I Can No Longer Support This Administration . .

[FairWinds]

Obama pledged to protect whistle blowers, and now argues that they can be fired if they don't commit perjury or refuse to testify.

Ordinarily I do not cross-post, but this is too important.

Here is a must-read from Kevin Gosztola at Firedoglake.

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2014/04/28/obama-administration-argues-in-favor-of-right-to-fire-public-employees-who-testify-at-corruption-trials/

This is a stunningly awful action by the Obama administration.

[HooptieWagon]

1. Threatening to fire them unless they commit perjury or refuse to testify?

Isn't that witness-tampering? Obstruction of justice?

[Capt. Obvious]

2. There's a potential Donkey Kong kill screen coming up

if you're interested

[Octafish]

3. My Constitutional Scholar President has incarcerated the people who exposed war crimes.

Kiriakou. Manning. Snowden (if and when caught).

Why?

[snooper2]

4. firedog LOL, haven't seen that linked here in a while

Is it primary time again

[rhett o rick]

8. Nothing about the issue? Just ad hominem attacks. Hmmm. Getting desperate?

And of course the signature of ridicule.

[snooper2]

13. I'm married, don't have to get desperate anymore LOL

And no, not paying attention to the drivel at firedoggy...more important things to do like post

that I love so much!


Now on to more important things, like Siri in the grocery store

&list=UUv9rbAUUpoW0k8MP2R4UEJA

[cprise]

165. Then someone must be in the doghouse.

You know what they say, troll online = troll in real life.

[Raksha]

51. So predictable.

[cprise]

169. * Newcomers to this topic - see the ACLU position here *

From the linked OP:

What the American Civil Liberties Union argued in its amicus brief submitted clearly outlines how this position by the Obama administration discourages individuals from coming forward to testify in public corruption trials.

ACLU (emphasis mine):

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Amici agree with petitioner that the First
Amendment prohibits the government from firing an
employee because he testified in response to a
subpoena at a federal public corruption trial.

The protection for compelled testimony, however, is less a
defined category than an illustration of a larger point.
The First Amendment protects all sworn statements
by public employees as part of judicial proceedings—
whether compelled by a subpoena or voluntary.
Distinguishing voluntary and compelled testimony
would disrupt the orderly operation of the American
judicial system and deter witnesses from coming
forward. It would also conflict with an unbroken,
centuries-long common-law tradition immunizing all
witnesses who give testimony under oath as part of
judicial proceedings. Affidavits and other voluntary
statements by public employees should therefore
receive the same First Amendment protection as
subpoenaed testimony.

...and...

To be sure, certain public employees (say FBI
agents, lab technicians, or agency representatives
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)) may in some situations
testify at the request or command of their employer
and on behalf of their employer. Once the employee
takes the stand, however, he is acting not only as an
employee, but also as a citizen. He has a legal duty as
a citizen—owed to the court and independent of his
duty to his employer—to answer truthfully every
question the court finds relevant. It would be
dangerous indeed, and contrary to public policy, to
permit his employer to then fire him for giving a
truthful response. In fact, if anything, the public
has an especially strong interest in according
protection to witnesses who regularly testify on behalf
of the government. Juries give great weight to the
testimony of such witnesses, yet the witnesses are at
the same time at unique risk of reprisal for giving
truthful testimony that is adverse to the government’s
interests. “A forensic analyst responding to a request
from . . . law enforcement,” for example, “may feel
pressure—or have an incentive—to alter the evidence
in a manner favorable to the prosecution.”
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 318 (2009).

That is not to say that the government would have
no recourse if, say, its witness “testif[ied] poorly,”
Burrow Br. 24, or inappropriately revealed
confidential, irrelevant information on the stand. The
government would be free to argue as part of the
Pickering balancing inquiry that the employee’s
testimony had interfered with government operations
to an extent that justified discharge, notwithstanding
the substantial public interest in truthful testimony.
But such arguments are not relevant to whether the
witness spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern
in the first place.

Read the rest here:
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/no_13-483_tsacamericancivillibertiesunion.pdf

[gcomeau]

176. It was covered elsewhere...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024888443

In short, FDL has no fucking idea what they're talking about on this case.

[Tarheel_Dem]

11. Or, as I like to call it, NorquistDogLake! Yup. No agenda there.

[rhett o rick]

15. Another substance-less ridicule post apparently aimed at being divisive. nm

[11 Bravo]

19. Whereas your post was designed to bring us all together by stating ...

on a Democratic (look, it's right there in the name) message board that you can no longer support a Democratic President or his Democratic administration.
Man, you are just one unifying son-of-a-gun (not at all like those mean old divisive folks)!

[randome]

20. Bravo, 11 Bravo!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. Speak on it, Bravo! There's a faction here who very deliberately run counter to the mission of.....

of this board.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Mojorabbit]

56. + a gazillion. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

57. I'm sorry, but you speak in cliches far too much for me. You're not interesting, and your "rhetoric"

sounds forced. It's almost like you pick up on the latest soundbite or buzzword from the interwebs, and you're off on a tangent. Regurgitating an Occupy manifesto, at this point, is moot. This sounds like something you absolutely need to hear.

[Number23]

93. How dare you speak out against those fighting for truth and liberty??1!one

Sweet Lord in Heaven...

[Tarheel_Dem]

104. That's just what we "authoritarians" do.

[zappaman]

106. !!!

[TBF]

107. Personal attacks make DU suck -

and you seem to engage in them on a regular basis. Do you think that reflects well on the men in your avatar? Do you think it makes people think "wow, I really want to vote for democrats when this staunch democrat Tarheel_Dem attacks me"?

Maybe rethink the attack dog persona. I don't think it's working for you - unless your real goal is to drive people away from the party??

Hmmmmm ....

[Tarheel_Dem]

108. Shouldn't you be posting NeoCon drivel in the Socialists Forum?

[TBF]

109. I post a wide variety of substantive stories -

while you perform your watchdog "duties". Today I posted a story about possible solutions to overwork and unemployment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10244510

[Tarheel_Dem]

111. Lots of things have "substance", but I won't get into that here. And I'll pass on your link.

[TBF]

112. I didn't post the link for you -

after all I don't even know if you can access it.

