged impropriety to management." One of the dissents focuses precisely on this point: the majority opinion leaves little recourse under the circumstances it describes.

Untrue; there is plenty of recourse (http://whistleblowerlaws.com/protection.htm).

Once again, the decision handed down only states that anything and everything a government employee might say is not necessarily protected speech. But there are literaly thousands of federal, state, and local laws that specifically shield whistle-blowers from retaliation under most circumstances. With such a comprehensive network of statutes already in place, it's actually hard to see why an honest person would even seek First Amendment protections.

Unless, of course, someone is trying to use that amendment as an ideological battering ram against those he sees as his political enemies. But we all know the left would never do that.


S

Last time I looked at where I work, in order to be demoted, your supervisor better have DAMN good reason. If you have had good evaluations, and can prove that you were demoted for speaking out about something that was wrong, you will win.. and that has nothing to do with this ruling. Most people that claim there were demoted for one thing in reality has a history.. but hey.. find something wrong and use it as a shield.. ya.. that is the ticket.

Don't you realize, the Federal Government is the answer to all your problems?
If you rely on state and local governments to protect you, that means the Federal Government has less power over you.
And Comrade, we can't have that...

Untrue; there is plenty of recourse (http://whistleblowerlaws.com/protection.htm).

Once again, the decision handed down only states that anything and everything a government employee might say is not necessarily protected speech. But there are literaly thousands of federal, state, and local laws that specifically shield whistle-blowers from retaliation under most circumstances. With such a comprehensive network of statutes already in place, it's actually hard to see why an honest person would even seek First Amendment protections

From the majority opinion:
We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their com-munications from employer discipline.
Again, if it can be construed that your statements are made in the context of your official duties, you lack First Amendment protection. Justice Stevens' dissent specifically remarks upon this:
The proper answer to the question “whether the First Amendment protects a government employee from disci-pline based on speech made pursuant to the employee’s official duties,” ante, at 1, is “Sometimes,” not “Never.” Of course a supervisor may take corrective action when such speech is “inflammatory or misguided,” ante, at 11. But what if it is just unwelcome speech because it reveals facts that the supervisor would rather not have anyone else discover?
Breyer also cites this in his dissent:The majority answers the question by holding that “when public employees make statements pursuant totheir official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitu-tion does not insulate their communications from em-ployer discipline.” Ante, at 9. In a word, the majority says, “never.” That word, in my view, is too absolute.
Regarding whistle-blower protection statutes, Souter responds to this point in his dissent (beginning on p32 of the pdf here (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-473.pdf)). To summarize, such laws are a patchwork of varying protections around the country, they do not always apply in whistleblower situations, and the federal Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 has a heavy burden of proof and has been held to be inapplicable in various situations, including that brought before the court.
Most significantly, federal employeeshave been held to be unprotected for statements made inconnection with normal employment duties, Huffman v. Office of Personnel Management, 263 F. 3d 1341, 1352 (CA Fed. 2001), the very speech that the majority says will becovered by “the powerful network of legislative enactments . . . available to those who seek to expose wrongdoing,” ante, at 13–14.12

Unless, of course, someone is trying to use that amendment as an ideological battering ram against those he sees as his political enemies. But we all know the left would never do that.
What a disappointing statement coming from someone whose initial posting (regardless of my agreement or disagreement) seemed so thoughtful. Flag burning? Gay marriage? Yeesh.

What a disappointing statement coming from someone whose initial posting (regardless of my agreement or disagreement) seemed so thoughtful. Flag burning? Gay marriage? Yeesh.

You are free to feel dissapointed if you like, Thormir. I myself am tired of anyone who uses any amendment of our Constitution to make calculated political attacks. And yes, conservatives do it too, and you will see me go after them with full prejudice when they do.

But perhaps I should have been more thoughtful and less snide with that last statement. Let me rephrase:

The left plays the "good guy" role to the hilt, even though they haven't really deserved it since at least the 1970s (and some would say as far back as the Kennedy Administration). The Democratic Party is still trading on the goodwill that JFK and LBJ won from minorities, and they are still seen as the party of the "common man" even though every leader they put forward is richer than God. Unethical liberals are every bit as fond of dirty political tricks as their conservative counterparts, but the left continues to sell the myth that unethical liberals don't even exist.

