Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

[Deleted member 365]

You do not know what you are talking about. Having gone through the OPM process, and then been on committees that hired people through it, I can tell you it is antiquated and has poor screening. It takes six months to process, and OPM is HORRIBLE about opening the ALJ process, even though agencies pay for them to do so, which results in backlogs of cases and overworked ALJs. The government has many inefficiencies, and OPM is at the top of the list.

Prior to this Executive Order, the agencies still choose who to hire, they just pick from the pool of OPM candidates that have been screened by OPM employees with very little qualifications (gs-5 iirc) that look only for keywords in applications. A very poor screening process. And this is the process most Govt employees must go through.

All the EO does is allow agencies to hire more easily and it will ensure they get a better flow of ALJ candidates, which is one area where the Govt is short on employees. And again, most importantly, it will ensure ALJ decisions going forward can't be overturned due to the holding in Lucia.

Any President would have been put in a position to make this same move after Lucia.

Seems like you like to complain just to complain.

Do you agree that the EO opens the door for (more) corruption?

 

[babe]

Do you agree that the EO opens the door for (more) corruption?

corruption can't be eliminated systematically because humans are so good at corrupting every system. This is really a fundamental issue of human nature.

But whatever little systematic checks and balances and distributions of power we can implement will be some help, until the clever little schemers figure out the system.

reducing the size and power of our government is the closest thing we've got to hoping we can live with any freedom in any respect we could care enough to fight for.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Do you agree that the EO opens the door for (more) corruption?

No, I do not. Even the director of OPM stated that the EO safeguards the efficiencies of the administrative courts. It had to be done. Your political hatred has opened you to ignorance on many issues.

1) The current case law pushed the Govt. into this position. It was either change they way they hire ALJs or put their decisions at risk. Since Lucia, there have been hundreds of appeals to overturn ALJ rulings.
2) If a Gov't agency wants to hire someone, they have them apply through OPM. My old agency had a judge apply through OPM three times before she made it through the screening process, and then we hired her (she was highly qualified, but didn't get past the peon screening process--the screeners literally only look for keywords without reading or understanding the applications). The new system will be similar to how the Government hires all federal attorneys. There is still a vetting process to ensure they have qualified and impartial candidates.

3) Look at what most ALJs do. The largest number of ALJs deal with Social Security rulings. They follow very specific parameters to make their determinations. ALJ jobs are the equivalent of sweat shops for attorneys. The Government agencies require their ALJs to make a large number of rulings every day or risk getting let go. Not a lot of room for corruption. If corruption is an issue, then they way every federal judge is appointed in this country is a big problem.

I am not a Republican. I do not like Trump and worry about him being the President. I still appreciate that some things have to get done and I know enough about politics to know why most things get done. There are many things to criticize about Trump. This is not one of them. He simply shored up a hole created by the Supreme Court.

Arguing the ALJ system itself is an issue as Babe did, I can agree with. Having ALJs appointed by Article III courts would make sense. But the EO is not worth getting your panties in a bunch. I must follow the wisdom of the all knowing @Stoked and ignore your incessant drivel.

 

[Deleted member 365]

No, I do not. Even the director of OPM stated that the EO safeguards the efficiencies of the administrative courts. It had to be done. Your political hatred has opened you to ignorance on many issues.

1) The current case law pushed the Govt. into this position. It was either change they way they hire ALJs or put their decisions at risk. Since Lucia, there have been hundreds of appeals to overturn ALJ rulings.
2) If a Gov't agency wants to hire someone, they have them apply through OPM. My old agency had a judge apply through OPM three times before she made it through the screening process, and then we hired her (she was highly qualified, but didn't get past the peon screening process--the screeners literally only look for keywords without reading or understanding the applications). The new system will be similar to how the Government hires all federal attorneys. There is still a vetting process to ensure they have qualified and impartial candidates.

3) Look at what most ALJs do. The largest number of ALJs deal with Social Security rulings. They follow very specific parameters to make their determinations. ALJ jobs are the equivalent of sweat shops for attorneys. The Government agencies require their ALJs to make a large number of rulings every day or risk getting let go. Not a lot of room for corruption. If corruption is an issue, then they way every federal judge is appointed in this country is a big problem.

I am not a Republican. I do not like Trump and worry about him being the President. I still appreciate that some things have to get done and I know enough about politics to know why most things get done. There are many things to criticize about Trump. This is not one of them. He simply shored up a hole created by the Supreme Court.

Arguing the ALJ system itself is an issue as Babe did, I can agree with. Having ALJs appointed by Article III courts would make sense. But the EO is not worth getting your panties in a bunch. I must follow the wisdom of the all knowing @Stoked and ignore your incessant drivel.

You seem cranky. Take a nap or eat a snack. Rather than discuss this issue you insult and belittle. I think I’ll beat you to it and ignore your vitriolic posts. It’s ok to disagree without being disagreeable. My issue is with the SC ruling. But whatever.

 

[JAZZGASM]

You seem cranky. Take a nap or eat a snack. Rather than discuss this issue you insult and belittle. I think I’ll beat you to it and ignore your vitriolic posts. It’s ok to disagree without being disagreeable. My issue is with the SC ruling. But whatever.