I posted it for others who may want to read and contribute in our group. I also posted about Piketty’s “Capital" today - I'd like to hear what others have to say about it because my copy is still on back-order. Here is that link also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10244512 for interested readers.

[Tarheel_Dem]

114. You posted the stupid link in response to me. As far as "access"? If it's the Socialists nuts from

wsws, who sound a lot like the NeoCons of yesteryear, then I'm glad I'm blocked. And to make sure I never have to read the silly headlines from that group, I went ahead and trashed it. Besides, if you're randomly posting links to the group in completely unrelated threads, then that speaks volumes.

[TBF]

115. I believe that's only 3 insults in one post -

you're slipping. I know you can do better than that!

[Tarheel_Dem]

116. WSWS!

[sabrina 1]

187. Thanks for posting a link to something worth reading, TBF. It is shameful that this administration

would argue against the protection of Whistle Blowers, period. No matter how many attempts there may be to derail discussions about the issue, it still remains SHAMEFUL.

I have read the article in the OP, written btw by a writer whose credibility has been established on these issues, the article is well linked to the transcript of the arguments before the SC and anyone who engaged in attacking the messenger hoping to divert attention from cannot be ignored, will simply fail to do so. This is a very big issue now in this country and it isn't going to disappear because a few people would like that happen.

I will check out your links, it is always good to find real discussion of actual issues so again, thanks for the links.

[chervilant]

159. Meh...

Time to put you back on my IL...

(OTHER DUers find your verbal bullying tiresome. Please don't waste time replying--I assure you I won't see it.)

[Tarheel_Dem]

174. If I gave a fuck what "OTHER DUers" thought, I'd be a fulltime basher like they are. Oh & "Please..

don't waste time....blah...blah...blah....


Go on, you know you want to look.

[Sheepshank]

137. yup

the rhetoric is old and well used and meaningless.

[Tarheel_Dem]

142. Regurgitated Occupy tp's, are like eating last week's un-refrigerated collard greens, at this point.

[1StrongBlackMan]

178. The reference will be missed. eom.

[Tarheel_Dem]

179. You're probably right.

[1StrongBlackMan]

182. Probably should've used "Milk!" eom.

[Tarheel_Dem]

185. I forgot where I was for a moment.

[WillyT]

58. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!!

[Supersedeas]

128. the politics of personality again (dog whistle)

[KittyWampus]

136. No, it's Ideologues v. Pragmatists. Pragmatists speak about issues AND how to actually

implement them.

Because we are fact based.

[sabrina 1]

188. Are you saying that people who care about Social Justice should be treated with derision?

And if so, when did the Left decide that issues that have always been defended by Liberals, are now to be ignored because of, that far and away most overused, and least understood, word, 'pragmatism'? I do recall Liberals being referred to as 'idealogues' and the 'reality based community' talking point being tossed around, without much credibility, but that was not coming from the Left. So when did we decide that standing up for Civil Rights should be viewed as 'not pragmatic'. Actually I believe it is extremely pragmatic to stand up for people's rights.

Could you explain how opposing standing up for Civil Rights is not 'fact based'?

[rhett o rick]

47. I dont suppose you can back that up with a quote?

I will state that I do not support this Administration's attitude toward whistle-blowers. I guess supporting truth to power is a lefty kinda thing.

Do you support this Administration's treatment of whistle-blowers? Or would you choose not to commit yourselves.

[Cha]

74. Bravo Bravo!

[MADem]

78. Tell it LIKE IT IS! Great post!

[JEB]

86. I thought Democrats were supposed to support

and protect whistle blowers. You know, for the good of the nation.

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. Does that make me "Authoritarian"?

[rhett o rick]

55. Yes but you cant help it. nm

[sabrina 1]

60. This is a very important issue which is why you are seeing the ad homs attempting to distract people

from it. As I said below, these now familiar tactics are doing the exact opposite. People use them as a sign that something very important is being discussed and actually pay MORE, not LESS attention to the issue they are desperately trying to distract from.

The fact that even Roberts saw the insanity of what they are trying to do while there are people here actually willing to allow this country to go so far off the rails is remarkable.

[rhett o rick]

71. Yes and in my weakness I fall for their distraction, but I'm working on it.

IMO those that dont discuss issues and only inject ridicule and ad hom's, meet the definition of troll. Certainly not politically liberal. Just my opinion.

Keep Frosty

[sabrina 1]

21. You haven't seen a lot here in while due to the fact that actual, extremely important issues are now

discussed elsewhere. Your ad hom is one of the main reasons why so many now find other venues more conducive to discussing ISSUES. Amazing you just noticed.

Did you think people stop reading and watching media simply because of ad homs directed at anyone, including some of the most credible investigative reporters once viewed as such here? The general concensus is, if you have something very important to discuss, do it where there is intelligent discussion about it.

I would ask for your opinion of the issue raised in the OP, but I think that is best discussed elsewhere.

All that has happened fyi, is people simply leave venues when the 'dialogue' reaches the three-year-level. I suppose that might give the impression that the use of the little laughing guy has succeeded in changing minds?? Is that possible?

[1000words]

22. Madam ...

[snooper2]

24. mkay, um, sure, if you say so...

If folks want to discuss "freedom fighters" in Ukraine fighting the "nazis" in Kiev, radioactive fish off the west coast, chem trails over North Dakota and the "fact" that the President is really a republican corporate sellout they can stay on

Firedoggytruthy and Oplosernews where other "like minded individuals" hang out LOL


Thanks! Awesome!

[sabrina 1]

61. Like I said, you wouldn't know. And yes I do say so. I thought that was obvious.

'Folks' as I pointed out WILL discuss whatever they wish to discuss regardless of any attempt to prevent them. It's a big world, a big internet and some of it is free of childish garbage whenever a serious issues arises.

Sorry you didn't know that, you might have learned that in the Real World outside relatively obscure forums, adults read, discuss and watch whatever and whenever they choose and for the most part move on from internet forums where important issues are replaced by childish attempts to prevent that.

I say childish, an insult to children actually, moronic might be a better description, because people do not have TIME for such obvious attempts to derail important discussions about important issues.

Clearly you had no idea, which is not surprising at all to be honest.

