Justices, 5-4, Limit Whistleblower Suits

[cal04]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder for government employees to file lawsuits claiming they were retaliated against for going public with allegations of official misconduct.

By a 5-4 vote, justices said the nation's 20 million public employees do not have carte blanche free speech rights to disclose government's inner-workings. New Justice Samuel Alito cast the tie-breaking vote.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the court's majority, said the First Amendment does not protect "every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job." The decision came after the case was argued twice this term, once before Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retired in January, and again after her successor, Alito, joined the bench.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/washington/30cnd-scotus.html?hp&ex=1149048000&en=57d52201086729ae&ei=5094&partner=homepage

High Court Limits Whistleblower Lawsuits
Dissenting justices said Tuesday that the ruling could silence would-be whistleblowers who have information about governmental misconduct.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053000463.html?nav=rss_nation/special

[aquart]

1. What a surprise.

Alito is everything we thought he'd be.

[JohnWxy]

54. Sieg Heil!

[katty]

80. right-not surprised in gestapoland

[MaineDem]

2. And so it begins

Sad...

[BlueEyedSon]

19. Begins...? Where were you in 2000? It's CONTINUING.

:cry:

[cascadiance]

23. "So this is how Liberty dies....

With Thunderous Applause!"

- Padme Amidala

[Xeric]

3. I'm so glad Democrats are saving the filibuster

for when it REALLY matters.

[paulk]

13. would the vote have been different

with Rhenquist and O'Conner still serving?

[MH1]

46. SOME Democrats tried.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/26/123745/548

Too bad the Dem Senators on Judiciary didn't set it up better.

[Jesus W Vader]

4. Not surprised

Nothing to see here, move along, there is nothing to see here. Everything is fine. Buy that Hummer or big screen plasma...whatever the hell those are.

[hang a left]

5. Since the article was so damn skimmpy

Any resemblence of protection left for whistleblowers?? I know stupid question, but I am stupid.

[ticapnews]

7. The protections left for whistle-blowers...

they will now have a choice of firing squad or lethal injection...

[Zorra]

6. Another milestone on the road to fascist dictatorship. We're

almost there.
:puke:

[Canuckistanian]

8. Get used to seeing "5-4 decision"

And I'm surprised it was even that close.

Thanks, Congressional Dems, for Robertson and Scalito - thanks a bunch.

[paulk]

11. thank George W Bush for Roberts and Alito

he's the one who nominated them.

Stop blaming Democrats for what Bush has done.

[ShortnFiery]

28. The Senate Democrats should have pulled out all the stops

and Filibustered Alito. We ALL know that was the tipping point.

I honestly believe, if they (the Senate Democrats) showed such courage, as a united front, there would be a landslide for the Democrats for Congress during the mid-term elections this year.

Yet, they're keeping their powder dry. :wtf: For what?!? Not for us little (Non-Investor Classes) people.

Now, we MAY take back The House. With a few notable exceptions, our illustrious Senate "loyal opposition" .... are cowering lap dogs for the BushBotBorg. :P :thumbsdown:

[Xeric]

30. 20 Democrats voted for Roberts

and 4 voted for Alito.
So yeah, I'll blame Democrats too.

[CTLawGuy]

111. you can blame more than one person or group for something

give it a rest.

[barb162]

17. yeah, for about the next 20-30 years I think

[PaDem]

27. Not sure I understand the issue here with Alito and Roberts......

suppose one or both weren't confirmed. Then what? Bush nominates another ideologue. The issue here in my view is not the Dem's filibustering or unifying against a Supreme Court nominee. The issue is control of the White House. When we lost that (or when it was taken from us), we gained two right wing Supreme Court Justices. Somehow denying confirmation of these guys would do nothing to change that.

[ShortnFiery]

29. There are SANE conservatives that The Illustrious Senate Democrats

could have *pushed* the BushBotBorg to nominate. But no, they had to let our Dear Leader have his first choice. The only people who had the BALLS to stand up to * was the Kool Aid Drinking Fundy Right. Now that just sad, just SAD. :puke:

[PaDem]

34. quite frankly........

I would have voted to confirm Roberts myself had I had a vote. Hopefully that doesn't preclude me from remaining a Democrat.

[ShortnFiery]

36. Perhaps Roberts, but NO f**king way a Dem supports Alito?!? n/t

[Canuckistanian]

52. The issue is that they slid in without a peep from Dems

Especially on Alito. he was a walking, talking disaster and should have been laughed out the congirmation hearings.

