(US) High court says 'no' to trooper (KKK member wanted job back)

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Omaha World Herald

BY MARTHA STODDARD

LINCOLN — A Nebraska State Patrol trooper has reached the end of the line in his battle to get his job back, after being fired for joining a group linked to the Ku Klux Klan. The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday, without comment, to take an appeal from Robert Henderson, the Omaha trooper.

The court accepts about 1 percent of cases presented to it. Of 160 cases presented with Henderson's, the court took just three.

The rejection lets stand a February ruling by the Nebraska Supreme Court, in which a majority ruled that reinstating Henderson to the patrol would violate the state's "explicit, well-defined, dominant public policy" of nondiscrimination.

The dissenters in that 4-2 decision said the court majority showed a willingness to ignore the state's violation of Henderson's First Amendment rights.


Read more: http://www.omaha.com/article/20090622/NEWS01/906229974

---

Picture with full story at link.

[angstlessk]

1. hell, with a face like that I wouldn't want it framed with that hat...damn

he's ugly..probably comes from deep down in his soul?

[customerserviceguy]

2. Ok, so now we've got the Constitutionally established principle

that you can be fired (or demoted, or not hired) for which political group you are a member of.

Anybody besides me see where this might be headed?

[New Dawn]

3. Oh, that is not new at all. Google, "McCarthyism".

This case is only unusual because it involves right-wingers!

[AndyTiedye]

4. The KKK is a Terrorist Organization

[Number23]

14. Thank you.

[No Elephants]

46. So are the Nazis, but their speech was deemed protected by the COTUS. It's

hard to define "terrorist" in such a way that protects freedom--and keep the definition that way, no matter who is controlling Congress.

Do I think this guy should have been fired? Yes. But I would have found a way to do it that did not rest solely on which organizations he does or does not belong to.

The term "terrorist" is way overused, IMO, and that is dangerous to all of us.

[AndyTiedye]

73. Would You Like It Better If I Said "Criminal Organization"?

The links between the KKK and criminal activities such as murder have been well-established in court, many times.

I don't think it is too much a stretch to say that cops may not belong to criminal organizations

[armyowalgreens]

80. No, it's perfectly okay to say that cops should not be allowed to be members of hate groups

You don't need to redefine your stance.

If the KKK was only a bunch of drunk fat white guys that got together to discuss their hatred of minorities and love of their superior race, that would still qualify the officer for termination. The officer must stick to a strict ethical code. That code includes not being racist.

[No Elephants]

101. Yes, I would. I think it's fine to say that a cop may not belong to any

organization whose policies are to commit crimes and have a history of committing crimes, even if the ccop himself does not engage in those crimes. That keeps the cop out of the Mafia as well as out of the KKK and is blind to the ideology of the group, which is how government shoauld be. It's more like "Littering is prohibited" than "Leaving Communist pamphlets in public places is prohibited." The first is Constitutionally sound (if reasonable and uniformly applied, rather than selectively); the second is Constitutionally unsouond. However, both focus on conduct.


But I still have a concern that the wrong organizations might get labeled criminal. And, again, I hearken back to, say, the sit-ins and marches and McCarthy hearings of the 1950's and the anti-war activities of the 1960's and 1970's, for which people got arrested over and over. If the RICO laws existed then, the term "racketeering" could have applied to the NAACP, CORE, SNCC, and every peacenik group that organized demonstration.

But thank you for considering my actual point instead of being a jerk to me personally. You may be the only one on the thread who did that.

[armyowalgreens]

79. Or maybe you just don't understand the term" terrorist"

[No Elephants]

90. I understand the difference between belonging to an organization and doing

illegal things. One is, and should be, protected by the Constitution, per SCOTUS cases. The other is not.

I also understand that, thanks to Bushco, the term "terrorist" is way overused, which can be dangerous. As with Palin stirring people up by saying that Obama pals around with terrorists.

I also understand the term "slippery slope.


I am not concerned with the frickin' KKK or with the rights of any asshole who belongs to it. But, I've lived long enough and read enough SCCOTUS cases to know that this stuff gets used against anyone an sliver to the left way before, and way more often, than it gets used against the likes of KKK or the Minutemen. And court precedents have a way of getting extended beyond the narrow facts of the first case that decides it's okay to punish people simply for belonging to an organization some of us don't like, even if they behave impeccably for their entire lives.

[babythunder]

81. Absolutely correct!

The KKK is not a social organization they are terrorists have been for nearly a century. Similar to if a member of Al-Qaeda was denied entry to the FBI. Or do we only consider them terrorists when they speak with a funny accent and have dark skin?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

5. You don't think his racist beliefs would have interfered with his job as a cop?

[fascisthunter]

6. as a police officer you are to be impartial to race

for it's supposed to be that officers job to serve and protect irregardless of what race the civilian is. My question to you is this: do ya think the KKK member is going to serve society well by discriminating, because bigotry happens to be the man's OBSESSION.

This should be obvious to you unless...

[No Elephants]

47. Then you dismiss him for failing to perform his duties impartially. If you

cannot prove that he has done that, then the First Amendment and Due Process Clause are in play.