I know for a fact that there are crappy people on both sides of the aisle, and I'll stand up loudly against all of them equally. But I don't see the same kind of hypocritical "good guy" posturing on the right that I do on the left; conservatives generally admit to their demons and try to mitigate them, while liberals seem utterly contemptuous of the very idea that they even have demons.

As someone who agrees with liberal politics on many (mostly social) issues, I find the current state of affairs both infuriating and dissapointing. Were the Democratic Party still the party of Harry Truman and Joe Lieberman I would have joined it long ago. But it is instead the party of Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean. They've dressed Michael Moore up in Jack Kennedy's clothes, and it's sickening (both literally and figuratively).

However, I do appologize for my earlier sarcasm. You're right, it was out of place.


S

Oh how true your post is Sandor. I really liked it how Pelosi demanded Jefferson step down, and after the Black Caucus jumped in her shit you do not see anything out of her. Or better yet, how about how Dean actually tried to get Nagin out of office, but yet they are the party of the minority. Bush appointed more minorities into high level positions then anyone, but the left comes out calling them "uncle tom's" or some other slanderous response, but if the right says ANYTHING resembling that.. oh hell.. watch out.


Just like with the scandel bullshit with Abramoff or Delay, all you heard on this board was how the left is innocent and only the right are dirty.. gotta love it.

Joe Lieberman is a fine example of a Democrat who isn't a Liberal.
"Liberals" of yesteryear are today's "Conservatives" for the most part.
Most Conservatives of today are very mild compared to what we had during Kennedy's and Johson's administrations. You don't see the KKK anywhere outside of Jerry Springer anymore. The American Nazi party is a joke.
And as they should be. Organizations as such, have no place in today's society. You won't find too many people that say social equality is a bad thing.
I just tend to draw the line at financial equality. You should get paid for how hard you work regardless of color, religion, or gender. Beyond that, I like to keep what I earn, and not redistrubute my wealth.

The Democratic Party is still trading on the goodwill that JFK and LBJ won from minorities, and they are still seen as the party of the "common man" even though every leader they put forward is richer than God.
A writer I enjoy once put it as, "The myth of the Democratic party is that they are the party of the common man, while the myth of he Republican party is that they are the party of small government and fiscal sense. I think there's a lot of truth to that. It's worth mentioning, tho', that politics unfortunately requires quite a bit of money. You don't see a lot of poor people involved.
Unethical liberals are every bit as fond of dirty political tricks as their conservative counterparts, but the left continues to sell the myth that unethical liberals don't even exist.
That's a myth in itself. Currently, every liberal blog I read has spoken against Jefferson, for example (whose case I've been aware of since this time last year, due to a liberal blog) and are quite hawkish on purging corruption within the Democratic party. I also think Rovian political trickery outstrips anything the Democrats have ever even considered (more a credit to Rove's imagination than to Dem unwillingness to get hands dirty, perhaps). Also, while Jefferson is clearly dirty, his case is quite different than the very organized, systematic corruption to be found in the Abramoff and Cunningham cases, for example. That's no defense of Jefferson, of course.
I know for a fact that there are crappy people on both sides of the aisle, and I'll stand up loudly against all of them equally. But I don't see the same kind of hypocritical "good guy" posturing on the right that I do on the left; conservatives generally admit to their demons and try to mitigate them, while liberals seem utterly contemptuous of the very idea that they even have demons.
This just strikes me as bizarre reasoning given the right's tendency to view itself as God's Own Party. Has DeLay admitted to his demons? Last I saw, he compared himself to Jesus and MLK. No, they all posture themselves as good guys, they all admit their mistakes only after the conviction (if they ever admit culpability at all), and they all decry those who bring suit against them as motivated by something other than the very obvious crimes committed (both DeLay and Jefferson are fine examples).
However, I do appologize for my earlier sarcasm. You're right, it was out of place.
The world of politics is a dirty one, with saints and sinners on all sides. There's a strong tendency to view one's own side as less dirty than the other guy, but even if that happens to be the case at that moment in history, it's never black and white. If the Dems had full control of Congress and the Presidency, I wager the investigations would focus on them. The only reason I don't think it would be as intense as the current scrutiny given to the Repubs is that the Dems, frankly, aren't as good at politics or at organizing and motivating their infrastructure. The Dems don't have a Rove or an Atwater, for instance. Probably for the best.
I really liked it how Pelosi demanded Jefferson step down, and after the Black Caucus jumped in her shit you do not see anything out of her. Or better yet, how about how Dean actually tried to get Nagin out of office, but yet they are the party of the minority.
So you're not happy that Pelosi asked Jefferson to step down and hasn't changed her mind even after the CBC (foolishly) cast their lot with him? And you're referring to the same Nagin that the right pilloried post-Katrina while defending Bush to the bitter end (and the entirety of federal response initially)? Being the "party of the minority" doesn't mean you can't oppose a given minority's views, politics, or job performance, just as disagreeing with a decision by Israel doesn't make you an anti-semite (tho' some try to paint it that way).