And I don't care how many times they have to do it.

Even a symbolic protest vote would show that they at least give a damn.

[PaDem]

82. I agree Alito was a terrible nomination..........

and perhaps, at best, unified resistance could have given us another nominee more in the mold of Roberts.

[Individualist]

65. but, but,

it's keeping our powder dry, choosing our battles, etc., etc. :puke:

Those tired DLC memes make me sick. This is what happens when the DLC philosophy is followed.

[paulk]

84. a DLC member led the filibuster attempt against Alito.

what's your point?

[Individualist]

87. Only after he knew the attempt would fail

Why didn’t Kerry call for the filibuster BEFORE he knew there were enough votes for cloture?

[paulk]

90. that bastard!

he should have done nothing at all!

:eyes:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

99. He's always months or years late. nt

[paulk]

110. really?

do you just hate Kerry or do you just post stupid shit on anonymous internet discussion boards because you don't have anything better to do?

[LincolnMcGrath]

98. It's more of a follow-sophy than a philosophy

GOP says Dems "soft on terror", DLC says "We'll get better!"


or more to the point


Fox pundit says "have more babies", 6 days later DLC says "Have more babies!"

[VegasWolf]

9. Democracy! We don't need no stinkin' democracy! nt

[KoKo]

10. Amazing both the NYT's and WaPo Articles are Identical? How can

that be? I guess we will have to wait until legal experts figure out what this ruling means.

It may only apply to certain cases and there are already other Whistleblower protections in place...according to the articles...

[cascadiance]

12. K&R... Check this article on State Secrets Privilege too!

This one just came out a short time ago too. Talks about the origin of the States Secret Privilege and how our court system used British laws and judicial history to bring in this "privilege" instead of American law and judicial rulings to do so.

Noted that it was just used last Friday shortly before midnight to rule against a lawsuit to stop the NSA domestic wiretapping lawsuits and how it has been abused in so many other cases where whistleblowers are trying to expose this criminal fascist regime!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=214073&mesg_id=214073

When we take power again, I think state Secrets privilege and whistleblower rulings are one of the key areas that a new Democratic congress (when we have a Democratic President either by impeachment or elected in 2008) should look at to start going after impeachments of SCOTUS and other justices like Reggie Walton for facilitating coverup of criminal behavior of this administration by these rulings. Then whomever's in charge can help us restore balance to a court and put the judicial branch back where it should be as one of the needed checks and balance in our Democracy (that hopefully will be restored then!)

[PuraVidaDreamin]

14. Please Justice Stevens and Ginsberg Please Hold On

Please Hold on!

[goforit]

105. Hold on?......Where is the support? Americans are apathetic.& pathetic.

They need protection and a rally.

We can not expect these two to fight our battles.

[KansDem]

15. "(...he was demoted and denied a promotion) for trying to expose the lie."

Whoa! No wonder the Bushistas want this stopped. Lying is their modus operandi Without the ability to lie freely and unencumbered, they are nothing...

[barb162]

16. Disgusting ruling. Whistleblowing should be encouraged

IMHO

[cyberpj]

18. ALITO DEMS - And the Gang of 14 who decided NO Filibuster:

We, the voters who elect Democrats in every election, were utterly and completely betrayed by 19 Democratic Senators that we elected, all of whom can be reached at 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641:

Akaka (HI), Baucus (MT), Bingaman (NM), Byrd (WV), Cantwell (WA), Carper (DE), Conrad (ND), Dorgan (ND), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lieberman (CT), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Rockefeller (WV), Salazar (CO)

We could have won even if 6 Democrats who were flat-out stupid enough to believe Alito's lies (like Robert Byrd and Kent Conrad) had voted against the filibuster.

ALSO
HERE IS THE 'GANG OF 14' WHO DECIDED FOR EVERYONE ELSE THERE SHOULD BE NO ALITO FILIBUSTER:
CNN's Ed Henry reports, and it appears to be correct, that the Gang of 14 will announce, AS A GROUP, that there are not extraordinary circumstances justifying filibuster of Sam Alito. Remember who is in the Gang of 14:

Republicans * John S. McCain III, Arizona * Lindsey O. Graham, South Carolina * John Warner, Virginia * Olympia Snowe, Maine * Susan M. Collins, Maine * R. Michael DeWine, Ohio * Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island

Democrats * Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut * Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia * E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska * Mary Landrieu, Louisiana * Daniel Inouye, Hawaii * Mark Pryor, Arkansas * Ken Salazar, Colorado