The whole point of the Constitution is protecting unpopular views, because the popular ones don't need protection. Sure, this guy is on the right, but things like this backfire on the left way more often than they do with folks on the right.

As far as implying someone who doesn't agree with you is a racist, you should be embarrassed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. You're objecting to klan members being fired from police stations?

What's your opinion on NAMBLA members as day care providers?

[sendero]

8. LOL...

.... that's discriminatory I tell ya :)

Anyone who read to the bottom will have read his claim that he did it because he was angry that his wife dumped him for a hispanic man.

Maybe she dumped he because he's a dick.

[24601]

21. Maybe if it's an all-girl center? n/t

[No Elephants]

55. Not comparable.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. Why not?

Do you think somebody who hates black people can properly serve and protect black people?

[No Elephants]

106. I post that running a day care center is not the same as being a member of the police force and

your reply is Why not? Do you want a list?

Part of analzying an issue is making distinctions. Throwing in everything but the kitchen sink doesn't help in analysis. Running a day care is not comparable to being a cop. That's a simple fact.


And saying that running a day care center is different from being a member of the police force does not indicate, not even a little, what I think of how racist cops behave. Beyond that, what I think is not the issue. The issue is whether a case like this could have unintended consequences, specifically backfiring on the left, as most things do, and pretty quickly, too.

[babythunder]

82. Great point!

The KKK is not some social group that gets together for book clubs and such. They have been implicated on numerous occasions of being apart of criminal activity.

[geckosfeet]

9. Yes. Keeping people who join groups that kill, burn, intimidate and bully

based on ethnicity from hiding behind guns and badges.

[Oldtimeralso]

11. Will They Now Keep People From Joining The GOP n/t

[No Elephants]

105. Your post is a good start toward coming up with a Constitutionally sound definition of the kind

of group to which a cop should not belong. Constitutionally, that is far preferable to saying simply "You're out because you're a KKK member."

[babythunder]

115. Who made you an authority?

Wow you really on displaying some serious douchness on this topic. Not only are you ill-informed about the Klan but then you have the audacity to act as though you are some kind of authority on the US Constitution.

[Feron]

12. I agree with you.

It always starts with unpopular groups and progresses from there. Participating in a legal activity off the clock should not be grounds for losing your job.

Now if his beliefs interfere with his job performance, then disciplinary action is appropriate.

[customerserviceguy]

17. Thank you

You're the only one who gets it. I have absolutely no love for the KKK or any of their beliefs, but once we have established the principle, all we await is the corrupt government that will use it to their own benefit.

I'll admit that I haven't read the decision, but is there anything in it that sets out effective tests for what government can say is job related, and that which is not?

Do we move towards banning people who belong to certain religions from particular jobs, just because those religions formally espouse unpopular values?

[Tansy_Gold]

31. How about pharmacists who don't believe in birth control?

Their religious beliefs forbid them to dispense prescriptions for contraceptives. They want not only to have the right to refuse to fill those prescriptions but also the right to refuse to give the patient information on where she can find a cooperative pharmacist.

They have a right to practice their religion, don't they? Even if it infringes on someone else's rights???


TG

[customerserviceguy]

40. Ok, so now there's a religious test to be admitted to pharmacy school?

There are people with pharmacy degrees who work in jobs that do not involve any form of contraception or birth control, but you'd keep them from training or practicing?

As for the 'infringing on someone else's rights', is the kosher butcher or the halal butcher down the street from him infringing on my right to have a piece of bacon?

[Tansy_Gold]

44. I said nothing about schools

This is a discussion of employment and whether an employer has the right to terminate employment based on outside-the-workplace affiliations.

The kosher or halal butcher, if he's not self-employed, is probably abiding by his employer's requirements. You don't have to shop there. If, however, the owner of the butcher shop hired a Reform Jew who didn't keep strict kosher, would the owner be justified in firing him? If he thought the employee, due to his religious beliefs, might not keep the butcher shop kosher? Like bringing a ham and cheese sandwich for his lunch?

As a customer of the kosher butcher shop, you would have the right to expect strictly kosher meats, just as as a citizen of a community, you would expect to have fair and unbiased law enforcement.

There are no absolutes, not even in the Constitution. That's why we have a court system -- to interpret laws as they're enacted and enforced to determine if indeed they are constitutional. And sometimes the reviews of laws get re-reviewed because as the culture changes so do the attitudes of the people. 60 years ago, this case might have gone the other way.

A person who enters pharmacy school -- or medical school or law school, for that matter -- is only being taught the information and skills needed to practice that profession. That is why there should be (and effectively is) no discrimination in determining who gets in and who doesn't. But when the graduate enters their field as a profession, the governments (at various levels) do have an obligation to ensure that those professionals perform to a public standard. A doctor who doesn't believe in abortion is not forced to perform them, and he or she can practice either privately or in a hospital that refuses to perform them. A lawyer who believes workers have fewer rights in the workplace than the stockholders' rights to profit can go to work for corporations to defend their rights. A pharmacist who ignores his employer's obligation to provide medication as prescribed by the patients' physicians is violating both his employer's trust and his public duty.

What the courts have apparently seen in THIS case is that membership in a racist and violent organization indicates the officer could not be trusted to perform in the manner expected of an officer of the law.

