Martinez sued by Richardson political...

Martinez sued by Richardson political appointee

There are 35 comments on the Las Cruces Sun-News story from Jan 21, 2011, titled Martinez sued by Richardson political appointee. In it, Las Cruces Sun-News reports that:

The state Supreme Court has been asked to reinstate the director of the Workers' Compensation Administration, who was ousted when Republican Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Las Cruces Sun-News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
NtT

Albuquerque, NM

#21 Jan 22, 2011
NMSU Grad wrote:
Good, get rid of all the Demo tree huggers that have ruined this not business friendly state.
Ok, Eric Cartman - whatever you say!
NtT

Albuquerque, NM

#22 Jan 22, 2011
Who is footing the bill for Mrs. Martinez' legal defense? It shouldn't be the taxpayer!

She said she was going to cut the state spending. If taxpayers foot the bill for her legal costs, too many lawsuits like this are going to make our budget worse, not better!
big dog

United States

#23 Jan 22, 2011
F Richardson and any one who voted or worked for the drunk crook
Smitty

North Hollywood, CA

#24 Jan 22, 2011
No doubt the Richardson appointee was a shill for the trial lawyer lobby.

They (scumbag lawyers) don't give a crap about injured workers or employers, only their cut, they would gleefully have every injured worker collecting $200 week and bankrupt every employer as long as they get their cut.

The more I hear about this woman Martinez the more I like her, she makes mock Republicans governors (Romney, Schwartzenegger, Huckabee) look bad too.
Uncommon Sense

Albuquerque, NM

#25 Jan 22, 2011
Sore loser...
BLOOD ON HIS HANDS

Albuquerque, NM

#26 Jan 22, 2011
Ha ha ha - another dumb as crap whining about losing their
job... More of these clowns should be fired immediately
so that we can retool New Mexico and get on with business
rather than have these clownbots get in the way of
progress.

Viva Susana - Go Get Em!

Ooops (I suppose in the eyes of Dumb as Craps that was
hate speech).

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

#27 Jan 22, 2011
justice is just a choice wrote:
<quoted text>
One thing I see about these commitments show that some people actually think the firing was a good thing.
When the reality is a person cannot be fired for any political reason. It is a severe violation of the First Amendment. She is specifically getting rid of any and all things Richardson, but depriving people of their employment for a political reason is unconstitutional. Remember she WAS a prosecutor and she is supposed to know the law and do not forget that when she lost her job she herself sued her employer.
Now the most ironic thing is anyone who responds to this and says she is getting rid of waste and not terminating them for political reasons, um some of these posts are acknowledging these people are being fired or "cleaning house" because of their appointment by Richardson and another post states "get rid of all the Demo tree huggers"
Sounds political to me.
I for one hope this person is able to go through with their lawsuit and I definitely hope they win.
For the record people this is lawsuit number TWO and she is just 3 weeks into office. How many more will come during her dictatorship? Only time well tell. The thing is though these people are practically suing the state so guess who funds the defense, YOU DO and hear you thought she was trying to save you money. So then is that where the budget really goes. Tying up the state treasury in lawsuits, congrats Martinez you are a true gem.
Wow. I admit I need to take time and proofread :-D
No What

Albuquerque, NM

#28 Jan 22, 2011
justice is just a choice wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. I admit I need to take time and proofread :-D
you need to do is quit stalking women and get a life other than the Topix life

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

#29 Jan 22, 2011
No What wrote:
<quoted text>you need to do is quit stalking women and get a life other than the Topix life
You need to learn what the actual crime of stalking entails before you say such ridiculous things.

As for this life thing once again...

I do have a life and "life more abundantly"

Let him who hath an ear hear...