Thanks for demonstrating so clearly what I was saying.

Now back to reading the Firedoglake article and any other I can find related to this most important issue.

[snooper2]

84. the .0023% will discuss anything, including moon bombings

FYI

[warrprayer]

135. ....

[madfloridian]

26. Amen!

Important policies are being discussed elsewhere.

[pintobean]

29. With 2400 posts in the last 90 days

you must be discussing something on DU. I guess it's just not important stuff.

[Tarheel_Dem]

30. Good catch!!!

[SidDithers]

50. And boom goes the dynamite...nt

Sid

[demosincebirth]

59. Suffering from lack of sleep. nt.

[sabrina 1]

65. Was that supposed to mean something? I don't believe I included myself in my statement. So what is

your point?

I will repeat, people are fleeing this forum for others due to the fact they don't want to wade through the nonsensical ad homs, drive by posts, got tired of this guy taking the place of discussion and are engaged in places where they don't have to waste their time with what they view as just that, a waste of time.

I otoh, view it all as a fun game now, certainly I don't take it seriously anymore, and just enjoy the fun of it all. For serious discussion I too go elsewhere.

thanks for playing btw!

[pintobean]

66. It just seems so familiar.

Kinda crunchy.

[Number23]

89. Wait... that can't POSSIBLY be right. 2400 as in 2 THOUSAND posts in 90 days??! No effing way

[Sheepshank]

141. All prolific important shit

every single one of them very important, just ask her...and extra curricular reading to boot!!!!

[pintobean]

158. I've seen people post the same thing

over and over in a thread, 20 or so posts peppered throughout the thread, then claim a consensus. Each post counts as a different person, you see. Post counts can skyrocket with tactics like that.
It's amazing how stupid some people think DUers are.

[Sheepshank]

140. I have it on good authority, your assessment of why people are leaving for other venues

is completely skewed.

But then that would be par for the course....selling misinformation.

[sabrina 1]

152. Are we discussing something serious here that affects this country? No, we are not. Thanks for

proving my point.

Btw, what issue was this OP about? Lol!

I think I, well no, not I, you among a few others, have clearly made my point, let's not talk the issue raised, let's point 'over there' and hopefully no one will notice there are some serious problems that are being addressed here.

See what I mean?

But the issues ARE being discussed, just not here. As I said.

[Sheepshank]

155. your pious wonderfulness isn't working n/t

[sabrina 1]

161. There was an issue raised in the OP and here you are talking about ME. And that

totally proves my point and explains why people are going elsewhere to discuss ISSUES.


The issue which is the topic of the OP IS being discussed, just not HERE. So all the attempts to derail the discussion 'OMG, it's the Firebaggrs' blah, blah, won't stop the discussion. It will simply take place elsewhere. If YOU would rather talk about ME, well, I'm flattered I suppose, but most people are going to talk about the issue raised in th OP elsewhere.

So again, thank YOU for making the point for me. Now I'm off to discuss this issue where people are not especially interested in talking about ME, but ARE very, very interested in the issue raised in the OP.

[Sheepshank]

170. actaully you were talking about you...and you talk about your heroic attitudes all the time.

you make sure to state what you think the OP all about, how important you think it is, how you are off to read more on the subject, how you don't do this or how you do that.....you talk about you all the time.

[sabrina 1]

186. So many pronouns in that comment. Someone once said to watch for how many personal pronouns

are used in any discussion. 'You', 'me' 'I' etc. It is a good guide to what people find important.

General statements based on facts, such as 'people are going elsewhere to discuss real issues' is a fact. Maybe not a convenient fact but a fact nevertheless.

It isn't MY opinion, it is a fact.

[leftyohiolib]

5. define support

[Godhumor]

6. FDL? Seriously?

They're in my book with WSWS and Opednews as being the left version of the supermarket tabloid.

[sabrina 1]

23. Well, you're free to ignore issues if you wish, thankfully most people are not. I notice

you didn't address the issue at all. I will now go read the OP and decide if the issue is as important as it seems just from a cursory glance and mainly because of the ad homs which generally means, 'someone is trying to distract from the issue', making it all the more important to go read about it. Thanks for the cue, I have come to the point of reading a thread, watching for responses attacking the messenger, causing me to decide this must be an important issue if the now more than familiar attempts to distract from it are apparent in the thread. They are, therefore it's time to pay attention to the issue.

Thanks for the help, it saves so much time to be honest.

[Godhumor]

38. oh good, do you understand the case had nothing to do with whistleblowing

And all to do with the extent of the Pickering Balance Test established in Pickering v Board of Education.

[cprise]

166. That is a lie. SCOTUS specifically called out secrecy and corruption.

A person who goes against bosses' orders to divulge illegal activity is by definition a whistleblower.

And, if I must spell it out for you, abetting fraud is illegal.

You should read the article and the ACLU's position on the case.

[madfloridian]

25. Whenever a website is critical of Obama in any way...they are demeaned here at DU.

There are a lot of good posters at FDL....there are good posters at many sites that are critical of this administration's policies.

Trust me many of us know what happens if we disagree on policy.

[Godhumor]

36. Nothing to do with being critical of Obama, everything to do with FDL having no integrity

Journalistic or editorially.

[woo me with science]

39. BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

War is Peace!

[sabrina 1]

64. Censorship doesn't work, no matter how hard people try to denigrate sources that simply won't

go along with holding back facts that are inconvenient. FDL has some excellent writers, particularly the one who wrote this article. All the ad homs in the world aren't going to change that. We've now seen nearly EVERY respected journalist who deals with facts, slammed here on DU. As a result all people do is 'yawn' when they see it over and over again, having lost credibility entirely by slamming close to all respected journalists. At some point, a tactic loses any impact, at which time most smart people abandon it.

[alarimer]

68. There's hardly any more room under the bus for them all.

I can't figure out who is acceptable to read and who isn't anymore.

Greenwald is out, Will Pitt is out too apparently, as is Matt Taibbi, and all of Firedoglake.

What about David Sirota, Amy Goodman, Chris Hedges, Daily Kos? I'm not sure if they're on the acceptable list or not. I'd better check: I wouldn't want to fall out of lockstep.