As someone once said, there's no law against shouting fire in a crowded theatre, but you'd better be prepared to pay the consequences.


TG

[No Elephants]

53. No, you cannot shift between group membership alone and actual job performance. Those are

two very different things. In your butcher case, what if the kosher butcher has no problem eating bacon for breakfast in his own home, but is perfectly kosher when performing his butchering duties on the job? As to the pharmacists, what if he does whatever the law requires of him while on the job?

Ensuring that job performance meets standards is fine. Assuming that job performance will not meet standards solely on the basis of which groups someone belongs to is Constitutionally dangerous. There has to be more of a test of job performance than that.

[No Elephants]

48. Life and law are more nuanced than that. You have a right to birth

control. I don't know if you have a right to get it from any specific person, even if it violates his religious beliefs, unless no reasonable alternative is available.

You have a right to fire someone if he does his job improperly. You don't necessarily have a right to fire him only bc he belongs to an organization you don't like.

[14thColony]

37. I understand your point as well

and it's well-taken. Precedents can cut both ways. A hypothetical unscrupulous government might even get a judicial precedent like this against a reviled and hated group that no one would ever defend specifically so it can be turned against groups that the government doesn't like.

From reading the comments in response to your post, I would conjecture that if a hypothetical unscrupulous government were to take this particular tack, it would work pretty well.

Like you, I don't dispute that this guy should never be in a job like that, and needed to be well away from a gun and a badge. I just would have liked to see a way to that goal that didn't inch closer to a precedent for getting rid of people who belong to other groups that might not be so controversial.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

23. He's a cop -- how would his beliefs NOT interfere with his job?

Any nonwhite, non-Christian person would not be treated fairly under his authority.

[No Elephants]

50. If that is so, you should be able to prove improper performance of his duties.

The kind of conclusive assumption you are making is exactly what our Constitution is supposed to protect us from.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

51. You don't think being in a group founded on racism wouldn't affect his job?

A job that carries the full weight of the law, by the way.

[No Elephants]

54. How about dealing with what I posted instead of changing the subject?

Besides, what you or I ASSUME is not the basis for doing away with Constitutional rights.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

56. Nobody is stopping him from being a Klan member.

They just won't let him be on the police force -- the publicly-funded force that is supposed to treat all citizens as equal under the law.

Since the Klan is clearly a white-supremacist organization with racism as its founding principle, his membership in this group is enough evidence that he won't be able to perform his duties faithfully. We shouldn't have a wait-and-see approach with this troglodyte, especially considering his every on-duty interaction with minorities would be tainted by his known membership in a racist organization.

[Iowa]

26. I understand where you're coming from, but...

1) Belonging to a hate group is sufficient grounds for firing when the job involves a gun and a badge.
2) Membership in a hate group affiliated with the likes of the KKK demonstrates utter stupidity. Once this guy demonstrated that he was as dumb as a bag of hammers, his employers had an obligation to fire him, especially in view of the nature of his work.
3) Joining a hate group while working as a cop demonstrates grossly poor judgment. Again, you can't give some turd a gun and a badge and turn him loose on the public if you know he is incapable of demonstrating (at least) reasonable judgment.

To capsulize... 1) card carrying member of a hate group, 2) dumb as a box of rocks, and 3) well-documented judgment issues. Clearly he has demonstrated that his off-the-clock activities prevent him from carrying out the essential functions of his job. Unless you are suggesting that they should have waited until he actually participated in a lynching or a cross-burning, I would have to think you'd agree.

I do agree that the notion of firing people based on their off-the-clock activities is prone to abuse and bears watching. I simply don't believe that this is the case to hang your hat on when making that point. This guy's firing was necessary, proper, and not at all inconsistent with principles of liberty. He has every right to belong to his hate group... he has no right, however, to expect that he will be granted the privilege of caring a gun and a badge while belonging to a hate group.

It's a no-brainer.

[No Elephants]

57. Just as it was a no brainer in the 1950's that having attended a meeting of the Communist Party in

the 1930's meant you were an enemy of the United States. Or that, if you were descended from a Japanese person and living on the West Coast, national security required your internment.


That's the trouble with letting Constitutional rights dangle on anyone's idea of a "no brainer," even if that someone was FDR.

[No Elephants]

59. Closing him out of the police force does not burden his Constitutional right to

belong to groups of his choice? The SCOTUS has shot down arguments like that.

As to it's being a no brainer, please see Reply #57.

And again, if belonging to the group affects his job performance, it will show up in his job performance--and that's what you fire him for, not for groups he belongs to on his own time.

[tabasco]

118. You are clueless.

The right of association does not guarantee the right to have a particular job.

Like another poster said, nobody is interfering with his Klan membership.

[rpannier]

29. How right you are

The right to free association on your free time was undermined here.

There was nothing in the story that said his behavior at work had been unprofessional

If the state of Nebraska determined that belonging to the Nation of Islam "
would violate the state's "explicit, well-defined, dominant public policy of nondiscrimination" would people feel the same way.

[Demeter]

38. KKK Legality Is Not Established

It is a shadow organization. If the case came up in court, it would be considered a terrorist, criminal organization. You have no right to belong to the Mafia and be a policeman. Ditto for KKK.

