Clerk says she was fired for views on justices; Republican lawmaker denies claim

Feb 5, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Http

A Statehouse clerk for a Republican lawmaker says she was fired after posting Facebook messages about keeping politics out of the judicial system, according to the Iowa State Daily student newspaper.

Comments
1 - 16 of 16 Comments Last updated Feb 6, 2011
Frank Stanton

Gloversville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Feb 5, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fire all governmnet workers ! They do nothing but waste taxpayers' money.

Congress should only work 3 or 4 montsh a year to keep their damage to a minimum. And they should only be paid $20 a day. If you think that's not enough, that's why it's called "public service".

“IBM had it right: "Think"”

Since: Mar 07

SF Bay Area Suburbs

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Feb 5, 2011
 
In this case it sounds like she is not in agreement with her boss. In a politics related job, that would seem to be a job requirement. Whether or not it is a requirement though, no one should work for a politician if there is this degree of fundamental difference on policy issues.
Homosapian

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Feb 5, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

She stood up for justice and got fired, come on Repubigots is this really the American way?

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Feb 5, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Remember.......... it IS the party of NO!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Feb 5, 2011
 
Gary47 wrote:
In this case it sounds like she is not in agreement with her boss. In a politics related job, that would seem to be a job requirement. Whether or not it is a requirement though, no one should work for a politician if there is this degree of fundamental difference on policy issues.
Actually, the article stated that the clerk position is non-partisan. She's not a campaign worker.

That said, we have no evidence but her own claim as to why she was fired. For all we know, she was fired because she spent all day posting messages on FB--whether her boss liked the messages or not. Employers usually say almost nothing about discharges, leaving employees free to spin the circumstances however they want. On the other hand, what her boss did say wasn't helpful to his case.

I tend to side with Buning on her claim. But I'm cognizant that there's another side to the story. The "employment at will" claim won't, in and of itself, protect the state from a lawsuit.

Since: Oct 07

Bean Town.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Feb 5, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Frank Stanton wrote:
Fire all governmnet workers ! They do nothing but waste taxpayers' money.
Congress should only work 3 or 4 montsh a year to keep their damage to a minimum. And they should only be paid $20 a day. If you think that's not enough, that's why it's called "public service".
There's a facility in my county that cares for profoundly disabled people. Should they fire the people who work there? Jailers? Fire the cops? How about the folks that maintain the roads and bridges? We don't need no stinking roads! The military are all government workers... Fire them too?
Government workers get an unfair share of the blame for the mess our economy is in. In my state we've had lay-offs, hiring freeze, people forced to do 2 or 3 jobs. Benefits reduced. "Voluntary" furloughs. All in the name of the budget. All the while giving more tax breaks to business. It's appropriate to cut waste and we should all do our part but the fact is that the bulk of the sacrifice is being forced upon the poor, those who work for our government and the middle class as a whole. It's insane. You don't solve a budget problem be squeezing the life out of the poor and middle class.
Frank Stanton

Gloversville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Feb 5, 2011
 

Judged:

3

2

2

CHEECH wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a facility in my county that cares for profoundly disabled people. Should they fire the people who work there? Jailers? Fire the cops? How about the folks that maintain the roads and bridges? We don't need no stinking roads! The military are all government workers... Fire them too?
Government workers get an unfair share of the blame for the mess our economy is in. In my state we've had lay-offs, hiring freeze, people forced to do 2 or 3 jobs. Benefits reduced. "Voluntary" furloughs. All in the name of the budget. All the while giving more tax breaks to business. It's appropriate to cut waste and we should all do our part but the fact is that the bulk of the sacrifice is being forced upon the poor, those who work for our government and the middle class as a whole. It's insane. You don't solve a budget problem be squeezing the life out of the poor and middle class.
Lowering taxes on the rich, or completely eliminating them, gives poor people an INCENTIVE to become rich.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Feb 5, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
Lowering taxes on the rich, or completely eliminating them, gives poor people an INCENTIVE to become rich.
Actually, it gives the rich an incentive to isolate themselves into their own private communities where their expenditures benefit only themselves. It's short-sighted, but it works in the short-term. That's where we are right now: The rich are choking the economy with their short-term greed. If we don't balance the scales soon, we'll be a third world nation with an undereducated populace and lagging infrastructure.

We'd all be better off if the rich were to follow more enlightened policies of self-interest.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Feb 5, 2011
 
Poverty is usually enough of a motivator to becoming rich, or at least self-sufficient.
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
Lowering taxes on the rich, or completely eliminating them, gives poor people an INCENTIVE to become rich.

Since: Dec 08

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Feb 5, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

1

cpeter1313 wrote:
Poverty is usually enough of a motivator to becoming rich, or at least self-sufficient.
<quoted text>
Please stop replying to that damned fools posts. It will make Topix a better place. Thank you.
Frank Stanton

Gloversville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Feb 5, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

cpeter1313 wrote:
Poverty is usually enough of a motivator to becoming rich, or at least self-sufficient.
<quoted text>
Letting millionaires live tax-free, will be MORE of an incentive for those lazy poor people to WANT to become rich !

:)

Since: Oct 07

Bean Town.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Feb 5, 2011
 

Judged:

1

TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
Please stop replying to that damned fools posts. It will make Topix a better place. Thank you.
Agreed!

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

South Hill, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Feb 5, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Agreed, if you don't reply directly to tri-diagnosis, Daniel P. from LI, he'll resort to trolling for underage boys rather than cluttering up these boards with his unhinged idiocy.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Feb 5, 2011
 
How is that BETTER?
writewingproxycontin wrote:
Agreed, if you don't reply directly to tri-diagnosis, Daniel P. from LI, he'll resort to trolling for underage boys rather than cluttering up these boards with his unhinged idiocy.
Homosapian

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Feb 6, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
Lowering taxes on the rich, or completely eliminating them, gives poor people an INCENTIVE to become rich.
With no chance of actually getting to the goal of being rich because that means the middle class pays even more taxes to make up for the wealthy leeches on society. You theory is a FAIL.

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

Annapolis, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Feb 6, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

cpeter1313 wrote:
How is that BETTER?
<quoted text>
1. We don't have to listen to or read it.

2. Eventually he'll chat up an undercover officer and got to jail.

3. He's doing it whether he gets fed by nitwits replying to his BS here or not.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••