So, what are you going to do if you’re a Social Security employee ordered to implement a blatantly illegal order? Pretend that if the President orders it, that it can’t be that illegal? Try to drag your feet? Tell yourself that you only have a small role in the process so what you do doesn't matter. Refuse to be concerned about it since you have no non-citizen friends or family? Implement the order because you like the policy even if it's illegal? Refuse to implement the order and get fired? Quit your job so you don’t have to implement the illegal order?
In general, I have enormous sympathy for Social Security employees but on this I expect that few of you will have the courage to quit or court firing. Prove me wrong but I can hear you now. “I’ve got a family to feed.” “Refusing to implement the illegal order will do no good. If I don’t do it, someone else will.” “I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know what the law is.” “I was just following orders.”
I doubt this exact scenario will happen but somewhat less dramatic illegality is almost certain. Trump is already saying he'll end citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the U.S. illegally. That's a clear violation of the 14th Amendment. The obvious first step in ending birthright citizenship would be to deny Social Security cards to children born in the U.S. to those present in the country illegally. Would you want to implement a cruel policy that's clearly illegal?
The ses class of this agency will implement whatever they are told to do. Why would a lowly grade 8 or 11/12 decide to be a revolutionary when they terminate employees for refusing to follow policy. If the president signs the EO the HQ staff will update policy net and employees will follow policy.
ReplyDeletelol SSA management will do whatever they are told, 99% of them have no backbone. Regular non-management employees will probably be split. I think a lot of people would be surprised by the number of MAGA/Trump Supporter/Conspiracy Theorist/GuBeRmEnT bAd folks that actually work for the government…ironic, I know.
ReplyDeleteAre you bringing this up to instill fear in employees so in case any want to vote Trump won’t? Why would you think Trump would even institute this? Why not wait and see before you accuse him of things you think he might do?
ReplyDeleteWhy don’t you Google Agenda 47? He’s telling you what he’s going to do.
DeleteLets just hope the Nazi doesn’t get elected now, and figure out what to do about all the what-ifs if the selfish, stupid nazi-lovers do manage to once again elect him.
ReplyDeleteSSA employees will do whatever management tells them to do. They put up with so much now in horrible working conditions. They might complain to fellow coworkers but they will go along with the program.
ReplyDelete"horrible working conditions"...lololol. as a current SSA employee, i can assure you the working conditions are far from "horrible." in my group, people routinely turn down offers for outside employment at slightly higher pay to stay at SSA.
DeleteYou are clearly suffering from TDS. Get help.
ReplyDeleteYou obviously missed the MSG rally. Ignorance is bliss.
DeleteIn 40 years I have administered policies that appeared to me to be in opposition to the law. Management said that my interpretation was wrong so adjudicate the claim differently.
ReplyDeleteThe whole premise is ridiculous.
I forget if the same type of questions were asked when the Biden administration tried to force employees to become vaccinated. I retired but the Supreme Court said the order was not constitutional, no?
ReplyDeleteRather than wonder what trump may do, look at what he did in his 4 year term. Nothing close to what you seem to fear. Biden didn't either but he tried to force employees to get vaccinated which was later declared unconstitutional.
Thanks for your willingness to freely share your ignorant viewpoints with the readers of this blog. But in fact the Supreme Court did no such thing. It ordered the cases and lower courts’ decisions to be dismissed and set aside as moot. And given precedent, it’s very likely the Supreme Court would’ve upheld the executive order just as it had upheld similar mandates.
DeleteTrump will probably win, but he will not institute any radical changes to Social Security.
ReplyDeleteAs for SSA employees rebelling and refusing to follow what we consider to be "illegal" orders, that would be dereliction of duty and would go against the oath we took when hired.
It is not my place to refuse to implement those policies I don't like, or those I consider illegal. Those decisions are made at levels far above mine.
One wonders if he would have government workers sign a loyalty pledge to keep their positions. Just sayin'
ReplyDeleteWith a week until the election, a House bill is outlining new penalties for federal employees — including a potential five-year debarment — if they impede or obstruct lawful orders from the next presidential administration.
ReplyDeleteRep. August Pfluger’s, R-Texas, Stop Resistance Activities by Federal Employees Act would direct the Office of Personnel Management to craft new mandatory training for federal employees at General Schedule 15, Senior Executive Service or other levels to instruct them on the penalties imposed if they were to oppose, obstruct or impede directives from the president, vice president or any other political appointee.
Career unelected bureaucrats cannot be allowed to undermine the agenda of any future President," Pflugersaid in a statement. "We must ensure that the network of federal employees that brazenly carried out resistance activities under the first Trump Administration is not unleashed again."
ReplyDeleteGood. If you work for the federal government you are to obey lawful orders. If not, then quit.
ReplyDeleteNobody disputes that. The issue everyone is contemplating is what should be done when the president issues unlawful orders, as Trump and his staff routinely did during his administration.
DeleteWell you better understand the law if you refuse any order. Sally Yates refused an order that was later found to be lawful by the Supreme Court of the United States. She was rightly fired.
DeleteWow, you commenters are just full of misinformation and false memories about the orange man, aren’t you? The executive order Sally Yates refused to defend in court was in fact repeatedly declared unconstitutional by the federal courts, and was only permitted to stand by the supreme court after heavy revisions to make it less blatantly unconstitutional.
DeleteIf such an order were issued, my thinking on what would happen would be, a plan would come down to stop processing those cases. They wouldn’t be dismissed, but they would be held in limbo until the issue played out in the courts. With the current make up of the SC, I’d have no doubt the result would be, when the Pres does it, it isn’t illegal.
ReplyDeleteWith this as the “process” in place, the front liners would have the cover to stop the processing of those cases and eventually dismiss them with the cover of legality.
it is amazing how ridiculous this thread is. It is also amazingly how supposedly smart people get so caught up in propaganda fueled hysteria.
ReplyDeleteAmazing that about half the population is so eager to elect a presidential candidate they consider so dishonest and untrustworthy that they laugh about how ridiculous the other half of the population is for thinking that candidate might actually try to do some of the things they’ve repeatedly said they intend to do.
Delete