[ClintonTyree]

101. Amazing how many of "the gang of fourteen" are RED STATE Dems!

It's almost as if they were actually TRYING to demonstrate how much they supported bush and his regressive policies. But, nah........those Dems wouldn't sell out just so they could keep their cushy jobs in "values" States, would they? :shrug:

You bet your sweet ass they would, and DID back when bush was still a "popular war pResident"! :grr: I'll never forgive those "Democrats" for their support of bush's insane SC choices. We're now paying the price for those sell-outs. Fascism has stopped creeping in our country and is now into a full blown sprint. Thanks, "gang of fourteen"! :mad:

[MrPrax]

20. So the courts rule...

that dissent is punishable.

So the courts rule that an employee has a higher 'loyality' to the employer than to the public and that loyality is a reasonable limit to any rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights? While employees are limited in speech in what they can talk about, doesn't it also make it prosecution easier as well?

[NYC]

25. Not only dissent, exposure of criminal activity.

Good government is not the objective.

[987654321]

44. The next generation won't know what the Bill of Rights is.

"So the courts rule that an employee has a higher 'loyalty' to the employer than to the public..."

I had thought that the government was supposed to work for us, that we were the "employer" therefore our employees should be held accountable to us.
I don't know, but somewhere I heard something like, "government of the people, by the people, and for the people", or was that just liberal gibberish. No wait, a Republican once said that, some guy named Lincoln I think.

[MrPrax]

56. That's what I read...

SCOTUS basically took the narrowest possible interpretation of a strict employee/employer relationship, ignored that the employer is actually a government and not a business and removed any consideration of the public good for the Republic...

It's corportism they ruled in favor of and not a society governed by the 'checks and balances' provided by a free people ...

The other reply makes a great point; if there is criminal wrongdoing, one would think that it has a higher priority than the propriety of employee disloyality to the potential criminals...

[BR_Parkway]

21. Well thank goodness we still have dry powder, we might need it one day

[cascadiance]

22. What abiout OUR rights against corporate "whistleblowing"!?

Perhaps we should expect *loyalty*, etc. from those companies that have "whistleblowed" against us for far less documentable reasons in handing over their information to the government to the NSA, etc.! Perhaps we should also demand limits on that sort of "whistleblowing" too. Oh, I forgot... Our constitution will soon read "We the corporations..." At some point corporate personhood will mean that only corporations have the rights of persons and those they deem worthy of such rights.

[SIMPLYB1980]

24. One steep forward two steeps back!

Every time a little bit of truth leaks out to the populace, "they" trough things like this and shrubs speech last week, we sink further into this "Corporate Fascist Police State." At this rate it wont take long for them to start rounding up large batches of liberals, and even mainstream americans and getting halliburton to build internment camp to protect GOD fearing from the subversive left. These people make me so sick I want to vomit.


:puke: :argh: :grr: :nuke: :rant: :puke:

[sakabatou]

26. SCOTUS: Protecting the government from oversight

SOB... :grr:

[jgmiller]

31. Without knowing all the details

I only read the articles but it sounds like what they are saying is that this person was punished for writing an internal memo and he was suing claiming he was punished for going public with the lie. In reality if all he did was write an internal memo then he did not go public so the law would have been misapplied in the suit. Kennedy's comment that the law did not permit employees to do their job as they see fit seems to confirm what I think. As an employee if I write a memo complaining about how someone does their job I take the risk of being punished for that action, it's company politics. However if I go public about criminal wrongdoing by contacting a news orgnaization then I would be protected by the law. It's a fine line but there is a distinction.

Sorry as much as I would like agree that this is another attack on government secrecy from what I have read it sounds like the ruling was logical. Does anyone have a link to the full details?

[leftofthedial]

32. when we take our country back

we'll have to eliminate the current court

[Initech]

33. Why arent more people pissed off?

We're losing our freedoms one by one.

[ShortnFiery]

35. Little by little we're losing everything ... where are our Democratic

Representatives?!? Damn their cowardice! :puke:

[paulk]

41. four posts by you on this thread

every single one attacks Democrats.

Why don't you attack Bush? He's the one who nominated these jokers.

Whether you mean to or not, you are doing Karl Rove's work for him.

[davhill]

42. We expect better from Democrats

We expect the worst from Bush. Attacking him does no good at all.