Oh how true your post is Sandor. I really liked it how Pelosi demanded Jefferson step down, and after the Black Caucus jumped in her shit you do not see anything out of her. Or better yet, how about how Dean actually tried to get Nagin out of office, but yet they are the party of the minority. Bush appointed more minorities into high level positions then anyone, but the left comes out calling them "uncle tom's" or some other slanderous response, but if the right says ANYTHING resembling that.. oh hell.. watch out.


Just like with the scandel bullshit with Abramoff or Delay, all you heard on this board was how the left is innocent and only the right are dirty.. gotta love it.

Holy hell man.

So because Bush appointed some minorities he's a patron saint of the minorities? I doubt he had ANY underlying motives behind his choices just like every other political figure has. No way because he talks to Jesus and he's perfect.

I would wager that appointments are made less for merit and more for political gain. And that would include both parties not just one or the other. You do realize the last line of your post applies both ways right or are you just that "right"-minded that you can't see past it?

All politicians suck.
Just some harder than others.
:D

So you're not happy that Pelosi asked Jefferson to step down and hasn't changed her mind even after the CBC (foolishly) cast their lot with him? And you're referring to the same Nagin that the right pilloried post-Katrina while defending Bush to the bitter end (and the entirety of federal response initially)? Being the "party of the minority" doesn't mean you can't oppose a given minority's views, politics, or job performance, just as disagreeing with a decision by Israel doesn't make you an anti-semite (tho' some try to paint it that way).



Not at all.. what I am unhappy about.. or actually quite pleased about is how it shows that Pelosi has no backbone to stand with. She came out barking like a little lapdog and was slapped into submission by the very power that they claim to champion. She was right to demand his resignation, not because he is guilty before a trial, but it would help her party. Once again you see selfishness...

As for Nagin, here is my problem. Lets say he was a Republican, and it came out the Rove was trying to block his re-election to a white candidate.. What would happen? I am sure you could take an educated guess.



Holy hell man.

So because Bush appointed some minorities he's a patron saint of the minorities? I doubt he had ANY underlying motives behind his choices just like every other political figure has. No way because he talks to Jesus and he's perfect.

I would wager that appointments are made less for merit and more for political gain. And that would include both parties not just one or the other. You do realize the last line of your post applies both ways right or are you just that "right"-minded that you can't see past it?


you are correct in one thing.. Both parties do it. My issue is this.. what is good for the goose is good for the gander.. except where republicans are involved. If a democrate appoints a minority, it is out of kindness and trying to add diversity.. but if a republican does... he is trying to steal the minority vote. Black republicans are called Uncle Toms.. Black Democrats are helping the movement and fighting against the evil Right wing fanatics.