[sabrina 1]

101. Well, I've repeatedly asked for 'credible sources' because we all know that the Corporate Media

cannot be considered credible. But so far I only got one source from one DUer, which was I believe, a local Dallas source.

It's at the point now that if a journalist is attacked, THAT is who you want to read considering the long, long list we now have.

[arely staircase]

7. I will alert the media. nt

[riqster]

134. Thank you, Hobson.

[corkhead]

9. funny how many immediately resort to attempting to discredit the source

rather than argue the facts

[Maedhros]

31. I've decided that anyone who uses the term "firebagger" is completlely intellectually dishonest

and not deserving the respect of being acknowledged.

[MisterP]

40. Honduras's "Liberals" tried to pull this in 1989: "don't vote for the other party or the death

squads and 'Civil Defense Committees' will be back!"

ye'll never guess which party created both ...

[Maedhros]

43. Non sequitur post is non sequitur.

Huh?

[MisterP]

44. ahhh--but it's like the ones who call others "leftist Teabaggers":

the Reagan Democrats--who constantly say anyone to the left of Francisco Franco is "acting like a Republican," or who say that moving left will let the Republicans in--are themselves for Republican policies; their use of "firebagger" exposes not only their total hypocrisy but their utter bankruptcy!

[woo me with science]

46. Trying to make the thread go sideways and divert from the point.

You're right. Best response is to ignore the baiting propaganda crew. They serve merely as omnipresent reminders of how corrupt political messaging has become in this country, and how important it is to keep talking to each other (rather than to them) and organizing against the utter corruption they represent.

[Maedhros]

53. I try to keep my eye on the policies and not get caught up in the personalities.

We constantly ask how the Republican rank-and-file can be so easily tricked or coerced into voting against their own best interests. The answer is that the Party bombards them with propaganda convincing them that the Other Side is evil and hell-bent on destroying American Values (tm).

It is naive to think that the Democratic rank-and-file is not also voting against its own best interests, and is not also being subjected to Party propaganda convincing us that the Other side is evil (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain).

[Cha]

73. If the source is known shite then it's only logical to point it out.

[corkhead]

83. I guess I didn't get the memo

Not one post in this entire thread says WHY FDL is discredited, just that it is, that I shouldn't question that, and that ANYTHING that comes from that source is invalid. Still no comment on the actual content of the OP.

[HangOnKids]

117. There will be no content

Only pictures of the Obama's wearing groovy gowns and tuxes, and pictures of their dog, and pictures of their children. Sort of like PEOPLE magazine crap.

[Sheepshank]

146. FDL has been in the shit house for years

disregarding their journalistic idiocy is nothing new (and certainly not new just for the purposes of this article). They've earned their shit-house reputation over the course of many years.

[Marr]

162. Yeah, look at how little the topic is discussed up-thread.

Not at all by the interference crew, of course. Not so much as a peep. Just lots of noise, lots of distraction.

[L0oniX]

173. Attacking the messenger is common here ...Snowden, Greenwald, etc.

[corkhead]

180. not to mention Matt Taibi

since he has started talking about the lack of prosecutions in the banking industry.

What's that tell you about the credibility all of the purveyors of childish bluster, distraction, and name calling in this thread.

[el_bryanto]

10. This is a troubling case

I gather the argument is that if they were speaking as a citizen they have free speech protections, but if they are speaking as an employee they represent that branch of the government that they are working for and therefor don't get free speech protections. They are judged on how well they represented the opinion of the government that they work for. It's somewhat like a lawyer who thinks his client is guilty; he's not in a position where he can testify to that, he still has to represent his clients wishes (or recuse himself from the case; in either case he can't testify)).

That said, it does put Mr. Lane in an untenable position, something even Roberts seemed to acknowledge.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appeared sympathetic to Mr. Lane. “What is he supposed to do?” he asked Mark T. Waggoner, a lawyer for Mr. Franks. If Mr. Lane testified truthfully, the chief justice said, he could be fired. If he lied or failed to appear, he could be punished.

Mr. Waggoner said that he “would never suggest that anybody not comply with a subpoena, comply with an investigation or testify truthfully.”

The chief justice responded, “But you are suggesting he can be fired if he does it.”

From the NY Times article on this story.

Problematic all the way around; I hope Lane wins but it seems like a hard get.

Bryant

[KoKo]

12. Recommend..

[FairWinds]

14. If you support an administration's actions, yet

criticize another administration for doing the same thing . .
you might be a partisan hack.

[rhett o rick]

32. .

[Marr]

164. +1

[NYC Liberal]

16. Virtual unrec for FDL.

[1000words]

17. Can't say as I blame you.

I gave up on it a long time ago.

[SidDithers]

18. ...

Gosztola? Isn't he the guy who misrepresented himself to Jamie Kirchick as working for FirstLook?

Sid

[liberal N proud]

27. I guess it is a good thing it does not need your support for 2 1/2 years

But you might want to consider throwing your support behind getting Democrats elected or you will have more to be outraged at.

[Hoyt]

33. From the NYT article, it appears the Feds are supporting protecting Lane,

but not his suing for damages against a school official.

But, what the heck, it's confusing enough that it must be Obama's fault.

[Sheepshank]

144. really...you read it?

not sure others have......so yeah confusion = blame Obama for good measure.

[Hoyt]

148. It amazes me. And we wonder why this world is so screwed up. Even Dems don't seek truth.

I get what the GOP yahoos do to our country and world, but I'm really disappointed in some of the junk from people who should know better. I get this was a confusing issue, but people need to stop taking the easy way out on things like this. My soapbox for the day.

[oneofthe99]

35. So is this confirmed? I don't care what the hell the site or source you posted is..

I would like to know if it's true ?

If it is .....shame on Obama

[1StrongBlackMan]

181. Read the Brief ...

I think you will find Post #33, closer to what the Brief actually argued, than most of the other posts.

[madfloridian]

37. From NPR unless they are under the bus also.

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/28/307766312/free-speech-in-focus-during-high-courts-case-on-public-employee

A majority of the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court seemed disconcerted Monday by the consequences of one of the court's own rulings on the free speech rights of public employees.

