I Can No Longer Support This Administration . .

[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.