[No Elephants]

60. It did come up in court, in this case, for one. And no one ruled that belonging to the KKK, in

and of itself, is illegal.

Why would belonging to the KKK be any more legal or illegal than being a skinhead or a Nazi?

[babythunder]

83. So you do not consider the KKK

to be a terrorist organization? Again if he was fired because he belonged to some random white supremacist organization that was not openly involved with terrorist activities then I could see your point. This whole point is moot if you don't consider the Klan to be terrorists.

[No Elephants]

94. Doesn't matter what I personally consider the KKK to be. Court cases are not an opinion poll.

But let me ask you some questions that may or may not be food for reflection.

Do Constitutional rights depend upon a subjective opinion of what "terrorist" means? Should they?

Did you agree with Sarah Palin that Ayers was a "domestic terrorist?"

When did "criminal" cease being an adequate term to describe illegal behaviors?

Before 911, did anyone call either the KKK or Vietnam war protestors "terrorists?"

[babythunder]

96. I've come to the conclusion

that you know jackshit about the KKK and therefore should really do a better job of educating yourself about American history.

Again would you think it appropriate that a member of Al Qaeda join a police force? This isn't a slippery slope and frankly at this point I find your position offensive and down right repugnant.

Two major things that you for whatever reason are unable to comprehend are:

1. The KKK is a terrorist organization and has been for many centuries there is nothing to deceptive about what their purpose has been from day one. They orchestrated lynchings, bombings, lynchings, not to mention numerous murders. But you of course will continue to equate them as some type of social group.

2.Police Officers are held to a higher standard then the average. This isn't some poor schlep getting fired because of his political party this is a man who choose to belong to a terrorist group and then in turn was fired for his affiliation.

So again I ask you if this man was an admitted member of Al Qaeda do you think his police department would be justified in firing him?

You do realize that this country does have homegrown terrorists or that fact still escaping you?

[No Elephants]

102. I might say the same about you, the Constitution, the SCOTUS cases and American

history in general.

Have you read the Freedom of Association cases? The Japanese Internment case? The loyalty oath cases of the 1950's? Have you watched films of the McCarthy hearings? If not, please do before you assume you know everything and others know nothing.

And, after you do that, try to come up with a Constitutionally sound defninition that would have allowed a cop to belong to the Sons of Liberty in 1775, the Communist Party in the 1930's. the NAACP in the 1950's, the anti-war protest groups of the 1960's and 1970's, but would still rule out the KKK in 2009. If you do that, I'll give you kudos. I'll even give you a head start. Look at Replies 101 and 105.

As far as knowing about the KKK, every adult nows about the KKK, for feck's sake. If they don't, all they have to do is watch a movie or two. The movie doesn't even have to be as long as Gone With the Wind. Decent people hate the KKK. Members of the KKK are pathetic assholes, who probably have no sense of self whatever and a really teeny brain, love it. Duh. And?

Now take the next step and try to learn and figure out why some of us on this thread, all of whom know probably more about the KKK than you do and hate it as much or more than you do, nonetheless have Constitutional issues with this case. Not because we don't know the KKK or because we approve of it or don't know about it. (Sorry, but that is nothing short of a semi-moronic interpretation of my posts.) But because we want to make sure we don't see the kind of repression against leftist organizations that has marked the rulers of this land since before 1776.

[Ikonoklast]

13. The KKK is NOT a political party.

They are a hate group as defined by the government of the United States.


Your argument is nonsense.

[No Elephants]

63. If they rename it the Ku Klux Klan Party, your argument disappears. And the

government of the United States is far from an infallible arbiter of Constitutional rights.

BTW, do you have a link and some context for that government classification?

[No Elephants]

107. /crickets

[Seldona]

15. The KKK is not a political group.

Nor do it's members belong carrying a badge and a gun in public, in a position of civic authority, over those they hate. They really should investigate his career to see if there is a racial pattern to his arrests, etc, as well. I highly doubt the average klan member is particularly concerned for the civil rights of those they believe are inherently inferior.

Was he a closet racist, or did he work in an environment that fostered such beliefs? Disconcerting, to say the least.

[downindixie]

18. You don't have to be a member of a group

to be racists.There are plenty of racist in the police dept,but some good people too! I think there are plenty of members of congress that are racists by their statements and their actions.Could we please do something about them?

[atreides1]

49. As for members of Congress

It's up to their constituents, unfortunaely the ones who make statements that could be considered racist, are elected by people who hold the same views, but are too cowardly to come out into the light, sort of like roaches!

So, they elect someone to office who will say in public what the rat bastards are too chicken shit to say themselves.

[No Elephants]

64. The KKK is a political group. But what turns on that anyway? Either membership

affects his ability to do his job or it doesn't, regardless of how you classify the organization.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/political

[armyowalgreens]

77. The KKK is a political group in the same way the Taliban is a political group.

They are both murderous, ignorant and hateful groups that wish to wage war on a people.

[No Elephants]

109. Similar things have been said about Democrats and Republicans.

[armyowalgreens]

16. The KKK is a racist terrorist group.

He didn't get fired for joining the local bingo club.

