This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - MrSmittie
Pages: 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 9 10 ... 22
« on: June 10, 2006, 11:51:09 AM »
So, I will be attending the Boyd School of Law at UNLV begining in August 2006 (evening). Yesterday, I received my course schedule via U.S. Mail. Actually, the school has provided a tentative schedule for all 4 years. Here is what I will face during 1L:
Mon/Wed 6:15pm to 7:40pm - Contracts I
Tues/Thurs 6:15pm to 7:40pm - Civ Pro/ADR I
Tues/Thurs 7:50pm to 9:15pm Lawyering Process I
Civ Pro/ADR II
Lawyering Process II
Lawyering Process III
My Contracts class will be taught by Hon. Bruce Markell, a U.S Bankruptcy Judge who clerked for Justice Kennedy (while he was on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). Judge Markell was also a Bruce W. Nichols Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and practiced law in Los Angeles for 10 years before leaving a partnership with Sidley & Austin.
My Civ Pro/ADR professor will be Ms. Jean Sternlight, who graduated from Harvard law school (cum laude)in 1983. At Harvard, she was Editor in Chief of the Harvard Civil Rights - Civil Liberties Law Review. Prof. Sternlight is She is co-author of a casebook on mediation and co-author of a forthcoming casebook on alternative dispute resolution and also a forthcoming book on arbitration. She is also the Director of Boyd's Saltman Center for Conflict Resolution.
I'll tell you, getting this info yesterday really got me pumped for LS. I can't wait to start!
« on: June 08, 2006, 11:27:29 AM »
Today, I'll be dining on "America's Meat and Potatoes
" (AKA - a Slim-Jim and a can of Pringles).
« on: June 01, 2006, 05:01:45 PM »
As an out-for-blood psycho with a drinking problem, I'm offended.
I'll drink to that!
« on: May 31, 2006, 05:20:27 PM »
I'd also be interested in seeing the actual content of the memo. Without knowing what was said (specifically) it is difficult to determine the extent of what his punishment should be.
« on: May 31, 2006, 05:06:34 PM »
It is important that some distinction be made between private citizen and public employee.
I find the most disturbing part of the opinion is the distinction drawn between “citizens” and “government employees,” as if those groups and interests are not one and the same. Dont you think those interests should generaly line up?
What if we had several uniformed Sheriff Deputies cruising around the community and stating that the current Sheriff (and incumbent candidate) is no good, and encouraging people to vote him out of office. This is much different than when the same deputies show up at a town hall meeting (in their street clothes) and express an opinion (however informed) about a need for change in the leadership of the Sheriff’s administration. In the first scenario, the deputies are clearly acting against the best interest of their employer (the current sheriff), and should probably be disciplined for creating and/or perpetuating a negative image of their organization. In the second, these deputies are merely expressing their (informed) opinions about the situation and should not be punished for speaking their minds and exercising their constitutional rights to free speech.
I think you have a great example here of the sort of hypothetical that was probably driving the decision. Though in that scenario the deputies would have been engaging in behaviours outside of their duties (they shouldnt be out campaigning while on the clock).
This seems like one of those situations where we could have used a brilliant jurist who cuts a distinction that allows for some administrative discretion but makes a bold statement that government wrongdoing belongs squarely in the public eye. They chose not to do this which is regretable.
Agreed and Agreed.
With that in mind, however, perhaps Ceballos should have "gone "public" with his concerns. But then again, like aerynn indicated, the lower court did approve the warrant despite the misgivings claimed by Ceballos and the defense counsel; and since they did, it could be that Ceballos made a larger deal about some things that were less than crucial to the legitimacy of the case. If he persisted in exerting these protests, which his superiors felt were irrelevant, it is conceivable that he would be reasonably disciplined (i.e. - passed over for promotion, or transferred to another office). At least he was not outright terminated.
« on: May 31, 2006, 04:54:40 PM »
Then again, maybe I'm just an idiot
Hardly! I just think this is an interesting discussion. I hope I'm not being too argumentative. I think you and aerynn are making very good points from the other side.
Sorry, I wasn't accusing anyone of thinking I was an idiot (most times I don't need any external indications)
I am also enjoying this, and I think you are brining up some very valid points as well. This is a tough case for which to choose a side.
« on: May 31, 2006, 04:42:13 PM »
I agree Miss P.
I guess I just have a hard time seeing this as a free speech issue to begin with. The fact that this memo was internal (and not necessarily in a public forum) lessens his case for 1st amendment violation - at least in my mind. I mean, he wasn't "freely speaking" in the conventional terms of that concept, he was formally protesting what his superiors thought was the best course of action. True though, that it does suck that the guy was trying to facilitate justice (in the pure sense of the word) and got screwed by those above him who are charged with doing just that.
I must say that I found both the holding and the dissents quite plausible. In the end though, I think the result of the Court's ruling is proper (though my reasoning may differ) Again, I don't see this as a 1st amendment issue at all.
Then again, maybe I'm just an idiot
« on: May 31, 2006, 04:26:35 PM »
I disagree with my bosses all the time, but they usually have the authority to overrule my opinions. Fortunately, they do not necessarily discipline me for speaking my opinion in the workplace (in an attempt to point out my perceived error of their ways). But then again, I do not do so to the detriment of my organization. If I did, I would expect that I would be disciplined, or at the least, passed over for promotion. If, on the other hand, my organization was doing something illegal and/or unethical, and no corrective action was taken by management to mitigate the circumstances, I would then speak out publicly – relying primarily on whistle-blower protection and not necessarily my First Amendment rights to free speech.
« on: May 31, 2006, 04:16:09 PM »
Right so doesnt that seem a little strange? What do you think the motivation is in protecting the right of the outside citizen to make the allegations and not the employee? Why do you think they are so loathe to extend the constitutional protection?
I think the Court’s majority is attempting to maintain a balance between protecting individual citizens’ constitutional rights and protecting the rights of an Employer (in this case, a government entity) to create and enforce policies that it (the employer) deems necessary in order to fulfill its purpose most efficiently and effectively.
I agree with aerynn’s previous thought and illustration using the Social Security employee.
It is important that some distinction be made between private citizen and public employee. What if we had several uniformed Sheriff Deputies cruising around the community and stating that the current Sheriff (and incumbent candidate) is no good, and encouraging people to vote him out of office. This is much different than when the same deputies show up at a town hall meeting (in their street clothes) and express an opinion (however informed) about a need for change in the leadership of the Sheriff’s administration. In the first scenario, the deputies are clearly acting against the best interest of their employer (the current sheriff), and should probably be disciplined for creating and/or perpetuating a negative image of their organization. In the second, these deputies are merely expressing their (informed) opinions about the situation and should not be punished for speaking their minds and exercising their constitutional rights to free speech.
« on: May 30, 2006, 07:40:14 PM »
Great ideas! I'm writing this stuff down
Pages: 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 9 10 ... 22