[paulk]

45. I will never understand that mindset

it is incredibly self destructive

imo

[TahitiNut]

47. Uh-huh. The pretense of infallibility is so constructive.

Yippee. :eyes:

[paulk]

61. I wouldn't call it a pretense of infallibility

there are many posters here on DU who go out of their way to find reasons to criticize.

and many of those same posters have motives that are questionable, at best.

and that is a very destructive way to go about things when the chief goal should be the removal of the real culprits -

the Bush administration....

[TahitiNut]

67. "go out of their way" and "have motives that are questionable"??

Wow! And I though Junior was remarkable for "looking into Putin's heart"!?!? I guess I missed learning how to read the "hearts and minds" of others, despite our mission in Viet Nam when I was there. (It must be some skill I failed to develop.) Such an analytical skill must be especially keen when it facilitates such discernments merely from posts on a discussion board. I can't even seem to do it with people I've actually met. (I should apply for disability, I guess.)

:shrug:

[paulk]

83. I'm making a valid point

you can snark all you want.

There are posters on this board who, day after day, go out of their way to criticize Democrats.

And my initial post on this subthread was to one of them.

You tell me what good this kind of constant sniping does?

---------------

Once again -



George W. Bush nominated Alito and Roberts.

George W. Bush nominated Alito and Roberts.

[depakid]

86. "George W. Bush nominated Alito and Roberts."

And the Dems had the power to stop them- and (like every other nominee that's come up) FAILED to use it. Plain and simple- no getting around it.

Ask yourself: "What would have happened had the shoe been on the other foot?"

Do you think for one minute that the Republicans would have allowed say, Lawrence Tribe, a seat on the Supreme Court?

That's the bottom line here- which goes to the very heart of why the Dems keep losing- and why they barely even have relevance in national politics anymore.

[TahitiNut]

88. Are you?

Just what brand of crystal ball provides you with information that leads you to the conclusion that someone "go(es) out of their way to criticize" the actions of a politician? May be it's not at all "out of their way." Maybe it's convenient. Maybe it's an honest expression of the impact of that action upon them.

But even more pertinent, since when is discussing the messenger 'valid' in lieu of discussing the message? Sounds fallacious to me, actually, not valid.

You ask "You tell me what good this kind of constant sniping does?"

I might ask you the same thing. Are poster-focused innuendos and questions of their motivations at all productive?

I don't think so.

But YMMV, I guess. :shrug: :eyes:

[Dr Fate]

89. The good it does is maybe it will shame DEMs into standing up just once.

MAYBE- a big maybe.

Problem is, many of us are content to make excuses for them rather than hold their feet to the fire.

It is cut and dry- DEMs could have filibustered Alito and opened up a national debate on his far-right-wing stances- such as this. They were too frightened to do so. They failed. Period.

Exactly what good does it do to not SAY SO when you disagree with the actions of any politician, DEM or GOP?

This is a day of shame for the pro-Bush, anti-1st amendment Democrats who supported Bush instead of the Democratic base over Alito- no excuses or revision of history will ever change that.

[ShortnFiery]

50. Sorry, one can be A Democrat and Believe it to be A Failure of

our Representatives to NOT filibuster Alito. If EVER there was *a cause* to stand up for is to prevent a true hell bent Right Winger Nut like Alito into the Supreme Court. No, that's not "we" ... I was deeply disappointed when that pissy little gang of 14 rules over The Senate.

[ShortnFiery]

48. Bull! You are enabling the poor ones. I LOVE Democrats ...

However, as I stated before, with a few very notable exceptions, they are behaving like cowards. It's time to vote out some incumbents and get "The People's" type of Democrat in office.

I'm NOT disrespecting Democrats, only their present behavior is more telling that FAR TOO MANY value Re-Election over Courage and doing what's right for their constituents.

Yes, I'm disappointed and would like to see a number of incumbents get voted out in the primaries. Those old DLC "guilt trips" are falling on deaf ears now. ;)

[paulk]

57. don't wink at me

with your "dlc" insinuations. That's the usual sort of strawman you throw up on these threads.

You show your "love" for Democrats by trashing them at every opportunity.

That's what you do here on DU -

day after day after day after day

you're not fooling me.

[ShortnFiery]

58. Are you following me here? Not nice ; ) n/t

[stepnw1f]

77. yup....I don't Get It Either

though some criticism is very construstive. I notice the bashing as well... It's not constructive. And it divides us more.

