Posted by William Neikirk at 1:30 p.m. CDT
After the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Tuesday to remove protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct, the name of A. Ernest "Ernie" Fitzgerald immediately came to mind.
Who is that, you ask? Well, once Ernie Fitzgerald was a household name in America. He was a whistleblower's whistleblower. As a civilian Air Force analyst, he disclosed much Pentagon profligacy in the 1960s and 1970s, including a $2.3 billion cost overrun on the C-5 cargo aircraft program.
All this brought him harassment from his superiors who assigned him, among other things, to audit construction of a Defense Department bowling alley in Thailand. For all his disclosures, President Nixon ordered him fired. He filed suit, and he was reinstated after several years of litigation.
For much of his career, Fitzgerald wrote books and lectured on Pentagon waste and saved taxpayers much money. Earlier this year, Fitzgerald, 80, retired from the Pentagon amid much praise in Congress. He received a Distinguished Civilian Service Medal from the Defense Department's acting inspector general.
Justice Samuel Alito, appointed by President Bush, cast the deciding vote in the Supreme Court decision saying that public employees do not have free-speech protections for what they reveal as part of their jobs. In other words, they could be disciplined or fired for revealing waste, inefficiency, incompetence, or even corruption. They might be assigned to auditing bowling alleys in Thailand or standing in the unemployment line--and would have no legal recourse.
The new Ernie Fitzgeralds no doubt can feel the chill.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The absurdity of our situation is now completely apparent.
A few years back the Supremos declared that money is the equivalent of free speech.
Now they claim actual speech is not covered by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
How American. Money from corporations and PACS now have more freedom of 'speech' than actual people do.
This is only an early indication of the weird absurdities yet to come now that the country has taken its Great Leap Right.
The meaning of laws and words are being turned inside out and upside down. Get ready, America! Much Much more is on the way.
To paraphrase H. Long; Fascism will not creep up on America from behind in the dark of night, but will walk right up to the front door on a sunny morning and greet us with a smile and a flattering slap on the back.
It just keeps happening.
Want to rethink your '04 vote yet?
It now matters little what the outcome of election '06 or '08 is. The right wing now has a lock on the Supreme Court. We jumped into the abyss in '04.
Posted by: C.Morris | May 31, 2006 2:18 PM
Just in time for the congressional investigation into the demotion of Bunnatine Greenhouse.
Remember her?
She blew the whistle (testified before Congress) on contracts that were awarded to Halliburton under very dubious circumstances.Her demotion was very conviently announced the weekend that Hurricane Katrina blew in.
According to Senator Obamas' office , the investigation is still continuing. This will probably spell the end of it.
Another license given to the administration to flush our hard earned tax dollars down the toilet without any chance of meaningful oversight, or any oversight for that matter.
Posted by: johnf | May 31, 2006 5:34 PM
The alleged "chill" is just more "hot air" from a partisan reporter. Predictably, the reporter doesn't bother to quote one word from the Supreme Court's ruling, let alone provide a link to that ruling so that readers can read the actual opinion and make up their own minds. The reporter would rather pontificate, than give the readers the facts.
For the curious, I will perform the service the reporter failed to perform. The case is Garcetti v. Ceballos, and the link to the ruling is:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-473.pdf. I would humbly suggest that commenters, as well as reporters, read the actual ruling prior to commenting on it.
Posted by: Bruce | June 1, 2006 7:28 AM
Bruce, if you would prefer to live under a fascist government I would suggest you move to one, and not just voice your blind partisan opinion that may inflict damage on young easily influenced minds.
Posted by: Rory M | June 1, 2006 11:25 AM
Ah yes. . .I understand it now. Whistleblowers won't be protected as long as the Republicans are "in charge". Once a Democrat takes back the White House, things will get back to normal.
Posted by: Janstress | June 1, 2006 1:02 PM
My name's Bruce, he's Bruce, and that's Bruce over there. Mind if we just call you Bruce?
The Ministry of Silly Walks has triumphed over the whistleblowers who tried to expose their corruption and lawlessness. The whistleblowers complained "We didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition". Justice Scalia says "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our main weapons are fear and surprise!" "And ruthless efficiency" adds Inquisitor General Gonzales.
Twit races begin at 12:00 for the 29% who support the twit-in-chief.
Donald Rumsfeld is still filming "Sam Peckinpah's Day in the Park" in Iraq...over and over and over again. Tennis, anyone?
My Brain Hurts!
Posted by: Bruce | June 1, 2006 1:41 PM
Janstress,
You are right, the Dems, nor anyone will be able to protect the whistle-blowers free speech, or anyone else's for that matter.
It was a Supreme Court decision, and the current court balance could exist for another 30 years.
Posted by: C.Morris | June 1, 2006 4:17 PM
Janstress,
Believe me, by the time these authoritarian right wingers are done with us, you will be afraid to make a shopping list.
Posted by: C.Morris | June 1, 2006 6:56 PM
According to what I read in the decision, there is a distinction to be made between whether a public employee is speaking as a public servant or as a private citizen (good luck!). When the employee is speaking as a public servant, then the First Amendment rights do not apply to him/her. When the employee is speaking as a private citizen, then First Amendment rights DO apply, as long as the statements made by the employee don't limit the employer's ability to function.
Somehow, this seems like a familiar story. I THINK I read about this several years ago, with approximately the same results, in my old life where I was assuming that I didn't need to pay a whole lot of attention because the government was there to protect and defend us, so I don't remember a lot.
If I'm remembering correctly, the distinction existed to make sure more that privileged information was kept protected than to stop squealers, although I'm pretty sure that knowing their employees couldn't be safe in blowing the whistle on possibly nefarious activities was just plain icing on the cake.
Posted by: John | June 2, 2006 11:51 AM
I wonder and I mean no disrespect but I have read it more than a few times, is the Supreme Court itself corrupted also? It would not surprise me, since so many "friends" of the court are making what seems like dirty money. That group no one reports on consisting of FORMER officials would be a start.
How pathetic and evil for our children and grandchildren. I guess if people actually did what is right for once, they would not have to be so secretive or try to control the people and press so much now....OR LIE.
Posted by: leftlou | June 2, 2006 9:40 PM