Eight years ago, the conservative court majority, by a 5-4 vote, said public employees have no First Amendment protection for speech "pursuant to his official responsibilities." But Monday, in a case involving subpoenaed testimony in a criminal case, the court seemed headed in a different direction.

The case was brought by Edward Lane, an Alabama official who was fired after he testified truthfully that a state legislator was a ghost employee being paid by the taxpayers for no work.

[Godhumor]

41. And much, much better than FDL

On edit: I misidentified the lawyer speaking.

[chervilant]

189. It seems that

anyone who doesn't "worship" appropriately is under the bus...

[Springslips]

42. Some on this board make me do facepalms

I disagree with the Administration's view, but their view isn't that troubling:

" The Justice Department imagines that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Lane they will not be able to judge or evaluate the performance of employees because those employees could claim their First Amendment rights were violated. But there is something called the “Pickering balance,” which would still remain in effect making it possible to fire an employee if he or she was incompetent, disorderly or displayed poor judgment when testifying."

This is not enough to take away support; the OP is either unreasonable, or a paid right wing troll bent on dividing us.

[Egnever]

52. FDL

Pretty much says it all

[woo me with science]

45. Consistent with the rest of the record of this administration,

which includes targeting journalists and whistleblowers, intimidating the free press, turning our internet over to corporate interests, militarizing our police, brutally targeting protesters, and using our own intelligence agencies to establish a surveillance state and propaganda machine targeted at Americans.

That propaganda machine is active right here at DU...hence, the utterly predictable, stale, and juvenile attempts to disrupt and derail the thread above. Remember, the goal isn't to convince anyone of anything. It is to make us spin our wheels arguing with nonsense and drain the board through sheer weariness. Protests are dispersed with pepper spray at Occupy rallies, and with idiocy online.

And all this is to protect and attempt to shut down discussion about and organization against the relentlessly corporate direction of this administration...which, by the way, is not nearly finished with us yet.

The TPP is on the horizon. And we are losing the internet as a tool for change.

And the next administration will be similarly purchased and controlled by corporate interests...millions more of us will be driven deeper into poverty and desperation...unless we mobilize now for the fight of our lives.

[sabrina 1]

62. Yes, that 'propaganda machine is active on DU', and do you know what has been the result

of those efforts, people become even MORE interested in what it is they are working so hard to distract from.

If I, eg, had not seen the juvenile posts here attacking the source, much as the US Govt attacks messengers, I would not have been so aware of this issue. But knowing someone desperately wants to distract from something, generally has the opposite effect, especially here on DU where we have come to recognize the signals to try to force people to 'look the other way'. You'd think by now they would have learned what a failure this ridiculous tactic has been. But, there is no accounting for what causes people to continue to engage in failure.

[Godhumor]

72. You realize the government is not arguing the case, right?

It is the community college that fired Lane that is involved. The entirety of the government involvement is an amicus curiae outlining how Pickering is defined and used.

But please feel free to call that propaganda while ignoring who the actual parties in the case are.

[Egnever]

79. Well no dirtbag lake didnt mention that

They just told us to be angry so we are! Screw you for inserting facts into our outrage!

[Divernan]

97. The Justice Department in fact argued the case before the USSC.

The Justice Department DID brief & argue the case in the USSC

Not only did the Justice Department file an amicus brief, but it petitioned for and was granted special permission to participate in oral argument.

Mar 10 2014 Brief amicus curiae of United States supporting affirmance in part and reversal in part filed.
Apr 8 2014 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for allocation of argument time filed.
Apr 18 2014 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for allocation of argument time GRANTED.
Apr 28 2014 Argued. For petitioner: Tejinder Singh, Washington, D. C.; and Ian H. Gershengorn, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent Burrow: Luther J. Strange, III, Attorney General, Montgomery, Ala. For respondent Franks: Mark T. Waggoner, Birmingham, Ala.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lane-v-franks/

Pray, kind sir or madam, do enlighten us all as to where you got your totally false information. Surely you must have a source and would not have made that claim up out of whole cloth! We all await your embarassed apology with baited breath.

[DiverDave]

102. huh? yeah they did

read the bloody stories, if anyone suspects a source, look at the others.
pretty simple really except, of course, if you have an agenda...

[corkhead]

67. Zactly

[Godhumor]

48. You realize that the government is not arguing the case but asking to keep the balance test intact

Government is not arguing the case itself.

[Divernan]

96. The Justice Department DID brief & argue the case in the USSC

Not only did the Justice Department file an amicus brief, but it petitioned for and was granted special permission to participate in oral argument.

Mar 10 2014 Brief amicus curiae of United States supporting affirmance in part and reversal in part filed.
Apr 8 2014 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for allocation of argument time filed.
Apr 18 2014 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for allocation of argument time GRANTED.
Apr 28 2014 Argued. For petitioner: Tejinder Singh, Washington, D. C.; and Ian H. Gershengorn, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent Burrow: Luther J. Strange, III, Attorney General, Montgomery, Ala. For respondent Franks: Mark T. Waggoner, Birmingham, Ala.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lane-v-franks/

Pray, kind sir or madam, do enlighten us all as to where you got your totally false information. Surely you must have a source and would not have made that claim up out of whole cloth! We all await your embarassed apology with baited breath.

[WillyT]

49. Here's The ACLU's Brief On The Case:

Link (.pdf file): https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/no_13-483_tsacamericancivillibertiesunion.pdf

[DCBob]

63. Well then dont vote for him in 2016.

[stevenleser]

69. Gostzola's agenda routinely overwhelms his command of the facts.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/12/defending-putin-s-propagandists.html

[freshwest]

91. All ties together. Thanks for the link. n/t

[BainsBane]

75. Scotusblog is a more reliable source on Supreme Court arguments

largely because they engage with the laws at issue rather than being interested in grinding a political ax of some kind.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/argument-analysis-how-wrong-was-the-eleventh-circuit-about-the-first-amendment-protections-for-a-public-employees-subpoenaed-testimony/

While Lane seems a stellar employee, as the Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange all but admitted, there were concerns about other employees who might be protected by a bright-line rule protecting testimony. What if the employee is a lab technician who testifies as part of his job duties? Can the employer discipline him if the employee cannot perform this part of his job? Or if, as Justice Sotomayor asked, the employee “comes to court dressed in a clown suit”? Should the subpoena be the deciding factor? Arguing for Edward Lane, Tejinder Singh suggested a narrow holding that essentially reasserted Garcetti v. Ceballos and Pickering v. Board of Education, subject only to the clarification that even when a public employee’s testimony “describes facts that the employee learned in the course of his employment, it’s still protected.” Singh did articulate the “strong version of the First Amendment” rule that would protect testimony based on a “separate and superior obligation to testify truthfully to the court,” but he made clear he did not advocate its adoption. Deputy Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn, appearing on behalf of the federal government as an amicus, argued that such a broad rule would intrude on the government’s ability to supervise its own employees, especially those who testified as part of their employment.

