PDA

View Full Version : Supreme court sides with Government whistleblower



Bob
01-23-2015, 05:28 PM
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_us_supreme_court_rejects_government_effort _to_crack_down_on_whistle

On The Front LinesVICTORY: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Government Effort to Crack Down on Whistleblowers, Sides with Air Marshal Concerned About Public Safety
January 21, 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C. —In a 7-2 ruling in Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the federal government’s attempts to eviscerate protections for employee speech under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). In upholding a federal air marshal’s claim that he was improperly fired by the Transportation Security Administration after he leaked to the media a plan by the TSA to remove air marshals from long distance flights as a cost-savings measure, the justices affirmed a lower court ruling that federal agencies may not issue regulations that remove the protections of the WPA for certain information, requiring exemptions be specifically approved by Congress.

for full article, study link

Common
01-23-2015, 08:09 PM
Whistleblowers can be a very good thing, as long as its whistleblowing and not treason or some other prostituted form of whistleblowing.

Whistleblowing is what this thread is about and that air marshall bringing forth a situation that is dangerous to many.

Brett Nortje
01-24-2015, 08:45 AM
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_us_supreme_court_rejects_government_effort _to_crack_down_on_whistle

On The Front Lines

VICTORY: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Government Effort to Crack Down on Whistleblowers, Sides with Air Marshal Concerned About Public Safety


January 21, 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C. —In a 7-2 ruling in Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the federal government’s attempts to eviscerate protections for employee speech under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). In upholding a federal air marshal’s claim that he was improperly fired by the Transportation Security Administration after he leaked to the media a plan by the TSA to remove air marshals from long distance flights as a cost-savings measure, the justices affirmed a lower court ruling that federal agencies may not issue regulations that remove the protections of the WPA for certain information, requiring exemptions be specifically approved by Congress.

for full article, study link

If the courts rule that there should be a right for a person, and on the other hand the rights may be abused, then the rights need to be made more clearly, with less words i would say.

So, the actual case is in my sights at the moment. if the safety of passengers comes second, and the safety might be to ensure that 'nobody gets the hiccups,' then that is trivial and might be overlooked. in telling the media that there might be hiccups, this is trivial, but, when signed that there would be no such media discussion, then that is the right to employ who they want to employ.

Now, if he is lucky, they will not press charges for breaking of contract. the damage from his side is done, so there is 'no way back' for the company. i do not see how firing this guy will do any good.

If there is a contract that is signed, and it is broken, then nobody has the right to get paid. if the unions were to step in, would that make him the right to get paid? there is nothing in the constitution about this, nor in any law, and there is a familiar law called right of admission reserved. if he works for that branch, then he may not change the ways they do business unless it actually harms him in some manner.