Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.omaha.com/article/20090622/NEWS01/906229974

LINCOLN — A Nebraska State Patrol trooper has reached the end of the line in his battle to get his job back, after being fired for joining a group linked to the Ku Klux Klan. The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday, without comment, to take an appeal from Robert Henderson, the Omaha trooper.

The court accepts about 1 percent of cases presented to it. Of 160 cases presented with Henderson's, the court took just three.

The rejection lets stand a February ruling by the Nebraska Supreme Court, in which a majority ruled that reinstating Henderson to the patrol would violate the state's "explicit, well-defined, dominant public policy" of nondiscrimination.



Don't like this...fired for political views.

If he ever acted on the racist views during his job, then yes, fire him. But don't like this one bit.

I agree dback.

Appears to be what is becoming an unsettling trend of the Roberts Court - avoiding Consitutional questions by not granting cert.

Yikes

KKK is not a "political" view. This guy got what he deserved, and this had no business even GOING to the SC.

The question for me is: Can he "serve and protect" simultaneously while holding the view that one group of citizens is human and one is less than human...

Cleets Part 2 wrote:The question for me is: Can he "serve and protect" simultaneously while holding the view that one group of citizens is human and one is less than human...

Obama is.

catamount man wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:The question for me is: Can he "serve and protect" simultaneously while holding the view that one group of citizens is human and one is less than human...

Obama is.

Obama is what...


and dude, seek help...
not every situation and circumstance across the globe requires an Obama reference... it's getting weird

Cleets Part 2 wrote:The question for me is: Can he "serve and protect" simultaneously while holding the view that one group of citizens is human and one is less than human...

Thats a good point Cleets Part 2, in fact it's a really good point, in fact it's a great point

Gil Dobie wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:The question for me is: Can he "serve and protect" simultaneously while holding the view that one group of citizens is human and one is less than human...

Thats a good point Cleets Part 2, in fact it's a really good point, in fact it's a great point

Don't go overboard with him, Gil. Even a broke clock is right twice a day.

Sounds good to me.

Racists in the police force is what made the South the racist, backwards place it was from Reconstruction to the 1960's.





Welcome to the 21st century, Nebraska!

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

catamount man wrote:
Obama is.

Obama is what...


and dude, seek help...
not every situation and circumstance across the globe requires an Obama reference... it's getting weird

Dude just needs to get laid and/or smoke a J.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:The question for me is: Can he "serve and protect" simultaneously while holding the view that one group of citizens is human and one is less than human...

Cleets, this guy is part of an organization that is LINKED to the KKK, not an actual member of the group. This is fascistic thought-crime prosecution. He shouldn't have been fired even if he actually was in the KKK. I don't buy the argument that he can't be a good LEO because of his views about blacks and jews. A lot of us here on CS don't believe we should pay as much money in taxes as we do but we don't cheat on our taxes or try to evade them in any capacity just the same.

Pwns wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:The question for me is: Can he "serve and protect" simultaneously while holding the view that one group of citizens is human and one is less than human...

Cleets, this guy is part of an organization that is LINKED to the KKK, not an actual member of the group. This is fascistic thought-crime prosecution. He shouldn't have been fired even if he actually was in the KKK. I don't buy the argument that he can't be a good LEO because of his views about blacks and jews. A lot of us here on CS don't believe we should pay as much money in taxes as we do but we don't cheat on our taxes or try to evade them in any capacity just the same.

Henderson was dismissed in early 2006 after patrol officials discovered he had joined a racist group and posted messages on its Web site.

Henderson, who was a patrolman for 18 years, told an investigator he joined the Knights Party in June 2004 to vent his frustrations about his separation with his wife. She left him for a Hispanic man.

Henderson posted four messages to the Knights’ Web site, according to the investigator’s report. The group has described itself as the most active Klan organization in the United States.

http://journalstar.com/articles/2008/03 ... 146605.txt

Give me a fucking break.

Pwns wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:The question for me is: Can he "serve and protect" simultaneously while holding the view that one group of citizens is human and one is less than human...