As for my last line, remember back to past postings.. I have always claimed that BOTH parties are corrupt, and I bitched about how everyone here (liberals) refused to see it on thier side. Even Thor will back me up on that one. So maybe you are the one that cannot see past it.

Actually I care less as I don't identify with either side. I'm totally issue driven and I see both sides are flilthy. I just found it amusing that you would take the time to blast the left and then become just what you blaste........ you essentially did just what you claimed one side did. I meant no offense, I was simply pointing out the irony.

I've nothing to see past here. The lines are clearly drawn and the arguments are good but I reserve my own opinions :)

Well, this has become another derailed political fight. It should really have nothing to do with Liberal vs. Conservative.


I am a devoted McCain supporter, and have made that clear for some time. I am also a devoted Bush-despiser, and have made that clear for some time, tho' my disgust goes all the way back to the 2000 campaign and his campaign's use of McCain's dark-skinned adopted child to play the race card in the Carolina's via the phone banks.

Bush and Cheney have consistently thumbed their noses at traditional "conservatives", and have actually increased the impact of government in people's lives, and have presided over record deficit spending.

Now, this post was simply about one more example of Bush and Cheney getting something they want as a result of his appointments to the bench. It is not about conservative or liberal values or agendas, but about Bush and his agenda. Cheney was able to fight off demands for the notes of meetings with oil execs where the discussions involved setting energy policy; how much more will the new court insulate the administration from any checks and balances?

Thor and I have both quoted from Kennedy's opinion the one line that will provide supervisors and managers and employers the ability to exercise discipline where they may have been less ready to do so prior to the ruling.

Only time will tell if the imnpact I believe is inevitable in governemnt employment will prove out. In the meantime,I will continue to be backing McCain for 2008.

In the meantime,I will continue to be backing McCain for 2008.

As will I. If the far right doesn't derail his nomination - a very real possibility considering his recent sins of actually getting things done - he will be a shoe-in in the 2008 general election. I personally think that this country has never been more ready for a tough-minded social moderate.

One must remember that my support of President Bush is support for the slightly less mediocre of two mediocraties (though the reasons each is mediocre are vastly different and very telling). If I'd had my way initially, the American political landsacpe would have looked very different since 2000. But until my dream of ruling this country with an iron fist is realized, I'm going to have to accept who the voters put in power (/scoff).

Oh, relax. The last sentence was a joke.

I'm interested to know, Bylimet: Will you still support McCain if Rice ends up being his running mate? She is, after all, a fairly staunch supporter of most Bush Administration policy ... and a favorite among Republicans for the spot. Giuliani is an empty suit on the foreign policy front, and I don't see anyone but those two as realistic VP candidates right now. In fact, any VP candidate - even a spoiler we're not seeing right now - stands a good chance of being someone who's been on board with President Bush all along. Are you ready to accept one of the dreaded neocons sitting "one heartbeat away from the presidency"?

And for the record, my adverse reaction was to the ... let's say overly dramatic tone of your initial post. Had it been as civily worded as what you wrote immediately above, I would have voiced somewhat different sentiments.

Here's to a McCain presidency in 2008.


S

McCain is putting the nail in his coffin with the immigration bullshit. The majority of the people want nothing to do with a form of amnesty, and that is what he is pushing. Oh he can call it something else, but what smells like shit.. well usually is.Senators need to get thier heads out of thier asses and listen to what the people want for once. This immigration will lead to more then one getting voted out when he/she was expected to win. And for the record, the Republicans are screwing themselves big time. A few mexican votes <<<< not equal to losing support of the much larger Conservative base. The Conservative base is larger then the liberal, as it showed in the last election, but it is more fickle also. They will not put up with this much longer.

McCain is putting the nail in his coffin with the immigration bullshit. The majority of the people want nothing to do with a form of amnesty, and that is what he is pushing. Oh he can call it something else, but what smells like shit.. well usually is.Senators need to get thier heads out of thier asses and listen to what the people want for once. This immigration will lead to more then one getting voted out when he/she was expected to win. And for the record, the Republicans are screwing themselves big time. A few mexican votes <<<< not equal to losing support of the much larger Conservative base. The Conservative base is larger then the liberal, as it showed in the last election, but it is more fickle also. They will not put up with this much longer.


huh?
How do you arrive at this claim? Because Bush won? I think you might be over simplifying things just a tad. It's definitely not that clear cut.

