Garcetti v. Carballos (decided today)

[Sam Spade]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-473

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Thoughts, constitutional scholars...

[minionofmidas]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-473

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Thoughts, constitutional scholars...

Uh, it's the opinion of the court but it's not supported by a majority? (since Breyer's opinion, while different - and IMHO the most sensible of the three - agrees with the other dissenters in this case though not necessarily in principle)
Where's Kennedy?

[Peter]

Kennedy wrote the Opinion:

Majority - 5 (Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito)
Dissent1 - 3 (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
Dissent2 - 1 (Breyer)

[minionofmidas]

Kennedy wrote the Opinion:

Majority - 5 (Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito)

It seems that I can't count. I think at one point I read "Scalia, Thomas" as a single name...

[A18]

Sound, given the employer-employee relationship, but this bright-line rule is probably not going to hold up so well: what's "pursuant to [one's] official duties" sounds contestable to me.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Unsound, public servants serve the people. This cracks down on whisteblowers. This seems like a serious violation of the first amendment.  Of course it's the same 5-4 split that Bush v. Gore would get today, for our America destroying President.

[Emsworth]

Unsound, public servants serve the people. This cracks down on whisteblowers.

So what? There is no constitutional provision that states that the government has no power to punish whistleblowers.

[minionofmidas]

Unsound, public servants serve the people. This cracks down on whisteblowers.

So what? There is no constitutional provision that states that the government has no power to punish whistleblowers.

And here I always thought that was the basic point of Freedom of Speech.

[Emsworth]

And here I always thought that was the basic point of Freedom of Speech.

Rights belong to individuals in their private capacities, not in their public capacities. Normally, one may say whatever one wants as a private person. However, when acting as a government official, the rules are very different.

[minionofmidas]

And here I always thought that was the basic point of Freedom of Speech.

Rights belong to individuals in their private capacities, not in their public capacities. Normally, one may say whatever one wants as a private person. However, when acting as a government official, the rules are very different.

Well yeah, I know that. (Although I'd disagree on "very".)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And here I always thought that was the basic point of Freedom of Speech.

Rights belong to individuals in their private capacities, not in their public capacities. Normally, one may say whatever one wants as a private person. However, when acting as a government official, the rules are very different.

Quit pretending to be a social liberal. This ruling is about one thing, covering up Republican scandals.

It's a perfect example of why partisan Republicans should not get on the Supreme Court. A cover up of Bush scandals brought to you by the same assholes who brought you Bush. Impeach Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy at once for Bush v. Gore.

[Peter]

The Court is correct as to its interpretation of the Constitution in this case, though it is certainly an unfortunate result. The ultimate scandal here is not that a federal remedy does not exist, but that the Democratic State legislature of California has not constructed a whistleblower protection statute to protect those like Ceballos.