[confludemocrat]

75. There were enough votes to filibuster but Dem opposition was limp

and this is the first fruit of the Dem leadership's and rank and files lack of fight. That was their job to go after Bush, they were placed on the front lines and they melted away, they deserve as much criticism on this as Bush, maybe more because we knew what to expect from that bastard, but truly I don't think we expected this cave from this once great party. And how is criticizing a lack of strength in adherence to Dem party principles "doing Karl Roves work"? What bullshit.

[Initech]

49. I decided I'm not voting for any INCUMBENTS.

Be it dem or repuke, I'm not voting for any of them. I'm with you - I'm sick of the dems in congress acting like cowards. I want them out. Each and every one of them. The CA primaries are next week, I'm not voting for Ahnuld. I'm not voting for any dem who's currently holding high office. I want them OUT.

[gaspee]

55. Me too

I made a post to that effect about a month ago (or maybe two now,) and got slammed for it.

Not one incumbant on any level. Local, state or federal.

It's A good thing my favorite Senator, Jack Reed, isn't up this time or I *might* have to break my pledge.

I'm telling anyone who will listen the same thing. Not one incumbant. It's got a lot of traction to it. People I talk to seem to like the idea.

[rodeodance]

70. it is exactly the 'slow creep' that is not recognizable--slow hits!

[DemoTex]

37. A seriously corrupt government will now become even more corrupt.

However, I have to believe that there will still be a few very brave individuals who will throw caution to the wind and expose criminally corrupt government behavior. The less protection afforded the whistle-blower, the more heroic that rare species will be when (and if) this country is ever fetched from the abyss into which Bu$hco has plunged us.

[The Doctor.]

74. We need a whistleblower super fund...

So that those who have lost their jobs can get help from grateful Americans.

[redqueen]

38. we are so fucked n/t

[rodeodance]

68. for many decades to come.

[onehandle]

39. Corporations are people too! nt

[AX10]

40. You can thank the GOD DAMN CRIMINAL GANG OF 14 for this one.

:argh:

[confludemocrat]

73. Correct

[humbled_opinion]

43. Why Now?

I'll tell you my assumption the king is getting ready to prosecute the would be whistleblower on the NSA Spying debacle. He needs the Court behind him like this.

[JohnWxy]

51. Pure fascist thinking: just follow orders - no responsibility

"controlling factor in this case, Justice Kennedy wrote, was that Mr. Ceballos was acting purely in an official capacity when he complained internally about the search warrant. "Ceballos wrote his disposition memo because that is part of what he was employed to do," Justice Kennedy wrote. "He did not act as a citizen by writing it."

Complete bullshit. You cease to be a citizen because you are an automaton when working for the government. This is perfect Nazi thinking. The direct road to institutionalized irresponsibility and government sanctioned depravity.

[Fovea]

53. I predict that instead of whistleblowing

that monkeywrenching will take its place.

[ecoalex]

63. Democrats suck the Robert court will reign for 30 years or more

All because of the bought off Dems.I don't think I will be voting if a DLC Dem is the candidate.I will vote 3rd party, at least I will have my voice heard, witht he DLC Dems running it all, silence is their stragety.

[Divine Discontent]

59. I'm sorry.....

you people thought you had freedoms left in Bush's country?

that's so 1990's...

and the dems that voted for Alito or against filibuster are in Republican leaning states and knew that to stay in they believed they had to vote that way... boy, love standing up for what you believe in, huh! I can't believe Byrd or Nelson think Alito is anything but a destroyer of rights and, still....



www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <----- CHECK THIS OUT! best in 06 & 08 and Anti-Bush Stickers/Shirts

[Marie26]

60. Great.

They've got all the bases covered now. No legal protection for gov. whistleblowers, and the NSA phone logs to find out just who those whistleblowers are. No more leaks about Bush Admin. policy. The press is essentially cut off from information.

[Supersedeas]

62. Scalito makes his first stain on the Constitution.

[warrens]

64. Form a whistleblower protection league

With the power of the Internet, we could easily raise enough money to keep someone fired for blowing the whistle going until they find a new job. Get corporations to pledge to hire them if they are fired unjustly, etc.

This would make an interesting poltical activism project.

[cascadiance]

66. We should help existing ones like the NSWBC

Probably should also help with non-security whistleblowers too, but security whistleblowers were people that were specifically left out of the recent "whistleblower protection" legislation that was passed recently. We need to have a paypal account set up so that we can donate money to them to help them more.

http://www.nswbc.org/

[rodeodance]

69. The five justices created a new distinction:

.......Dissenting in three separate opinions were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

"The notion that there is a categorical difference between speaking as a citizen and speaking in the course of one's employment is quite wrong," Justice Stevens wrote. He said the majority ruling could have the "perverse" effect of giving public employees an incentive to speak out publicly, as citizens, before talking frankly to their superiors.

