Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-19-2020, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Brackenwood
9,884 posts, read 5,552,531 times
Reputation: 22006

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
Mt Healthy v. Doyle:


...The Supreme Court took the case and heard oral argument almost a year later. It handed down its decision early in 1977. On the jurisdictional question, Rehnquist held that although the school district had been created by state law, it was primarily a local entity and thus beyond the reach of the Eleventh Amendment, its first ruling in that area in 86 years. The Court did not, however, decide the question of whether Doyle had been fired legally, since there were other incidents suggesting he had difficulties in his relationships with students and fellow teachers which the district had introduced into the record. Instead, it remanded the case to the district court, ordering it to require the district to show by a preponderance of evidence that Doyle would have been fired regardless if he had not contacted the radio station. The school district was later able to do so, and in 1982 the Sixth Circuit upheld that decision...

That was the first one I looked at. I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't appear to bolster your position.

Regardless, if it's such a legal slam-dunk, she'll get her job back or a settlement, maybe both. Just how the system is designed to work.
Yes actually it DOES bolster my opinion because it held the district could not fire him based SOLELY or PRIMARILY on his speech and ordered the lower court to reconsider whether that was the case.

Back before our country went nuts including the courts, I'd say this is a slam-dunk case. Nowadays I have no idea what how the hell they'd rule on it.

 
Old 06-19-2020, 12:24 PM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
28,396 posts, read 16,248,375 times
Reputation: 10467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey View Post
Yes actually it DOES bolster my opinion because it held the district could not fire him based SOLELY or PRIMARILY on his speech and ordered the lower court to reconsider whether that was the case...
I don't believe that's accurate. They made no decision on the legality of the firing. Period. Kicking it back down to a lower court doesn't set any legal precedent (case law) that I'm aware of - again, I'm no lawyer.

Regardless, if the firing violated her rights, she'll be compensated in one way or another. Time will tell.
 
Old 06-19-2020, 02:49 PM
 
22,287 posts, read 11,790,610 times
Reputation: 20051
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
Here's what this boils down to.

A principal is supposed to be on the side of those who are trying to get through this and heal, as a community and a country. Building positive bridges, being a voice for calm. And instead, she used her voice to further fluff up descension. Basically, "I'm not with BLM because y'all aren't more valuable than we are". That was the message.

If she wanted to support the police, there are countless lovely links showing cops going above and beyond the call of duty, risking themselves, being heroic and exceptionally kind. Posting a link like that, and saying something along the lines of "look for the good - it's all around us" is what she is expected to do, if she comments on this movement at all.

That would have been a very welcome voice, and would have been a positive shout out to law enforcement.

Throwing further fuel into the fire, which is what her post did, and what she intended it to do, is NOT the demeanor she was expected to display.
This is what she said, and I quote:

“While I understand the urgency to feel compelled to advocate for black lives, what about our fellow law enforcement? What about all others who advocate for and demand equity for all?” Riley wrote. “Just because I don’t walk around with a BLM sign should not mean I am a racist.”

---------------------------------

Now, per the bolded, how did you come up with that interpretation of what she said? Are you a mind reader? What was so bad about her saying that there should be equity for all? And she is correct---Just because someone isn't walking around with a BLM sign doesn't mean they are racist.

What was so bad about her saying she supports law enforcement? I support law enforcement. In fact, in my extended family we have BP agents, Customs agents and police officers. I think about them all the time and hope they stay safe.

Do you walk around with a BLM sign?

I, for one, strongly believe that actions speak louder than words. As one who is part black, I don't need to carry around a BLM sign. People who know me, and that includes extended family members, know my character and know that I love them.
 
Old 06-19-2020, 02:56 PM
 
Location: At the corner of happy and free
6,452 posts, read 6,610,984 times
Reputation: 16229
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
The bigger problem here, is she's too stupid to hold the position of leadership that she had.

The ability to take the temperature of the moment, to use discretion in speaking publicly, is a crucial and necessary quality in a leader.