Importantly, the balancing required by Pickering includes weighing the government employer’s interest, even if it is citizen speech on a matter of public concern. The lower courts had stopped short of this balancing because they considered Lane’s testimony to be in the course of his employment. But in the argument, this final balancing requirement surfaced several times. Singh used it as the answer to the “clown costume” hypothetical. Gershengorn seemed less satisfied by Pickering balancing as a solution, even when pressed by Justices Kagan, Kennedy, and Sotomayor.

Full coverage of the case: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lane-v-franks/

[darkangel218]

76. Sorry you dont support PBO ( anymore)

I do.

[Divernan]

77. Justices Sotomeyer & Roberts challenged O's Justice Dept. in oral argument.

This is an excellent article, with extensive quotes from CJ Roberts as well as Sotmayer, indicating the Justice Dept. has taken a very untenable (I would even say, blindingly stupid) position on this matter. In other words, it showed very poor legal acumen/judgement on the part of Obama/Holder to pursue this action. Obama is so hell-bent on punishing whistle blowers that he ordered the Justice Department to ignore the law and legal principles which he and Holder should have known will govern the case. Can you say blinded by revenge? Or perhaps terrified about what might be revealed of their own inner machinations?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “What are you doing about the truth finding functions of a trial setting when you’re saying or telling people, employee, don’t go and tell the truth because if the truth hurts your employer you’re going to be fired?” And, “What kind of message are we giving when we’re telling employees, [who are] subpoenaed [for] any reason in a trial, go and tell a falsehood otherwise you can be fired?”

Chief Justice Roberts:
Roberts said, “Well, what is he supposed to do? I mean, he gets a subpoena, and the other side or somebody, this independent counsel, says, you know, what’s going on? What do you know about, you know, from your job responsibilities? What happened or did you—is this person taking money? Is this person showing up? What’s he supposed to do?”

“He says, gosh, if I answer, I’m going to lose my job or could, and if I don’t or answer falsely—the Fifth Amendment protects him from incriminating himself. It doesn’t protect the department he works for from being incriminated.”

“We would never suggest that anybody not comply with a subpoena, comply with an investigation, or testify truthfully,” Waggoner claimed. And Roberts replied, “But you are suggesting he can be fired if he does it.”

From the ACLU's amicus brief:

What the American Civil Liberties Union argued in its amicus brief submitted clearly outlines how this position by the Obama administration discourages individuals from coming forward to testify in public corruption trials.

“A public official who has information that is relevant to an ongoing public corruption investigation may come forward and speak to the FBI if she can be confident that the government will later compel her testimony under subpoena, so as to insulate her from retaliatory action. But far more likely, uncertainty in the law—combined with the fact that the employee’s job hangs in the balance—will dissuade the employee from coming forward altogether,” the ACLU’s brief declares.

“Sworn statements relevant to a judicial proceeding always advance the judiciary’s truth-seeking function, and always fulfill an individual’s civic responsibility.” They should be protected by the First Amendment. Unfortunately, the Obama administration believes it must have the power to retaliate and dissuade employees from engaging in speech that might embarrass or reflect poorly on the government.

[woo me with science]

82. ^^^^Excellent post which demolishes the garbage propaganda attempts at diversion and deflection^^^^

that are being attempted by the usual government mouthpieces throughout this thread.

The other point that the propaganda machine tries to desperately to ignore is that We the People observe these events in the context of the entire horrifying record and trajectory of this administration re: the ongoing dismantling of our Constitutional protections. These behaviors are entirely consistent with this administration's targeting of journalists and whistleblowers, intimidation of the free press, turning our internet over to corporate interests, militarizing our police, brutally targeting protesters, and using our own intelligence agencies to establish a surveillance state and propaganda machine targeted at Americans.

*Nothing* here should be surprising to anyone who has been paying attention to the relentlessly corporate and disturbingly undemocratic direction of the last administration and the current one. This is our government run by corporate money, which purchases government to dispense corporate rule and propaganda, rather than represent the people and our Constitution.

It is far past time to reject the constant propaganda bids for utter delusion - the constant ludicrous pretending that each betrayal in the relentless parade of betrayals is somehow an aberration or a misunderstanding. It is well past time to face head-on the desperate problem we face: that our corporate-purchased politicians are assisting the PTB in systematically removing every avenue we have left to fight against the subversion of our government from a Constitutional representative system to an corporate oligarchy.

Thank you, again, Divernan, for this great post. And thanks also for not replying directly to the propaganda, but putting this excellent response here instead.

[ProSense]

99. The ACLU brief does not mention the Obama administration.

This administration filed a brief just as the ACLU did. The claim that the administration argued this case against Lane is utterly bogus. The FDL piece is a complete joke.

ACLU brief
http://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/no_13-483_tsacamericancivillibertiesunion.pdf

Here is the U.S. brief:

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/13-483acUnitedStates.pdf

[Corruption Inc]

80. They don't support us either, otherwise we'd have universal health care and ...

war criminals and banking frauds in jail. Instead, we live in an oligarchy wherein "80% of the population favored a particular public policy change, it was only instituted 43% of the time".

It's a lot worse than this administration too, it's the entirely corrupt system that enables their every move. And since they live for money and money only, the only thing anyone can do is avoid everything they try to force on us. Many Americans are already doing that by shopping local, getting "off the grid" as much as possible, not investing in corrupt markets and not believing a word of the constant propaganda that fills the MSMedia.