Haven't followed up on this since initial post. It appears I should've stated that based on what was posted that I thought it was a sad decision.

Guess I should've researched further...

Fandros

I make that claim based on the fact that if it was not for Perot getting alot of that base to vote for him we would have never had a President getting accused of having a BJ in the oval office.


Actually, the DNC probably does have more in sheer numbers that are registered, but as for those that actually get off thier lazy asses and vote, then the Republicans will win.. as it has shown in the last 12 years...

McCain is putting the nail in his coffin with the immigration bullshit. The majority of the people want nothing to do with a form of amnesty, and that is what he is pushing. Oh he can call it something else, but what smells like shit.. well usually is.Senators need to get thier heads out of thier asses and listen to what the people want for once. This immigration will lead to more then one getting voted out when he/she was expected to win. And for the record, the Republicans are screwing themselves big time. A few mexican votes <<<< not equal to losing support of the much larger Conservative base. The Conservative base is larger then the liberal, as it showed in the last election, but it is more fickle also. They will not put up with this much longer.


Maybe you need to pay a bit more attention to some of the people involved in this debate; most of the economists have been in firm agreement that we would have serious financial problems if we were to suddenly take these "illegals" out of the work force. They are paying taxes, and paying into the social security funds and medicare, even if it is being done with phony SSN's. To have these monies stop coming in without any guarantee of replacement would affect more than one federal agencies budget, not to mention the impact on state spending/income.

The Mayor of New York City gave one of the best, reasoned replies to Chris Wallace on his Fox program regarding the financial impact of getting rid of, as opposed to working out a method of letting them stay. that I have seen yet. Having established a culture that allowed these illegal workers, we are not in a position any longer to turn around and make them all leave; they are a contributing element of the nation's workforce that needs to be brought out from the shadows and made legal in some manner, so that the revenues they are providing the state and federal governments continue to flow, and the work they do that others will not still gets done.

Some will want to bash McCain for his stance, but most who are not prone to knee-jerk reactions will take the time to look at what he proposes, and attempt to build a workable solution to one of the nation's most serious problems.

Have you really taken time to look at this proposal? As part of this work program, they will be entitled to benifits that LEGAL americans will not even get. Plus, if you allow 100 million more over the next 10 years (or however long), you think unemployement is high now? This bullshit about them doing jobs that Americans would never do is crap. If we did not pay people for sitting on thier asses, they would do those jobs. This whole thing is a slap in the face for all those people who had to find a sponsor, learn english and pay money to become a citizen the legal way. Once again, reward the people who broke the law. Let me ask this question. If it was proposed that all of these illegals could never vote.. how hard would the Senate be fighting for them then?Also, I would be curious to see how McCain would vote if he was from... Alaska and not a border state that has ALOT of illegals.

Oh.. and to the person who gave me the negative hit referring to me forgetting about Gore... Please, that is all I ever hear.. Bush stole the 2000 election. Let me throw this tidbit of info out... Remember what the news broke just before the elections? Bush had a previous drunk driving offense.. same shit they tried with the falsified records. But, lets forget about that. So are you saying that when Regan demolished Mondale by 17 million there was a larger republican base? Just because you had one Presidental hopeful that won the popular vote without the aid of a independant, congrats to you..

Plus, a lot of Illegals don't pay taxes. They get paid under the table, remember?

Plus, a lot of Illegals don't pay taxes. They get paid under the table, remember?

And those are exactly the employers that need to be charged and fined heavily, and those workers can be deported for failing to report income and pay the taxes.

As far as McCain's proposal, it is just that. A proposal! The process of our system of government is to take proposals, and work them over to where they are the most palatable, then to vote on them as a final piece of legislation. I think McCain is being very shrewd in not alienating a very large voting bloc 2 years away from the next presidential election.