Gotta love the US Supreme Court.

[theweaselking]

In a 5-4 ruling, with the religious illiterates voting in a bloc against the honest lawyers, USSC has ruled that it's okay for the government to punish employees who, as part of their job, take action by expressing opinions of which the government disapproves.

In the case itself, a DA was punished for pointing out that the defense appeared to be correct when they said they had grounds to dismiss charges, and recommending that the DA's office drop charges in the case.

That's right, government people. As of now in the USA, if you make an honest recommendation based on your knowledge of events and the law, and your employer doesn't like it, they have the right to punish you.

Comments

[elffin.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. However - I will tell you this:

Each side in a civil or criminal matter has taken a professional oath to abide by the law and a set of ethics. Both the law and that set of ethics requires them to act according to a very high standard, including acting in their client's best interests /at all times/ within the bounds of the law - not in the interests of any-one else - not the government, not the other side, not their own (they cannot consider their own benefit).

/Only/ their client, and they must act only of their client's benefit and wishes within the bounds of the law.

In this case, the DA was punished not for expressing an opinion with which someone disapproved - he was disciplined for failing to carry out his oath of office. It is a standard that I am personally and - if I were a lawyer, professionally - glad to see upheld.

It could be used to enforce - for example - having the attorney general of the united states do his job instead of, oh, draping a statue with a cloth.

[elffin.livejournal.com]

*cough* And in this case the DA was acting on behalf of the government and it was his duty to pursue the government's interests (prosecution, not dismissal) to the best of his abilities. He made the analysis that was requested of him but then stepped over the line by providing it to the defense and doing the defense's job for them.

It's the defenses' job to pursue their interests, not the DA's.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The government has a compelling interest in upholding the law and ensuring a fair trial to all accused. That means his job is to ensure that the law is followed - and if the police have broken the law (as, in his opinion, they did in this case) it is thus unethical for him to do anything BUT recommend dismissal of charges.

The government, after all, represents ALL CITIZENS, and the purpose of the DA's office is the protection of the rights of the innocent by prosecuting the guilty along legal lines to prove that they are guilty.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Then there is a serious problem with your system if this is the case. People should be required to do the right thing, not just follow orders, regardless of their jobs or their oaths.

[elffin.livejournal.com]

Ah! It is certainly his professional opinion that the police have broken the law. It is his personal opinion too. His job is to make the analysis and provide it to his superiors.

He recommended dismissal of the charges to his superiors. That's fine. It was not in his job description, duties, nor power to /effect/ that dismissal of charges. If his superiors cannot perform /their/ jobs properly, then there are channels by which he can file complaints for oversight, evaluation, and effect corrective action on his superiors. Handing work product to the defense, and doing the defense's job for them, is clearly unethical. He has to respect and trust the division of responsibility and duties that is present in the judicial system - he was reaching for the power and duties of not only his superiors, but also the defense, and the court itself; The separation exists to ensure that justice is done, and not a miscarriage.

I can guess as to some of the dissenting opinions - which I am about to go read - that such a decision allows the government to punish whistleblowers. It is not a step over that line - It is a step right up to that line with a toe over, which distresses me. Such a ruling allows the government to dismiss First Amendment pleadings for government insider whistleblowers, especially ones who have taken an oath of secrecy, or one that specifically disallows the speech even in their personal lives. This is why I refuse to consider government service - I despise the "National Security" oath and excuse because it allows private men in public office to hide their private abuses of public office. I think the oaths ought to be changed. I don't rightly understand how to better them.