And Justice Souter asserted that "private and public interests in addressing official wrongdoing and threats to public health and safety can outweigh the government's stake in the efficient implementation of policy, and when they do public employees who speak on these matters in the course of their duties should be eligible to claim First Amendment protection."

[confludemocrat]

71. As expected, a court to protect white male privilege and impunity

and as quoted here the ruling is essentially perverse

[FreeStateDemocrat]

72. NYT: Justices Set Limits on Public Employees' Speech Rights

By DAVID STOUT
Published: May 30, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 30 — The Supreme Court declared today, in a ruling affecting millions of government employees, that the Constitution does not always protect their free-speech rights for what they say on the job. (continued)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/washington/30cnd-scotus.html?hp&ex=1149048000&en=57d52201086729ae&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[ramapo]

76. Legislation to the rescue

Right?

Our brave Congress could right this wrong.

ha ha...silly me....

[cascadiance]

96. One more reason to tell voters come November to replace these bastards!

Get some new blood in and put in new legislation to protect our rights and codify it so that we can't have wingnut SCOTUS jurists MISinterpreting it or using the British court system derived "State Secrets" privilege to shut down such court cases (for those wingnut lurkers who feel we need justices that use AMERICAN laws to govern their opinions!)

[stepnw1f]

78. So Now the People Have no Legal Recourse

all that's left is.... wow. And people called me crazy a few years ago.

[MaineDem]

79. This means a "whistleblower" needs to go public

As a private citizen exercising first amendment rights there is protection. As a government employee "doing her/his job" there is none.

So this means they'll have to leak or talk to the press instead of trying to fix things internally.

Sounds weird to me.

[jgmiller]

104. Exactly

and now they'll even have a SC ruling to protect them. Look this guy made a mistake suing using the whistleblower law. He was unfairly demoted because he gave his private opinion, I'm sure there are any number of labor laws that he could have used to sue. I don't really have a big problem with the way the SC ruled in this case, it was a misapplication of the law.

[Rex]

81. Well dam if the SCOTUS ain't RW.

Gotta just eat away at that U.S. Constitution jus alittle nibble. Munch.

Keep it up SCOTUS - worst SCOTUS in American history!

[Dr Fate]

85. No thanks to the COWARD Democrats who refused to filibuster.

Thanks for nothing, colaborators.

I hope those "swingvoters" are still impressed.

[IndianaGreen]

93. Considering Alito's belief in the unitarian executive theory...

Considering Alito's belief in the unitarian executive theory, which is a rightwing belief that the President can act as dictator in times of war, should have been reason enough to filibuster this puke.

[madmark]

91. at this particular time in our history; chilling whistle blowers is not a

good idea.

[happyslug]

92. Here is the Decision: (Caution PDF Format)

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-473.pdf

[Triana]

94. This is EXACTLY why bu$hit appointed Alito...

...to COVER HIS (bu$h's) ASS. It's working.

[HuffleClaw]

95. well, they installed alito for a REASON

what a horror.

[superconnected]

97. Looks like it's going to be easier for the crooks to get away with it.

Bush's cabinet must be estatic.

Alito, you're doing a great job. Keep it up fundy! When you die, Satan will promote you.

[LibertyorDeath]

100. " Justice Samuel Alito cast the tie-breaking vote."

No Shit

Who would ever have guessed.

[oc2002]

102. Let us not forget the DEMOCRATS that helped make this happen!

These so called Democrats voted for cloture or against a philibuster.

THE LIST!

List of Democratic Senators that voted for CLoture/Alito

These senators turned their backs on us, we MUST do all we can to see they are all defeated, replaced, and run out of congress.

We must never forgive or forget come the next time they run for elections.

The message must be clear, there can be no support for these people.

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)

[FreeStateDemocrat]

108. Thanks, lest we forget who were the bastards working against our freedoms.

[lonestarnot]

103. Heil bushitler you m.f.r.

[goforit]

106. Hmmm.....mad enough yet?

Time to stand up yet?

[nolabels]

107. Sounds okay to me, 90% of the government establishment are crooks anyway

I would say quit the rat fucking place already.

No government accountability is a sure road for a mayhem to come. When you are at 29 to 19% and going lower, holding serve may really get to be a bitch.

[0007]

109. junior is getting all his ducks all lined up, 'eh?