Cleets, this guy is part of an organization that is LINKED to the KKK, not an actual member of the group. This is fascistic thought-crime prosecution. He shouldn't have been fired even if he actually was in the KKK. I don't buy the argument that he can't be a good LEO because of his views about blacks and jews. A lot of us here on CS don't believe we should pay as much money in taxes as we do but we don't cheat on our taxes or try to evade them in any capacity just the same.

Pwns,
You can believe whatever makes you feel better...
This planet has had some interesting history revolving around people defending the idea it's okay to be pathologically insane regarding the sanctity of human life...

The idea that some people are humans and some are not humans has been the single most dangerous idea in the long and interesting history of man...

Defend away - but you put yourself in some interesting historical company when you do

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

Pwns wrote:
Cleets, this guy is part of an organization that is LINKED to the KKK, not an actual member of the group. This is fascistic thought-crime prosecution. He shouldn't have been fired even if he actually was in the KKK. I don't buy the argument that he can't be a good LEO because of his views about blacks and jews. A lot of us here on CS don't believe we should pay as much money in taxes as we do but we don't cheat on our taxes or try to evade them in any capacity just the same.

Pwns,
You can believe whatever makes you feel better...
This planet has had some interesting history revolving around people defending the idea it's okay to be pathologically insane regarding the sanctity of human life...

The idea that some people are humans and some are not humans has been the single most dangerous idea in the long and interesting history of man...

Defend away - but you put yourself in some interesting historical company when you do

Absolutely agree. The argument that a person can join a group that holds positions that subvert the Constitution and its equal protection clause and then to expect that person to serve in a capacity where they are expected to protect equally is ridiculous. The person by definition is not qualified to be a police officer.

Unless you could prove his association is affecting his duties, this guy is a political martyr.

OL FU wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:
Pwns,
You can believe whatever makes you feel better...
This planet has had some interesting history revolving around people defending the idea it's okay to be pathologically insane regarding the sanctity of human life...

The idea that some people are humans and some are not humans has been the single most dangerous idea in the long and interesting history of man...

Defend away - but you put yourself in some interesting historical company when you do

Absolutely agree. The argument that a person can join a group that holds positions that subvert the Constitution and its equal protection clause and then to expect that person to serve in a capacity where they are expected to protect THE ENTIRE COUNTRY AND BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF is ridiculous. The person by definition is not qualified to be THE PRESIDENT OF "THE LATE UNITED STATES"

ACCURACY...MY VERMIN FRIEND....ACCURACY

Skjellyfetti wrote:Sounds good to me.

Racists in the police force is what made the South the racist, backwards place it was from Reconstruction to the 1960's.





Welcome to the 21st century, Nebraska!

WASN'T AWARE THAT NEBRASKA WAS A SOUTHERN STATE.......ACTUALLY WHAT MADE THE SOUTH THE PLACE IT WAS WAS THE FACT THAT THE YANKEE INVADER INSTALLED STATE GOVERNMENTS THAT WERE NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AND THEIR POWER WAS ENFORCED AT THE POINT OF THE OCCUPIERS BAYONET. NOT UNTIL GENERALS WADE HAMPTON AND JOHNSON HAGOOD LED THE "REDSHIRT" MOVEMENT WAS THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN SOUTH CAROLINA PLACED BACK IN TO THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE. FIREHOSES WERE BETTER THAN BULLETS IN THE 60'S.

MarkCCU wrote:Unless you could prove his association is affecting his duties, this guy is a political martyr.

We are talking about the police, protect and serve. The guy by being a member of a racist group shows that he is not qualified to protect and serve all of the populationequally. We aren't talking about a guy serving milkshakes at the local dairy queen.

I don't know what to think about this. I agree with you Cleets up to a point, but first of all it would help to know what group we are talking about. For instance, I am a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. This group would be called a group with links to the KKK depending on who is doing the classifying. I am sure there is a Klukker or two in the membership. Does this make it a group with links to the Klan? Well, technically yes. However, there are many motivations for joining, only one of which could be considered racist.

