Of course it is, and the union people must be delighted and that's fine with me. But come on. This is hardly the great poster child of First Amendment privileges. This is a departmental squabble that has been allowed to balloon way out of proportion. I can't imagine a more irrelevant affirmation of constitutional rights.
Should we only correct violations that would qualify as a "great poster child," then? Let them all fly if they're not sufficiently big and flashy for you? Perhaps we should ignore theft that doesn't meet your personal financial bar, too?
When you are a backstabbing administration who demands yes-people, you have difficulty attracting qualified candidates.
As a result, you have incompetent people running things.
People who do things like violate federal law because they're too dumb to think before they act to curry favor.
It's honestly been fascinating watching the people with a modicum of self preservation sense (Marco Rubio) versus those who don't think actions will come back to bite them (Linda McMahon, Pete Hegseth, Kristi Noem).
From a purely practical perspective, you'd have to be stupid not to evaluate decisions with an eye towards "Will I be prosecuted at a future date for this?" in this administration.
>you'd have to be stupid not to evaluate decisions with an eye towards "Will I be prosecuted at a future date for this?" in this administration.
Stupid or placing their bet in a future where they never lose power.
From ICE agents and DOGE members to higher office, there’s a lot of people who know their lives will be destroyed the very moment the wind blows the other way. It is a sobering thought.
> I just don't think this is the sinister power move they are claiming.
Where did they claim that this is a sinister power move? Those words don’t appear in the article or in any filings as far as I can tell. Are you saying that it isn’t the sinister power move that you imagine that they could have claimed?