[No Elephants]

61. Because you so label it? That is a dangerous standard.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

69. Are you ignorant of history?

I'd say lynching innocent black people fits the definition of terrorism.

[No Elephants]

108. Please see Reply ##'s 90, 101, 102, 105.

And we are talking about the KKK in 2009, not the KKK of 1865 or 1945.

Before you leap to any other wrong conclusions, I don't have any higher opinion of the modern KKK than I do of the original KKK. I am simply trying to get the level of thought about this topic discussion beyond knee jerking and personal attacks. So, far, I am meeting with very little success.

I accept responsibilty for not getting my point across. But, I don't accept responsibility for lack of reflection on the part of others or the knee jeerk attitude of "Any poster who does not say what most posters are saying must be stupid, uninformed and/or evil."

[ecstatic]

71. I am SO DISGUSTED by your posts on this topic

I guess you have the luxury of saying it shouldn't matter... Let me guess, white male? You don't have to worry about that cop pointing a loaded gun at you and hoping his KKK side doesn't take over. Or I guess someone should DIE first (although I'm sure at least one person already has and the racist cop covered his tracks). :eyes: :eyes:

[armyowalgreens]

76. Uhhhh no. It has been identified as a terrorist group

ever since the government started keeping tabs on it.


You realize they murdered people right? They have marches to demonstrate their hatred of non-whites and minority sympathizers. They want to literally wage war against the minority community.

Get a fucking clue.

[No Elephants]

100. Really? Then kindly post a link indicating designation by the government of the KKK as

a terrorist group prior to 911.


BTW, if you don't get that all of us on this thread know about and hate the KKK, no wonder you don't get anything else some of us are trying to point out.

[MadMaddie]

19. If that affiliation causes you to be unable to perform your

job then this ruling is justified.

What happens when this racist cop pulls over a minority, woman or gay? Do you think that he can fairly do his job.

Unfortunately for him, US history has documented evidence of what happens when cops like this guy belong to the KKK and other racist groups and inflict their brand of justice on the populace.

I would say this about a black guy that belongs to a racist black group.

[No Elephants]

62. If that affiliation causes you to be unable to perform your job, then (a)

they should have inquired about KKK membership before this guy went to the trouble of becoming a cop; and (b) his job performance should reflect hi inablity to perform his job properly. In the latter case, you fire him for poor job performance.

If being a racist is an issue for the job, what measures, if any, is the force taking to screen out racists in general, as opposed to only KKK members?

[MadMaddie]

86. As I said I am not only talking about the KKK, it could be

a racist black group or racist hispanic group, it doesn't matter. These people with these affiliations have no place in law enforcement.

The article said that he joined the KKK group long after he became a police officer, so asking up front wouldn't have prevented this.

Why is it wrong to hold our public servents up to a certain expectation? When did this become wrong?

[No Elephants]

110. I understood and agreed wth your post. IMO, you made good points.

And you went for a neutral principle, like being a racist, rather than a constitutionally protected right, like being a member of a group. I have a lot less problem with that than I do with posters thinking government should have a right to penalize people simply for belonging to a group, as long as they agree with government about the particular group. Especially when they don't seem to think about what happens when a similar situation arises, except that they DON'T agree with government about how bad the group is.

As far as the article, I could not get the link in the OP to work, so I have been sticking to more general terms, but my point holds. If the KKK is the issue, the police department should expressly make not being a member a condition of being on the force, whether you join before or after becoming a member of the force. That, too, is part of Constitutional due process. Also of ex post facto laws.

Government has to give people advance notice of what is expected of them before it penalizes them, whether by throwing them in jail, fining them or firing them from a government job. You don't wait until you want to fire them, then come up with "You can't be on the force if you're in the KKK." But, I would still go with your point, of coming up with a definition of the type of organization to which an officer may not belong.

I would stay away from simple labels like "criminal" or "terrorist" and leaving it at that because again, one person's terrorist is another person's revolutionary, freedom fighter or anti-establishment demonstrator. If Battista lived in a post 911 world,, any follower of Castro would probably have been "a terrorist."

To me, anyone who risked breaking into the Pentagon, unarmed, to protest the Vietnam War in the 1960's was a frickin' hero. I would be proud to be on a board of directors of a not for profit with Ayers any day of the week, or have his support if I ran for office. To Palin and her fans, Ayers was a domestic terrorist and Obama was practically in the same class as a member of Al Qaeda. I am dumbfounded--and more than a little scared--that Democrats don't see the danger of overusing that term.

There were probably a lot of good reasons to fire this guy. I just wish they would have chosen one that could not be used against well-intentioned people, like those who joined the NAACP in the 1950's, when sit ins were illegal. Or an Iraqi who fought against our occupation of Iraq.

[mopinko]

20. headed toward not giving guns and authority to kill people to someone

who is clearly mentally unbalanced? happy to move down that road.

[24601]

24. I tend to remember that such group membership, if known, was

a bar to the military as far back as the early 70s - perhaps even before - but that's before my time.

The key wasn't that they held unpopular views, but that they would deny others their rights - by other than constitutional means, such as by law or constitutional amendment. Further, no one had a right to be in the military. It would be the same for the trooper.