Still, about 1/2 of Amurikans are classic Pavlovian propaganda responders, constantly blathering on about the latest "news story" that is a propaganda premise only "reported" to increase sales of corporate items via creating an emotionally charged viewer. As long as that behavior continues, we'll continue to "buy" the latest candidate picked for us by the very same propaganda creators.

People choose to be stupid and are therefore getting exactly what they paid for.

[randome]

81. I can no longer support FairWinds. Please leave this board.

And take your cackling cohorts with you. You (and they) clearly don't care about what others have pointed out to you. All you care about is dissing someone. I suppose it makes you feel superior.

There is a difference between 'debate' and an 'attack'. You seem to take great joy in finding something you can use as a cudgel. And that's the difference between you and me. Your glee reveals your agenda. No matter how careful you are, you can't hide that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[HangOnKids]

119. You find no joy using something as your cudgel? I've seen you wield a cudgel or two or three....

Because that is exactly what you just said. And who are you to ask someone to leave this board?

[randome]

120. Since the purpose of DemocraticUnderground is to support Democrats...

...I think questioning one's motivations to belonging to said board is valid.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[HangOnKids]

122. How quaint

But that is not what you said in your post, and you have no authority here randome. Try again.

[randome]

123. Never said I did have any authority. Everything I post is my opinion or suggestion.

The source for this bogus OP is, itself, bogus. You don't need to have a complete understanding of all media sources to realize there are enough doubts about FireDogLake that a reasonable person might suspect its articles.

But no, some here want to push anything that supports their already hardened point of view.

The rest of us? We're willing to see things from more than one angle.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[HangOnKids]

124. I have no problem with FDL and I am a reasonable person randome

So someone you disagree with has a hardened point of view, cites a bogus source, and is unreasonable? But you see things from more than one angle? The comedy is writing itself. Bye now, you might want to tend to your castle.

[Sheepshank]

149. And that seems to be a a commonality on this thread

...no problem with FDL.

BUT when faced with this OP...surely you understand why other don't share your POV?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024888443

[Bobbie Jo]

160. Provided it gets read,

of course.

Then again, someone spots the word "blog" and presumes the OP is sourcing some obscure blogger.

[randome]

154. A LOT of people have a problem with FDL.

That's enough to clue in even the clueless that there may be something 'off' with them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Dawgs]

190. Any proof that there A LOT?

My guess is that it's only about six.

[Obnoxious_One]

85. There was an article yesterday about the NSA locking down on whistleblowers

I wonder where or whom they got the authority to do that?

[randome]

94. No, it was a restatement of existing policy.

That was magnified into some sort of 'Nazis-are-coming-to-get-us!'

Facts matter. Read your article and the sources more carefully before leaping to conclusions.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Obnoxious_One]

168. No I'm pretty sure that it was the guy that lied to congress telling people not to talk to the press

You can call it whatever you want though.

[butterfly77]

87. Oh Well..

There's many more who do.

[FairWinds]

88. Ad Hominem Are You . .

Boy, you sure got me there - you could sense my unbridled joy right through the keyboard!

"Your glee reveals your agenda. No matter how careful you are, you can't hide that."

You sure know how to grapple with the issues !!

[McCamy Taylor]

90. Obama is not a candidate. He is a real live president now.

He has to run a country. This is how people who run a country act. They all move to the center. Always. It is part of the job description. Anyone who feels disappointed because Obama is no longer "running the perfect campaign" should consider taking up some hobby besides politics. Say, gardening. Or birdwatching.

[Divernan]

95. Fortunately, you don't sit on the Supreme Court!

Seriously, and I say this as someone who is now retired but, over the course of my professional career was first a trial lawyer, then a law professor and finally a government attorney - this is an outrageously stupid and futile position for Obama and his Justice Department to take, and an egregious waste of taxpayer money - witness the fact that the justices across the political spectrum from Roberts to Sotomeyer have excoriated the Justice Dept. in oral argument.

And please, no more puffery about Obama being a constitutional law scholar.

He was NEVER a SCHOLAR on ANY legal topic, let alone Constitutional Law - i.e., he never published a scholarly paper, let alone book; never participated as a panel member at scholarly conferences; was known for NOT engaging in scholarly discussions/debate with fellow faculty members; wasn't even on tenure track. He was a "senior lecturer" - that's the lowest level of teacher at a law school, below Full, Assistant, Associate, Adjunct and or Visiting Professors -
- at University of Chicago. They are not on a tenure track. He never taught the basic, traditional course in Constitutional Law, required of all first year law students, and covered in detail in state bar examinations. He taught three courses:

At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, ascending to senior lecturer. His most traditional course was in the narrow constitutional area of (1) DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION of constitutional law. His (2) VOTING RIGHTS class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on (3) RACISM AND LAW.


Nor could his views be gleaned from scholarship; Mr. Obama has never published any.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Very interesting article on his years as a part-time instructor at the University of Chicago Law School. He was a popular teacher, but refused to intellectually engage with his fellow faculty. One sentence particularly sticks with me as showing that even at the beginning of his political career, he identified his future success and power as dependent upon wealthy whites.

Before he helped redraw his own State Senate district, making it whiter and wealthier, he taught districting as a racially fraught study in how power is secured.

He was a part-time, adjunct instructor - NEVER a professor at any level (assistant, associate or full), but merely given the courtesy title of "professor" by students addressing him.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/ppw.html

His publications page lists his two autobiographical books, but no academic work of any sort, much less any academic writings on constitutional law. Now, given his relatively strong academic credentials and the extent of affirmative action in academic hiring, if Obama had written articles about, well, pretty much anything, he would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position. But he didn't.

[Laelth]

150. Great post. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[OilemFirchen]

153. What's the title of your book?

Any papers I can read online? Trial transcripts? Citations?

With such a storied career, the web must be bulging with your scholarly work. I'd love to read some!

[MineralMan]

156. LOL!

[struggle4progress]

92. Try to sort out what Garcetti v. Ceballos says before you wade into Lane v Franks

As far as I can tell, the issue in Garcetti v. Ceballos is something along the following lines: to what extent can an employer take into account, for purposes of employee evaluation, comments that an employee makes, as part of the employee's job responsibilities?

