Just a few words on the "Whistleblower protections" decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the last day or so:
What the hell?
(Actually I could have gone with What the f--k?, WTF?, WTH? or a host of similar words, but you get the point).
I don't want to waste the space here on issues probably already discussed by someone else, and really, the words above do convey my general feelings about the case. I just don't get where that decision came from. Even more confused by the fact that Justice Kennedy (normally swinging over on the more liberal side) was one of the majority that handed down the decision.
Lest anyone fear I'm becoming too liberal here, I'd just say that while I'm no fan of having the government waste a ton of time defending against frivolous lawsuits from would-be whistleblowers, I do understand that there are times when what a whistleblower is doing is a very important thing. It seems that the U.S. Supremes have decided that the government really does have a right to try to squelch personal comments that would potentially be important in blowing the whistle on bad behavior or activities. I understand their statements about their decision, but just can't see how they haven't made an even bigger mess of the situation.