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

#30 Jan 22, 2011
No What wrote:
<quoted text>you need to do is quit stalking women and get a life other than the Topix life
So are you Lisa King? Seems you're the one who can't quit stalking me

which is quite laughable.
LC Today

Brighton, MI

#31 Jan 23, 2011
Definitely let's get rid of him. Anyone having to do with that jerk Richardson, who screwed the state, into a bankrupt mode, also needs to be removed.
Cato

Albuquerque, NM

#32 Jan 23, 2011
What happened to the story about Martinez appointing a campaign donor to a post at $100K per year? It's disappeared from the page after less than 24 hours. If she keeps doing things like that, her claims to clean up state government will look a little hollow and Richardson hardly unique.
LaTejanaRules

United States

#33 Jan 23, 2011
lcirishman wrote:
His party lost, her party won. Exit gracefully and quit wasting time and taxpayer dollars trying to hold on to whatever power you may have had under the last administration. You serve at the discrection of the Governor.
I like that...
ro blackman

Hobbs, NM

#34 Jan 23, 2011
typical liberal maneuver or manure can't have their way so they sue. Your guy or in this case gal lost get over it buddy, go home, and let the republicans clean up big bills mess!

“Freedom is never free”

Since: Jan 09

El Paso, Texas

#35 Feb 9, 2011
And this is why everyone stands a chance at successfully suing Susana Martinez:

"Finally, the plaintiffs vigorously contend that Quarberg terminated them because of their past association with ex-sheriff Harvey. This First Amendment freedom of association claim is distinct from the due process claims and must be considered regardless of whether the plaintiffs had a legitimate expectation of continued employment. See Rampey v. Allen, 501 F.2d 1090, 1097-98 (10th Cir.1974)(en banc), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 908, 95 S.Ct. 827, 42 L.Ed.2d 838 (1975); Bertot v. School District No. 1, Albany County, Wyo., 522 F.2d 1171, 1177 (10th Cir.1975). See also Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597-98, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2697-98, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). In Rampey, Judge Doyle's opinion for this court en banc stated that "[s]urely the right to be free from this kind of personality control is a constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment since it is a species of expression." 501 F.2d at 1098.
Although an employer has a legitimate interest in ensuring the "political loyalty of employees ... to the end that representative government not be undercut by tactics obstructing the implementation of policies of the new administration," Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 367, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 2687, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976), that interest cannot be elevated to the level of "personality control." See Rampey, 501 F.2d at 1098. Instead, an employer's interest "in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees," Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1735, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), must be balanced against the interests of the employee as a citizen in exercising his First Amendment rights. See Rankin v. McPherson,--- U.S.----,---- 107 S.Ct. 2891, 2896-97, 97 L.Ed.2d 315, 324 (1987).
In Elrod, a newly elected Democratic sheriff discharged Republican employees of the Cook County, Illinois Sheriff's Department solely because the employees were not affiliated with or sponsored by the Democratic Party. The plurality opinion held that this practice violated the First Amendment rights of the employees. The plurality (consisting of Justices Brennan, White, and Marshall) discerned two interests which were implicated in the case: the individual employee's right to express political beliefs, and the political system's interest in robust and uninhibited debate. Id., 427 U.S. at 355-56, 96 S.Ct. at 2680-81. However, Justice Stewart, in his concurring opinion joined by Justice Blackmun, emphasized that the "single substantive question involved ... is whether a nonpolicymaking, nonconfidential government employee can be discharged or threatened with discharge from a job that he is satisfactorily performing upon the sole ground of his political beliefs." Id. at 375, 96 S.Ct. at 2690.
For these reasons we hold that both plaintiffs Dickeson and Weaver come with the protection of the First Amendment as applied in Elrod and Branti..." Dickeson v. Quarberg, 844 F.2d 1435

She swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, not violate it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Bill Richardson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Double dippers' fought legislation (May '09) Apr '16 concerned citizen 56
News Republican Martinez claims NM governor's seat (Nov '10) Apr '16 Juanita T 246
News Who still takes global warming seriously? (Jan '10) Jan '16 Brian_G 30,932
News Janway: Plutonium has already been disposed at ... (Sep '15) Sep '15 texinnewmex 2
News Charges against official fuel state's corruptio... (Sep '15) Sep '15 fatbacksx 1
News Sheldon Adelson, Bill Richardson help Sen. Robe... (Jul '15) Jul '15 Sterkfontein Swar... 1
News Gross receipt tax increase fails to pass (May '15) Jun '15 Ralph 6
More from around the web