英语翻译Then,just this week,the Los Angeles Times reports the court "restricted the free-speech rights of the nation’s 21 million public employees Tuesday,ruling that the First Amendment does not protect them from being punished for complaining

英语翻译Then,just this week,the Los Angeles Times reports the court "restricted the free-speech rights of the nation’s 21 million public employees Tuesday,ruling that the First Amendment does not protect them from being punished for complaining
英语翻译
Then,just this week,the Los Angeles Times reports the court "restricted the free-speech rights of the nation’s 21 million public employees Tuesday,ruling that the First Amendment does not protect them from being punished for complaining to their managers about possible wrongdoing." The ruling is extremely far-reaching in that "it applies to governments at all levels,including federal and states agencies,public hospitals and public schools and colleges." It is also outrageous.
Consider,for instance,someone working at the Pentagon who finds out that Halliburton or another politically connected contractor is illegally bilking taxpayers,as we know these contractors have in the past.That’s right - if that person tells their superiors about the illegal behavior,they can be fired.And remember - this decision was brought to you specifically by Roberts and Alito."In October,the justices first heard the case,but they were apparently split 4-4," the Times noted.It was reargued in March,and the two new justices cast the deciding votes in the split decision.
Now,in a story buried in the business press but barely reported anywhere else,we find out that the Roberts court is considering limiting punitive damages against the worst corporate abusers.Specifically,the Financial Times notes that the court said "it would review a $79 mllion award won by the widow of a former smoker against Philip Morris,the big cigarette maker." However,"the case reaches far beyond the world of tobacco,and could test the justices’ determination to restrict the size of damage awards that juries can impose against a wide range of businesses." The paper goes on to note that "the U.S.Chamber of Commerce has tried repeatedly to persuade the justices" to limit punitive damages - and since the White House allowed the Chamber of Commerce to vet potential Supreme Court nominees,the Chamber is now expecting to get its way.
Why is this important to citizens?I have a whole section on this in my new book,Hostile Takeover.Here’s an excerpt that should spell it out:

英语翻译Then,just this week,the Los Angeles Times reports the court "restricted the free-speech rights of the nation’s 21 million public employees Tuesday,ruling that the First Amendment does not protect them from being punished for complaining
然后,这星期仅仅,洛杉矶时报报告法院 "星期二限制了国家的自由- 演讲权利二千一百万位公众的职员,规定第一个改善为向他们的经理抱怨不保护他们免于被处罚可能的恶行".判决极端地是广大的在那 "它在所有的水平适用于政府,包括联邦的和州代理,公众的医院和公立学校和学院".资讯科技也是暴虐的.
考虑,举例来说,某人在五角大厦的工作,发现政治地连接承包商的 Halliburton 或另外一正在违法地赖纳税人,如同我们知道这些承包商过去有一样.那是正确的 -如果那一个人告诉他们的长者关于违法的行为,他们能被点燃.而且记得 -这决定对你明确地被罗勃特和 Alito 带来." 在十月,正义首先听到了情形,但是他们显然地被分离 4-4",泰晤士报注意.资讯科技在三月被再争论,而且二新的正义投票.
现在,在一个除了几乎不能报告的任何地方之外在生意杂志报纸中被埋葬的故事中,我们发现罗勃特法院正在考虑对抗最坏的企业 abusers 的限制惩罚性损害赔偿.明确地,财政的泰晤士报注意法院说 " 它会检讨一个被对抗菲力浦莫理斯的前吸烟者的寡妇嬴得的 $79 mllion 奖赏,大的香烟者".
然而,"情形遥远地到达超过烟草的世界,而且可以测试正义的决心限制损害陪审团能强加对抗宽范围的生意奖赏的大小".报纸继续注意 " 美国商会有重复地试着劝正义 " 限制惩罚性损害赔偿 -而且自从～以后被允许商会诊疗潜在的最高法院被提名者的白宫,室现在正在期待拿它的方法.
对市民这为什么重要的?我有我的新书在这上的一个整个的区段,怀敌意的接管.一个应该拼出它的摘录在这里:
我也不知道对不对,应该大概意思差不多吧!如不对请多多指教.

yun!~
呵呵！~
有功夫！~