And she's devoid of it.
I see nothing wrong with what she said. And in the "temperature of the moment," now more than ever, we need people with common sense to speak up. I'm pretty fed up with BLM (it's gone way past desiring equality), CHAZ, and anti-white stuff (like the speaker at CHAZ who said "being white is not ok" and other garbage.)

I'm glad I'm retired so I can't be fired for having and speaking my opinions. Someone can be 100% in favor of racial equality, have not a racist cell in their body, yet not be on board with the direction BLM has gone. But if you're employed, you'd better pretend to love BLM.

What in the world is wrong with what this principal said?

"While I understand the urgency to feel compelled to advocate for black lives, what about our fellow law enforcement? What about all others who advocate for and demand equity for all?” Riley wrote. “Just because I don’t walk around with a BLM sign should not mean I am a racist.”
 
Old 06-19-2020, 03:15 PM
 
22,287 posts, read 11,790,610 times
Reputation: 20051
@ Post #116 --- I ran out of rep so I couldn't give you one. Well said.
 
Old 06-19-2020, 03:19 PM
 
18,512 posts, read 7,265,891 times
Reputation: 11320
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
I have no idea.

When was the last time the Susan G Komen Foundation released a statement that said "Yeah, colon cancer is pretty bad, too."? I don't think I've ever seen it.
When is the last time the Susan G Komen Foundation tried to ruin people's lives for donating to the American Cancer Society?
 
Old 06-19-2020, 03:23 PM
 
6,282 posts, read 2,827,358 times
Reputation: 7200
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionsgators View Post
to fully understand this situation, you must first fully understand the level of white guilt in vermont. their lack of diversity must weigh heavily on them, because that state is batpoop insane.
The governor is only contributing to the moral panic. He went on TV and talked about not being racist isn't good enough anymore. He said people have to be anti-racist. But he doesn't pass his own test. Here's a pic of a news conference and his all white advisers:

 
Old 06-19-2020, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Howard County, Maryland
16,334 posts, read 10,345,387 times
Reputation: 36045
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
I have no idea.

When was the last time the Susan G Komen Foundation released a statement that said "Yeah, colon cancer is pretty bad, too."? I don't think I've ever seen it.

When has the American Cancer Society said "You know, epilepsy is also an issue."?

Organizations formed around one specific thing usually only attempt to address that one specific thing. Right?
Yes, but the Susan G. Komen Foundation won't burn your house down if you say that colon cancer is pretty bad too. But Black Lives Matter will get in your face, and get you fired from your job, and maybe even physically harm you if you dare to suggest that any lives matter other than black ones.
 
Old 06-19-2020, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Florida
10,305 posts, read 3,905,257 times
Reputation: 8297
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
>vomit<

freedom of speech in the USA is on a ventilator.
Ronald Reagan: ‘If Fascism Ever Comes to America, It Will Come in the Name of Liberalism’
 
Old 06-19-2020, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Brackenwood
9,884 posts, read 5,552,531 times
Reputation: 22006
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
I don't believe that's accurate. They made no decision on the legality of the firing. Period. Kicking it back down to a lower court doesn't set any legal precedent (case law) that I'm aware of - again, I'm no lawyer.
Well there's no denying the bolded part. I have no idea where you get the idea a remanded case doesn't establish or bolster a legal precedent but it's simply false. Nearly ALL overturned cases are remanded back to the lower courts. And you're wrong about this case not setting a legal precedent. The Mt. Healthy v. Doyle case established the precedent known as the Mt. Healthy Test whereby if the plaintiff can demonstrate his actions were constitutionally protected speech, the defendant must then prove the adverse action would have occurred even if the plaintiff had not engaged in said protected action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
Regardless, if the firing violated her rights, she'll be compensated in one way or another. Time will tell.
If the news accounts of the timing and motivation are accurate, there's no "if" about it. It did, blatantly. That "mutually agreed-upon severance package" they're currently negotiating better be big enough to make it worth her while to take the check and move along. Lawyers are expensive, and if she wins on a § 1983 claim the district will have to pay her legal fees in addition to their own.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top