I speculate that the next reply will probably say what about GLBT? The difference is that sexual orientation by law is not protected as is gender, race, color, religion, national origin & age. Certainly that was not even close to the case in 1972. In more recent years, in applying Federal EEO, sexual orientation was added by Executive Order; however, it's still not based in law nor has it been recognized as rooted fundamentally in the Constitution.

Before DADT, it was merely policy but it was broader, applying to mere orientation, not just the open declaration thereof. When President Clinton signed DADT, the scope was narrowed; however it became federal law.

[paulsby]

28. people are failing to make a distinction here that is very important

police dept's have MASSIVE latitude in discrimination when CHOOSING applicants to hire.

iow, they can choose not to hire somebody because of poor credit.

however, once an officer is hired and gets civil service protection (it's kind of like tenure), then the rules change.

they become much more strict.

stuff that would result in the officer not getting hired do not rise to the threshold level where one can be FIRED for doing same.

heck, in my agency, due to past precedent, an officer cannot be fired for getting a DUI, which is of course a criminal act. unless they have prior alcohol offenses, or other serious offenses. otherwise, they get a suspension, mandatory alcohol training, etc.

however, my agency can decide not to HIRE somebody who has a dui, solely for that reason.

i am not saying the dept. was wrong to fire the officer for joining the KKK.

i am saying there is a MUCH stricter metric that an agency must use in terminating employment vs. not hiring.

this is partially because prior to hire, the predictive element is key. see: the bad credit example. the dept. may think that the officer's bad credit is indicative of irresponsibility and that's a quality that they don't want in their officers.

similarly, dept's can administer psych tests and choose NOT to hire somebody merely because their psych profile shows issues the agency doesn't like in an applicant. and those desired profiles vary significantly from agency to agency. the standard test used is the MMPI.

however, once hired, the agency cannot use this type of stuff to fire somebody. they would need much more than an officer's psych profile not matching their optimum levels. they would have to show a nontreatable personality disorder that can be directly linked to bad behavior in the officer's conduct.

this is a major distinction that people are failing to understand.

a civil service status for an officer is similar to tenure for a college professor. once tenure (or civil service protection) is gained, the rules become much stricter.

[No Elephants]

65. Do you have a link for KKK members having been banned from the military?

But, even if that were so, it's one thing to bar people from joining. It's another to let them train for a career and then tell them their membership disqualifies them.

[24601]

87. I think it may be covered somewhere in here

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyjoin/a/criminal5_2.htm

[No Elephants]

92. Didn't see a reference to Klan membership. Can you please be more specific? Or copy and paste?

[No Elephants]

104. Crickets.

[caseymoz]

32. We need to turn this into a defeat, fast !

:think:

[ArbustoBuster]

33. The KKK isn't a political party. They're a hate group.

The KKK is one of the oldest still-functioning terrorist organizations in the world. For decades they deliberately murdered African Americans in public. The Klan would still be doing it today if it weren't for the fact that the United States started locking up and/or executing the bastards for their activities. Ten minutes with Google will show you ream upon ream of references.

Would you have the same problem with the cops firing a member of the Crips, the Mafia, or the Medellin Cartel? If your answer is, "I believe the cops should let those people serve on the force," then you are being consistent but you are being foolish. If your answer is "the cops have the right to keep thugs and killers out of the force" then you're being inconsistent, since the KKK are killers and thugs, but you're at least showing some sense.

[customerserviceguy]

41. Like I said

is there any hard and fast criteria used in the SCOTUS decision to equitably identify which groups are so heinous that membership in them (or groups alleged to be like them, this wasn't directly KKK, if I read the news article correctly) is a bar to employment? Or do we let whomever is in charge figure that out?

I can forsee a future where an extremely homophobic state or city decides that membership in a gay or lesbian civil rights organization is held to be contrary to the public policy of that place (they'd probably have a lopsided election result to base that on) and use it as a basis for a termination. If the case got to the Supreme Court, the city or state would be happy to cite this decision in its briefs.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

52. Can you name a GLBT group that engages in acts similar to the KKK?

And a civil-rights organization cannot be compared with a domestic-terror group like the KKK.

[babythunder]

85. Again no elephants on others on this thread

refuse to acknowledge that the KKK is not a political organization, social or anything but they are A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

[No Elephants]

103. Please see Replies 101 and 102.

[customerserviceguy]

88. It doesn't matter

To people who feel that their opposite sex marriages are "threatened" by equal marriage, GLBT groups are "terrorists". While attitudes about equality are softening, there are clearly states where about three-quarters of the voters will be dead set against same-sex marriage for the forseeable future.

What happens when their Supreme Courts take up the issue of a firing over belonging to a GLBT group?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

89. I'm talking about the *actual* definition of terrorism.

The KKK fits it.

This cop had the power of the law behind him while his racist attitudes would not allow him to be impartial. He could easily have shot or framed a minority person because of his beliefs, knowing he would get away with it because of his power and authority as a police officer.

That is the central argument here.

[No Elephants]

111. What, in your opinion, is the "actual" defnition of terrorism? Have you posted one?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

116. The. KKK. Is. A. Terrorist. Organization.

This has been spelled out in this thread several times. It has a 100+-year documented history of terrorism, so your flimsy comparisons to what the government might consider terrorism (animal-rights groups, etc.) doesn't hold water, particularly in the context of interfering in this cop's duties, which it would do.

