Upholding One's Oath To Do One's Job

And Also: John Dean argues that Robertson's comments might very well be an actionable "true threat." I don't buy it. There should be a more direct one on one intent and possibility of harm. It surely can't be legal under the First Amendment to prosecute an opinion that some evil dictator should be "taken out" or the like. I'm not sure where such criminality of opinion would stop. A closer question might be if he had a dissident from Chavez's country on the show (or if he was visiting this country) and said the same thing. Dean might be right that Pat's literal conservative brand of law would stretch things that far. But, that's something else.

Justice Stevens publicly called the policy behind the medicinal marijuana bans and broad definition of "public use" to include seizure of private property for economic development "unwise" but constitutional. Nothing new about that -- in the 1970s, in a dissenting opinion, he noted personal opposition to minimum wage laws but argued that the federal regulation constitutionally can be applied to state employees.

The theme is well know, most famously perhaps when Justice Kennedy noted that he personally opposed flag burning, but burning a flag in protest is constitutionally protected. Texas v. Johnson. The overall theme, conventional wisdom (so to speak) aside, is fairly uncontroversial. Justices do not just vote their policy choices, but what they feel the Constitution demands. Anyway, again, those glasses Stevens is wearing are freakening huge.

Bob Herbert on the other hand explains how doing one's job is likely to get you in trouble in the Bush Administration. To wit:

The Bush administration is replacing the director of a small but critical branch of the Justice Department, months after he complained that senior political officials at the department were seeking to play down newly compiled data on the aggressive police treatment of black and Hispanic drivers.

His senior status did allow him to look for another government job. The trend is well known for those willing to see it. For instance, various scientists have complained and expressed concerned that reports have been edited to remove politically controversial facts (e.g., the true breadth of the harms of global warning). Opposition to the accepted view during the lead up to the war was seen as a problem, if not a reason to out one's spouse. A park's official lost her job for speaking out respecting the problems in that department. And, the persona non grata status of Colin Powell in some quarters for limited dissent is also known.

It is good to know at least some people truly stay loyal to their oath/affirmation to support the Constitution and their job requirements as spelled out in Art. VI for all federal officers. Sad that this does not include certain top ones.