Accepting a position of public trust involves an oath to uphold the law without prejudice. I can say that there have been many times where I have upheld the law in spite of having to hold my nose while doing so. It is also insulting, for example, to imply that since I am anti-abortion, that I somehow have not afforded the full protection under the law to the two abortion clinics in Charleston when the anti-abortion nuts are protesting on the sidewalks outside. I found myself at odds with those people in spite of the fact that I share some of their beliefs. It is scary that the government would uphold a decision to deny me employment based on nothing more than my association with a group that MIGHT indicate that I hold racist beliefs.

Quite frankly, I think that unless this guy is a member of the Klan itself (which, by the way, is a terrorist organization and therefore on its face grounds for dismissal from law enforcement anyway) that he has been wronged here. He very well might be an a$$hole, but when we allow that to determine whether he is fit to work in public service we open the door for all kinds of discrimination down the road. I am sure you can remember the name McCarthy? It is about racists today, but tomorrow it might be about something that describes some other personally held belief or preference.

CID1990 wrote:I don't know what to think about this. I agree with you Cleets up to a point, but first of all it would help to know what group we are talking about. For instance, I am a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. This group would be called a group with links to the KKK depending on who is doing the classifying. I am sure there is a Klukker or two in the membership. Does this make it a group with links to the Klan? Well, technically yes. However, there are many motivations for joining, only one of which could be considered racist.

Accepting a position of public trust involves an oath to uphold the law without prejudice. I can say that there have been many times where I have upheld the law in spite of having to hold my nose while doing so. It is also insulting, for example, to imply that since I am anti-abortion, that I somehow have not afforded the full protection under the law to the two abortion clinics in Charleston when the anti-abortion nuts are protesting on the sidewalks outside. I found myself at odds with those people in spite of the fact that I share some of their beliefs. It is scary that the government would uphold a decision to deny me employment based on nothing more than my association with a group that MIGHT indicate that I hold racist beliefs.

Quite frankly, I think that unless this guy is a member of the Klan itself (which, by the way, is a terrorist organization and therefore on its face grounds for dismissal from law enforcement anyway) that he has been wronged here. He very well might be an a$$hole, but when we allow that to determine whether he is fit to work in public service we open the door for all kinds of discrimination down the road. I am sure you can remember the name McCarthy? It is about racists today, but tomorrow it might be about something that describes some other personally held belief or preference.

I can see the point from that side. and I will agree that it is necessary to know the group. I assumed that the group was racist by definition. I should know better than assume. However, if the group holds the same opinions as the Klan I would stick with my argument. They have no place being a police officer.

Anti-abortion groups do not necessariy believe in violating the law. The Klans and its ilk does and has.

OL FU wrote:

MarkCCU wrote:Unless you could prove his association is affecting his duties, this guy is a political martyr.

We are talking about the police, protect and serve. The guy by being a member of a racist group shows that he is not qualified to protect and serve all of the populationequally. We aren't talking about a guy serving milkshakes at the local dairy queen.

I agree with you, but this guy was fired for his beliefs and his association. That's a dangerous precedent, IMHO.

MarkCCU wrote:

OL FU wrote:

We are talking about the police, protect and serve. The guy by being a member of a racist group shows that he is not qualified to protect and serve all of the populationequally. We aren't talking about a guy serving milkshakes at the local dairy queen.

I agree with you, but this guy was fired for his beliefs and his association. That's a dangerous precedent, IMHO.

Well I did modify my position slightly based on the above. It does depend on what the group stands for and what the ties to the Klan really are. If the ties are insignificant, then the dismissal is probably overstepping. Considering cit90s abortion example, I have no problem with someone who is a member of anti abortion groups being a police officer. On the other hand, if the group supported violent acts against abortion doctors then the argument is totally different. As I mentioned, it depends on the group and tied to the Klan they actually are.

OL FU wrote:

MarkCCU wrote:
I agree with you, but this guy was fired for his beliefs and his association. That's a dangerous precedent, IMHO.

Well I did modify my position slightly based on the above. It does depend on what the group stands for and what the ties to the Klan really are. If the ties are insignificant, then the dismissal is probably overstepping. Considering cit90s abortion example, I have no problem with someone who is a member of anti abortion groups being a police officer. On the other hand, if the group supported violent acts against abortion doctors then the argument is totally different. As I mentioned, it depends on the group and tied to the Klan they actually are.

EXACTLY!