Now you can keep defending the avowed bigot who will use his power as a police officer against any minority, potentially killing or framing someone because of the color of their skin, or you can realize that the right of association does not simultaneously extend to the right to be an officer of the law.

[babythunder]

97. There is no comparision

why are some people on this thread refusing to acknowledge that the KKK is a native terrorists organization? Maybe it's time for a history lesson because it's been made very apparent that some people on this thread are completely ignorant as to what the Klan's activities has been.

[No Elephants]

45. I see the danger, but refusal to hear the case does not establish a Constitutional principle. There

are SCOTUS cases that say we have freedom of association. Refusing to hear this case does not change them, one way or the other.

[Blue_Tires]

95. nice try, but wrong

the police department and legal system would be horribly comprimised if he were to stay...for starters, keeping him on will be seen as an implicit approval of his off-duty activities, and not to mention the fact that anyone he (or the department) arrests would get acquitted by a halfway decent lawyer...

[mrbarber]

10. I can't believe people are pretending like this is some kind of travesty.

It was the KKK, for God's sake, and this man is a police officer, someone in a position of authority. The KKK is a terrorist organization. Comparing it to "political leanings" is asinine at best and dangerously naive at the worst.

[No Elephants]

66. Not a travesty, but a step on a slippery slope. There is a difference.

[Tab]

22. It is a hate group, and if nothing else

- even assuming he could be impartial in his dealings with the non-Aryan public - do you think ANY testimony he makes regarding the arrest eof a minority is going to stand up in court? Forgetting whether or not he should be allowed out there with a badge and a gun (and I vote no), his position as an impartial upholder of the laws is severely, probably fatally, compromised.

And that aside, police officers are supposed to be held to a higher standard, and I don't think belonging to a hate group or terrorist organization does anything to enhance the image of the Nebraska State Police.

[No Elephants]

112. I have no problem with that, if people could come up with a good

definition of hate group or terrorist organization or racist, one that would not include protest groups on the left who engage in civil disobedience and one that would not have included the Sons of Liberty, if this were 1775 instead of 2009. It's simply throwing around labels and thinking that settles everything that worries me.

And why does it worry me? Because that behavior gets used against the left much, much more often than it gets used against the right. For just one example, courts have held that affirmative action is racist. I would not want to see an admissions officer in a state university lose his or her job because of that. Or Sotomayor be kept off the Supreme Court because she (allegedly) is a member of La Raza or thinks a Latina woman has relevant life experience to bring to the bench that a white male does not.

[bc3000]

25. Title seems intentionally misleading

Nebraska Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court.

[No Elephants]

93. Nice catch. The link did not work for me, so I am going by general SCOTUS principles.

[EFerrari]

27. Good. n/t

[Jay Landsman]

30. This is similar to a case Sotomayer dissented on

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/03/sotomayors-defense-of-whi_n_210795.html

Sotomayor's opinion in the 2002 case of Pappas v. Giuliani does not seem like a judicial cause célèbre for progressives. But in the days since she was named Obama Supreme Court nominee, it has emerged as an effective counterweight to charges that she is a judicial activist bent on helping minorities like herself.

Those intimately involved in the case say that Sotomayor's dissent -- in which she defended the First Amendment rights of a employee who had distributed white supremacist material -- shows a type of jurisprudence diametrically at odds with the caricature painted by her conservative critics.

I really don't know what to think of this issue. On one hand, the First Amendment should protect even the most noxious of speech. On the other hand, if a cop is part of the KKK, there's a good presumption that he won't be able to do his job. Regardless, it's an interesting debate.

[JackDragna]

34. Here's the danger I sense (playing devil's advocate)

Let's say we have a police officer who does their job perfectly for years. No complaints, treats everyone equally, is by all accounts a fine officer. Then, it comes out the person is in the Klan. Here's the question, in my eyes: does this person immediately deserve to be fired, despite years of service in which no one was treated unequally? Furthermore, at what point do we draw the line? Do we prevent people from joining a police force who are members of unpopular political groups who, although not advocating violence, castigate or scapegoat members of an ethnic, religious or political minority?

[dogfacedboy]

35. If a cop who turned out to be klanskum lived near my home...

...the least of his worries would be getting fired from his job.

[PNutt]

36. Would Anyone Want An Al-Queda Terrorist As

an officer of the law in the USA? Members of the KKK are not chiorboys, they are domestic terrorists.

As a law officer, how would this man be expected to react to a scenario in which he came upon a crime scene, and two men were fleeing, one a White man, and one an Hispanic man? I bet my nadzz on a dead Hispanic man. This guy is bad news, and does not to be carrying a badge and a gun on our streets.

[Demeter]

39. Would the FBI or CIA Fire a Mole?

More likely they would fully prosecute, if not clandestinely assassinate, the traitor.

[customerserviceguy]

42. It doesn't even have to be part of a minority

If someday a jurisdiction decided that the Catholic Church's position on contraception, homosexuality or abortion made it just such an organization as is contemplated in this case, they'd be able to fire all of their nominally Catholic employees, regardless of how much fidelity each employee had to the official beliefs of that religion. Or, they could require some sort of loyalty oath, and I think we all know where that leads.

Maybe I'm wrong, and there are fixed criteria that can be used to define the KKK as somehow being different from membership in PETA, but I have yet to see them.

[lunatica]

43. His case went through the courts and it was dismissed

What more do you expect? The right to advocate for killing people as a KKKer is trumped by the LAW. There's nothing in that where your stawman arguments are useful.

Anyone in this country would be within their rights to fire him from a job. Even the Troopers.

[fascisthunter]

58. it's pretty straight forward

people who are part of a (terrorist) hate group should have no authority. Nor should they be allowed to work on the tax payer's dime.

[No Elephants]

67. Fine, just as long as I get to decide what is a terrorist group and what isn't. If it were

really all that straightforward, the case probably would not have made it through appeals court.

[fascisthunter]

74. ...not straight forward for right wingers

[No Elephants]

114. The Nebraska Supreme Court probably has its share of right wingers so that is not the point at all.,

[ecstatic]

72. Listen, any person of color arrested by a KKK member is going to

be innocent in my eyes. At the very least, it will interfere with his credibility. At worst, one or more persons will be (secretly?) killed and/or falsely accused by this cop. It IS a conflict of interest. I'm stunned that anyone on DU could argue otherwise. :eyes:

[No Elephants]

113. I've read most of this thread pretty carefully. I have not seen one post that

says that being a member of the KKK is not a conflict of interest for any decent human being , let alone a police officer. IMO, you've missed the point of every post on this thread that speaks to court cases and dangerous legal precedents.

[babythunder]

84. Again why are the Klan placed in a seperate category from

other terrorist organizations? Using the same scenario you provided if a person was working many years for a police department no problems and then it came out that he belonged to a Islamic Terrorist group at one point in his life; you honestly think he would have a job and would anyone here be defending his position? The distinction between Social Organization and Terrorist Organization is not connecting for some people on this thread.

[No Elephants]

68. What about racists who are not in the KKK? Would this guy be any different if he resigned

from the KKK, or if he never bothered to join?

And if being in the KKK, in and of itself, indeed should be a disqualifier, why not ask about memberships right on the application for the police academy, instead of letting ineligible people go through a lot of trouble to become police first?

What about other organizations, like skinheads and Nazis? If racism is the issue, why is the force not attempting to ferret out racists before they become mambers of the police force?

Knee jerking is great, if only because it feels so good and thinking gives some a headache. But it's no way to run a country or implement a Constituion.

I am not saying there are not good Constitutional arguments to be made. obviously, there are, or this case would not have cleared the Circuit level. But no one has made any on this thread.

[armyowalgreens]

78. ...

Your kind of nonsense is what drives people to drink.


Anybody who is a self-declared racist or has joined a racist terrorist group should not be able to get a job anywhere near the police department.


There are disqualifiers just as there are qualifications. If you cannot follow the strict code of ethics that an officer must adhere by, you cannot get the job. That includes not being biased towards any race when it comes to crime fighting.

[No Elephants]

91. ...

First, I am not the only one who has concerns about freedom of association. Read the thread.

Second, if you get driven to drink every time someone thinks of SCOTUS cases and pssible unintended consequences of court precedents, instead of knee jerking with the rest of the pack based on some ill-considered gut reaction, your booze bill must be impressive.

You can't fix (or justify) everything by throwing around the word "terrorist" because it's after 911. Bush cerainly didn't.

[armyowalgreens]

98. LOL

What you are doing is running away from the word because you think Bush destroyed it.

Terrorist is still a legitimate term. Bush himself was a terrorist.

And the KKK is logically and legally a terrorist group. They have been for quite some time now. Go look it up.

You and a couple other people are defending a cops "right" to be in the KKK. The rest of us are looking at you guys like you're insane.

[No Elephants]

99. Actually, I m not defending

the KKK and neither anyone else on this thread. If I ran the world, the KKK would not exist. That is not the point.

Some of us on this thread are asking people to stop and think for a minute and tell us how this can't backfire on the left. So far, none of you calling me names has been able to do that.

And it wasn't only Bush. Things like this have ALWAYS been turned more against the left than the right. ALWAYS. Please see Reply 101 and 102, among others.

As far as the KKK always having been a terrorist organization, I happen to agree. The KKK has always both terroized and brutalized people. But so what if you and I agree on that? My agreement with that point is irrelevant because the Constitution does not depend upon what you and I can agree on, or even what a majority of Americans can agree on..

I did not ask it the KKK were actually a terrorist organization. I asked when it had been CALLED a terrorist organization prior to 911, and when Vietnam War protestors had been CALLED domestic terrorists prior to 911. There is a difference. The excessive use of the label "terrorist" sure got turned on the left pretty fast, didn't it? In a campaign for the Presidency by a, to put it mildly, moderate Democrat? By the likes of Sarah Palin. To the point where people started acting like a murderous mob.

Never mind. You just don't get it and probably won't.

[western mass]

75. Oh well, he can always join the military.

They're taking nazis & skinheads now, right?

[Dramarama]

117. They still exist wow