Read your post above commenting on the EO. Your comment: This isn't normal folks. How are you making an issue with the SC decision? You were taking issue with Trump and the EO, but say what you will. Your political hatred makes you blind and now you appear to be a revisionist. Lovely.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Read your post above commenting on the EO. Your comment: This isn't normal folks. How are you making an issue with the SC decision? You were taking issue with Trump and the EO, but say what you will. Your political hatred makes you blind and now you appear to be a revisionist. Lovely.

Revisionist? How so?

This type of order isn’t normal and my concerns align with those far more familiar with constitutional law than I. I worry that this opens the door to much corruption. Just because I didn’t link the OP to the court case last month doesn’t mean I’m being revisionist or that the EO isn’t concerning. Why does trump need to issue this EO? This is an overstep, isn’t it?Doesn’t it open things up to corruption?

Besides, it’s not like Trump has exactly run a clean ship (Price, Pruitt, Kushner). You can’t call me a hater for being concerned with executive overreach which Trump has clearly done so in the past (zero tolerance immigration; put kids in cages) or has turned a blind eye to corruption... which is exactly my concern with this EO.

So yeah, ignore my concerns and continue to spew vitriol. I thought you were going to ignore me? Can you?

"The executive order takes a very modest decision from the Supreme Court last month, and basically runs with it to turn just about all administrative law judges within the executive branch from somewhat independent civil servants into politically appointed and politically removable bureaucrats who basically will have no one to answer to other than the administration officials who are responsible for their appointment," said Stephen Vladeck, an expert on administrative law at the University of Texas law school.

He questions whether the federal government will require any basic competency for the judges. And, worse, he worries about biases in hiring.

"The real concern becomes that you're going to have administrative law judges in these agencies who are either there because they're deeply sympathetic to the regulated industries, or because they're deeply hostile to the regulated industries," said Vladeck. "Either way you lose the veneer of independent adjudication on which so much of the modern administrative state rests."

Caroline Frederickson, president of the American Constitution Society, agrees with those concerns and in a statement specifically pointed to possible repercussions with the Social Security Administration. "Administrative law judges handle Social Security disability cases. This administration is on record as wanting to lessen benefits. It's likely that a political ALJ appointed by this administration would rule against the beneficiaries and deny claims."

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/10/627826602/trump-changes-how-federal-agency-in-house-judges-are-hired

 

[RandyForRubio]

Sometimes all you can do is laugh.

 

[babe]

No, I do not. Even the director of OPM stated that the EO safeguards the efficiencies of the administrative courts. It had to be done. Your political hatred has opened you to ignorance on many issues.

1) The current case law pushed the Govt. into this position. It was either change they way they hire ALJs or put their decisions at risk. Since Lucia, there have been hundreds of appeals to overturn ALJ rulings.
2) If a Gov't agency wants to hire someone, they have them apply through OPM. My old agency had a judge apply through OPM three times before she made it through the screening process, and then we hired her (she was highly qualified, but didn't get past the peon screening process--the screeners literally only look for keywords without reading or understanding the applications). The new system will be similar to how the Government hires all federal attorneys. There is still a vetting process to ensure they have qualified and impartial candidates.

3) Look at what most ALJs do. The largest number of ALJs deal with Social Security rulings. They follow very specific parameters to make their determinations. ALJ jobs are the equivalent of sweat shops for attorneys. The Government agencies require their ALJs to make a large number of rulings every day or risk getting let go. Not a lot of room for corruption. If corruption is an issue, then they way every federal judge is appointed in this country is a big problem.

I am not a Republican. I do not like Trump and worry about him being the President. I still appreciate that some things have to get done and I know enough about politics to know why most things get done. There are many things to criticize about Trump. This is not one of them. He simply shored up a hole created by the Supreme Court.

Arguing the ALJ system itself is an issue as Babe did, I can agree with. Having ALJs appointed by Article III courts would make sense. But the EO is not worth getting your panties in a bunch. I must follow the wisdom of the all knowing @Stoked and ignore your incessant drivel.

Every now and then, even in JFC, I run into something that obviously is way beyond my own expertise or knowledge.

Here is an example I just have sit down and think about. Clearly a more balanced and reasoned position on the issue, clearly based on actual understanding.....

Bravo.

 

[♪alt13]

https://amp.slate.com/news-and-poli...r-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html

 

[RandyForRubio]

https://amp.slate.com/news-and-poli...r-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html

Even Vox doesn’t think it’s perjury.

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/7/17829320/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-hearing-perjury

Here’s a good article from David French. Recommend reading it.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...n-by-democrats/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Also look at how Kamala Harris purposefully edited an answer of Kavanaugh’s, omitting two key words, that the media then ran with...with hardly anybody pointing out the omission.

Is this how we want to do this now? It’s a sham. Treat Donald like ****, he’s earned it and deserves it, but when people cry wolf on every single conservative...well, you end up with Donald.

 

[infection]

Is this how we want to do this now? It’s a sham. Treat Donald like ****, he’s earned it and deserves it, but when people cry wolf on every single conservative...well, you end up with 8 years of Donald.

FTFY.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Watching Democrats kick and scream over this SCOTUS appointment and confirmation process has been embarrassing. Liberals are coming across as childish and bitter, including the press. These are precisely the kind of antics that helped get Trump elected in the first place.