When certain speech is required, as part of an employee's job, the employer may naturally want to be able to take such speech into account when evaluating the employee's performance; the employee may naturally want to be able to express his/her own views freely in such circumstances. So the employer may want complete discretion to sanction an employee in absolutely any way whenever the employee's job-related speech does not suit the employer; while the employee may want complete discretion to say whatever he/she likes without fear of retaliation

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

98. That's a good start...

There's a lot more (and less) to this story than it appears.

Among the issues here is whether an employer can discipline its employee for information revealed in court. If in my testimony, I reveal that the program I'm running is rife with incompetence, can my employer use that as a basis for disciplining me? Or is that "protected speech"?

The example being used in the court is whether a police office, testifying about the conduct of an investigation, can be disciplined if it turns out that the investigation was flawed. The key here is that for the police officer, testifying is part of his/her job and so it's not protected -- the officer should be evaluated on the basis of his/her performance in court as a witness.

Franks' argument is that testifying in court is NOT part of his job, and he was only testifying because he received a federal subpoena. The ACLU brief argues that all persons should be considered "individuals" and not "employees" for the purpose of protecting their testimony -- which would be the broadest protection possible. The Obama DOJ is arguing that the court shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater -- that the government should be allowed some degree of latitude to discipline employees based on their performance in court.

The "less to this story" part, includes the fact that there were budget cuts at the college and Franks even agreed that he (along with several other employees who were considered "probationary&quot should be terminated. When nearly all of the other employees were not terminated -- turns out they weren't probationary -- Franks sued, alleging it was retaliation.

Bear in mind that in Franks' own statements, he never documents that the college ever threatened him or told him not to testify.

[Enrique]

100. please only link to reputable sources

of which there are two:

www.whitehouse.gov
www.theobamadiary.com

[lame54]

103. Is there proof that you ever did?

[TBF]

105. It's pretty hard to show "proof" on an

anonymous web site. We only have your word for it that you support this administration.

[lame54]

175. My word and this...

[TBF]

184. These are great -

did you make them all? I never even thought to take photos when I volunteered in 2008 (I was co-precinct leader in my little precinct down here ... most active in the primary season). Probably because I had my baby with me all the time - but at least a baby is easy to put in a stroller and push. Little more difficult now that he's older!

[dionysus]

113. oh dear... however will we cope?

[Puzzledtraveller]

118. It's just a team sport anymore

Complete with colors, mascots and all stars. Fuck the principals, it's about winning and controlling the ball. Serious.

[MineralMan]

121. Please remind us of when you did support this administration.

Thanks.

[HangOnKids]

125. How very McCarthy of you

Lovely MM, precious!

[MineralMan]

126. Not at all. If someone says, "I no longer support this administration,"

the statement implies that at one point the person did support it. I'm just asking for a reference to some DU post where that support is evident, since the implication is in the statement.

But thanks for not answering a question not asked of you. I appreciate that, to be sure.

[MineralMan]

131. Now, there's an intelligent response, for sure.

Unresponsive to my post, to boot. I'm glad I improved your day. Really.

[HangOnKids]

132. Your post was nonsense

My reply got right to the heart of the matter.

[MineralMan]

133. Should I know who you are?

You certainly appear to think you know me. I'm afraid I'm at a loss, however. I have no idea who you might be, and don't remember any other occasions when we have discussed anything.

[warrprayer]

139. I supported it before it even was an administration!

I manned the phones at my local campaign headquarters working for Obama.

And I defend FairWinds and anyone else's right to criticize policies of this administration they disagree with.

[randome]

143. So would we all support someone's right to criticize.

But not when it's based on dishonest information. There is enough doubt about FireDogLake that the OP is suspect. Anyone with an open mind should be able to entertain that the article is not all it says.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[warrprayer]

145. how you doin man

and your point is taken.

[randome]

157. .

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Agnosticsherbet]

127. FDL may not be an honest information broker, as this other post appears to show.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024888443

[FSogol]

138. +1. Wow, who would have guessed?

[Sheepshank]

147. and yet 45 recs for promoting misinformation

Springslips post#42 bears repeating:

I disagree with the Administration's view, but their view isn't that troubling:

" The Justice Department imagines that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Lane they will not be able to judge or evaluate the performance of employees because those employees could claim their First Amendment rights were violated. But there is something called the “Pickering balance,” which would still remain in effect making it possible to fire an employee if he or she was incompetent, disorderly or displayed poor judgment when testifying."

This is not enough to take away support; the OP is either unreasonable, or a paid right wing troll bent on dividing us.

[sabrina 1]

163. Well, FDL IS considered to be and certainly was throughout the Bush years, a reliable source of info

if you were Liberal in your views. Not to the Bushbots of course. But FDL has joined so many other reliable liberal sources under that huge bus which includes Matt Taibbi, Jeremy Scahaill and just about ALL sources that were considered reliable until they stood by the same principles that MADE them a reliable source under Bush. THEY haven't changed, but something has.

[cprise]

167. You make an excellet point. Also noticed the same flip - ACLU/EFF/Pullitzer are now their enemies

It's all about which party is perceived to be in charge, and some in this discussion are even admitting it quite bluntly that their overriding concern is the Democratic Party.

BTW, I'll take the ACLU's position over these police-state punters any day. They are reduced to bloviating away within DU discussions because any blogs, channels or thinktanks (and nowadays, even news sites) carrying their message would immediately expose them as Third Way douchebags or worse.

Virtually none of what counts as American civil society will toe their line any more.

[Agnosticsherbet]

177. Read through the information. It isn't FDL's principals. They have their facts wrong.`

If they disseminate false information, they are not an honest broker of information. It doesn't matter whether they dress left or right.

[uponit7771]

172. Thx seems like FDL is another basher rag

[Laelth]

129. Then appeal to the administration.

Let them know how you feel. On occasion, they listen, but it doesn't matter whether or not you "support" the Obama administration. It'll be here until 2017. It's not going anywhere.

-Laelth

[Zen Democrat]

151. You lost me at Firedoglake. Anti-Obama since 2007.

[L0oniX]

171. You think this is bad? Just wait until Hillary takes the throne.

[whistler162]

183. Again!