 |
| A Picture Of Eric Conn As He Was Being Arrested At A Pizza Hut In Honduras |
Dec 5, 2017
Dec 4, 2017
Anarcho-Capitalism And ALJs
Sounds boring, right? The problem is that if they are officers, their appointments have to be approved by the President. ALJs would all serve at the pleasure of the President. Got your attention now?
Under the appointments clause of the Constitution, "officers" must be appointed by the President. Employees are not appointed by the President and are protected by civil service rules. ALJs have not been appointed by the President and are protected by those civil service rules. The difference between an officer and an employee is the degree of independent authority exercised.
"Officers" need not be confirmed by the Senate. There is a corps of about 7,000 members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) who are considered "officers" in the federal government who must be appointed by the President but who are not confirmed by the Senate. They hold, well, senior positions at agencies. The confirmation is mostly a formality. Agencies send over lists of SES appointments for routine Presidential sign-off. However, the President can always refuse to sign-off on an SES appointment or insist that a certain person get an SES appointment or insist that a person holding an SES position by removed from his or her position. Political appointees can do the same to the extent that an SES office holder work for them.
Under the appointments clause of the Constitution, "officers" must be appointed by the President. Employees are not appointed by the President and are protected by civil service rules. ALJs have not been appointed by the President and are protected by those civil service rules. The difference between an officer and an employee is the degree of independent authority exercised.
"Officers" need not be confirmed by the Senate. There is a corps of about 7,000 members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) who are considered "officers" in the federal government who must be appointed by the President but who are not confirmed by the Senate. They hold, well, senior positions at agencies. The confirmation is mostly a formality. Agencies send over lists of SES appointments for routine Presidential sign-off. However, the President can always refuse to sign-off on an SES appointment or insist that a certain person get an SES appointment or insist that a person holding an SES position by removed from his or her position. Political appointees can do the same to the extent that an SES office holder work for them.
Since none of the ALJs on duty now have been approved by the President, all actions they have taken may be considered ultra vires, to use the legal term for "beyond their powers."
If ALJs, as presently appointed, are found to be unconstitutional, the President could decide on which of the current ALJs he wants to keep and which he wants to leave. He could fire any of them at any time if they displease him. They could be ordered about pretty much as the President desires.
If ALJs, as presently appointed, are found to be unconstitutional, the President could decide on which of the current ALJs he wants to keep and which he wants to leave. He could fire any of them at any time if they displease him. They could be ordered about pretty much as the President desires.
Basically, if the President's position is upheld, the independent ALJ corps as we have known it is dead.
Why would anyone argue for Presidential appointments of ALJs? If you have an ALJ decision you disagree with, you might want it overturned on the grounds that the ALJ who decided it had no legal authority to decide it. You might make the argument if you want all disputes you have with the federal government decided in a completely political manner. More importantly, you would make this argument if, like Steve Bannon, you wanted to "deconstruct the administrative state," by which you meant returning the federal government to some supposed state of nature after it has been drowned in a bathtub to use Grover Norquist's words. Given the growth of the American economy and population, I think that would bring about what could only be described as anarchy, although the more accurate term might be anarcho-capitalism, which really is a thing. Today's Republican party is rapidly becoming an openly anarcho-capitalist party.
What would follow if ALJs as presently appointed are found to be unconstitutional? Maybe, they continue to be hired in much the same way as now but their appointments are routinely approved by the President and there's no interference with their exercise of judgment. Maybe, Trump starts picking individual ALJs to be fired based upon what he heard on Fox and Friends that morning. Maybe, there will be a wholesale turnover of ALJs with each Presidential Administration. Maybe, appointments of ALJs become openly political. Maybe, ALJs are routinely told by those holding political appointments what decisions they must make. Maybe, Social Security ALJs are told they must not approve more than some set percentage of disability claimants. God only knows.
Why would anyone argue for Presidential appointments of ALJs? If you have an ALJ decision you disagree with, you might want it overturned on the grounds that the ALJ who decided it had no legal authority to decide it. You might make the argument if you want all disputes you have with the federal government decided in a completely political manner. More importantly, you would make this argument if, like Steve Bannon, you wanted to "deconstruct the administrative state," by which you meant returning the federal government to some supposed state of nature after it has been drowned in a bathtub to use Grover Norquist's words. Given the growth of the American economy and population, I think that would bring about what could only be described as anarchy, although the more accurate term might be anarcho-capitalism, which really is a thing. Today's Republican party is rapidly becoming an openly anarcho-capitalist party.
What would follow if ALJs as presently appointed are found to be unconstitutional? Maybe, they continue to be hired in much the same way as now but their appointments are routinely approved by the President and there's no interference with their exercise of judgment. Maybe, Trump starts picking individual ALJs to be fired based upon what he heard on Fox and Friends that morning. Maybe, there will be a wholesale turnover of ALJs with each Presidential Administration. Maybe, appointments of ALJs become openly political. Maybe, ALJs are routinely told by those holding political appointments what decisions they must make. Maybe, Social Security ALJs are told they must not approve more than some set percentage of disability claimants. God only knows.
Dec 3, 2017
One Man's Fight
A Norfolk, VA television station reports on one person's fight for Social Security disability benefits. Over a million people are in the same boat. And don't make the stupid assumption that because he has liver cirrhosis that he's an alcoholic. He's a diabetic. Diabetes can cause liver disease.
Dec 2, 2017
LOL
Sam Johnson, the Chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee, is now trying to blame the hearing backlog on President Trump's failure to nominate a new Commissioner for Social Security.
A confirmed Commissioner would be nice but it's absurd to think that any Commissioner could possibly do anything of consequence about the backlog without more money to spend to hire the personnel needed to get the work done. That one is on you and your Republican colleagues in Congress, Mr. Johnson.
Dec 1, 2017
Hearing Backlog Soaring
The Orange County Register article on Social Security's hearing backlog included a number of very interesting charts. Here's one.
 |
| Cases awaiting a Social Security disability hearing |
Nov 30, 2017
Nov 29, 2017
Why Is There So Much Regional Variation? Part I
The Orange County Register article on Social Security's hearing backlog included a number of very interesting visuals. Here's one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)