Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Federal Law that Goodling and Co violated

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
dancingme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-24-07 10:52 AM
Original message
The Federal Law that Goodling and Co violated
On another board I got into a discussion of the US Attorney firing and hiring violations. A Republican claimed that there is no actual law that Gonzales and Sampson and Goodling violated. If this is the latest Freeper talking point, here is the law:

http://www.osc.gov/documents/pubs/rights.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-24-07 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Why are these considered the rights of only Federal Employees?
....These should be the employment rights of every working person in the United States!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-24-07 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. They aren't rights for Federal Employees only. Everyone else is covered by this.
1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e and following) prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of race or color, religion, sex, and national origin (including membership in a Native American tribe). It also prohibits employers from retaliating against an applicant or employee who asserts his or her rights under the law. To learn more about retaliation, see Preventing Retaliation Claims by Employees.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/33B71442-EC4C-412E-96C06E3E24F94B7A/catID/DE34C24C-9CBE-42EF-917012F2F6758F92/111/259/283/CHK/

The GOVERNMENT considers itself a special case, so there had to be a different set of rules for federal employees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-24-07 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
2. She committed perjury.
Particularly on that part about studying when she could have been partying.

Obviously, since she doesn't know anything about law, and is still experiencing blackouts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dancingme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-24-07 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. too bad she didn't spend time actually reading the law
Oh wait, she only needs to read one book. If it's not in The Book, it doesn't concern her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC