Don't really need these assaults on the Pendleton Act

[e7alr]

@lessright

Civil servants are not our representatives even when they follow lawful orders. I’m talking about legislators.

Last time I checked we are talking about career civil servants employee by the executive branch.

[Ben_Natuf]

the fact that you think any would says more about you than the law.

[Ben_Natuf]

there aren’t two sides to executive interpretation. the president and the president alone is responsible for how the executive branch interprets the law. no executive branch personell have any right to interpret the law differently in the execution of their duties

[Ben_Natuf]

@lessright

We elect a President not a King.

the ability to fire executive branch personnel does not make him a king

He’s supposed to do what we say (through our representatives) not the other way round.

100% absolute ■■■■■■■■■

[gooddad409]

@zantax

Lot of text to say Trump has a point.

Trump is right and the Pendleton Act is just dead wrong.

Those swamp creatures plagued Trump throughout his presidency. Of course libs favor keeping the swamp since it favors their side.

[WuWei]

You can’t run a government without bureaucrats. They’ve seen to it.

[DougBH]

Was Trump’s problem that there were civil service people that he couldn’t replace, or that he did not have a list of qualified people who had similar ideologies to place in positions that he did have authority to select? Biden, being mainstream in his party and knowing from experience the workings of Washington, had no problem placing loyal people in every position he could.
If you do that, then those people will be able to see that any senior civil service people who are working counter to the administrations wishes are assigned to the jobs where they won’t be much trouble.

[Rurudyne]

Just honor the Constitution and the 10th Amendment and we can fire millions of federal employees and be done with them for good.

[Ben_Natuf]

@DougBH

If you do that, then those people will be able to see that any senior civil service people who are working counter to the administrations wishes are assigned to the jobs where they won’t be much trouble.

i disagree with this completely, just fire them for malfeasance.

[Scratch]

@Ben_Natuf

the fact that you think any would says more about you than the law.

How so?..You said he should be able to fire them for any reason.

And are you kidding? You do remember who the last POTUS was and how vindictive he is, why do you think he wants the power to fire any civil servant he wants, for any reason?

[Ben_Natuf]

of course i remember, and ii’ll vote for him again.

and yes, any reason or no reason at all. am i proposing that he should? no. just that there is no reason why if the president decides any executive branch personnel is not following his agenda enacting his policies the way he wants them to, he should be able to fire them. no questions asked.

[DougBH]

@Ben_Natuf

@DougBH

If you do that, then those people will be able to see that any senior civil service people who are working counter to the administrations wishes are assigned to the jobs where they won’t be much trouble.

i disagree with this completely, just fire them for malfeasance.

Look at Strzok. Mueller reassigned him from his team because of (correctly) perceived political bias. Comey could have removed him from anything to do with Trump for the same reason, but didn’t because he had the same feelings about Trump. Trump’s problem was not having the right person as AG or head of the FBI, not the civil service system.

[PAmoderate37]

@Ben_Natuf

and yes, any reason or no reason at all. am i proposing that he should? no. just that there is no reason why if the president decides any executive branch personnel is not following his agenda enacting his policies the way he wants them to, he should be able to fire them. no questions asked.

Thank God it will never work that. For everyone who hates public sector unions, this illustrates exactly why they are needed. I could see a future President firing 29 year employees for no other reason than they are about to qualify for retirement.

[Scratch]

@PAmoderate37

I could see a future President firing 29 year employees for no other reason than they are about to qualify for retirement.

And the sad part is…there are posters here that have no problem with that.

[PAmoderate37]

@Scratch

And the sad part is…there are posters here that have no problem with that.

I think there are some who would love watching that happen to people.

[WuWei]

@PAmoderate37

@Scratch

And the sad part is…there are posters here that have no problem with that.

I think there are some who would love watching that happen to people.

I think there are at least 29 who deserve it.

But I agree with you.

[Safiel]

@e7alr

The problem is that you have Civil Service employees who believe that they can undermine, or obstruct, the policies of the elected chief executive, and his appointees. The elected chief executive should be able to suspend, with pay, any civil service employee accused of undermining, or obstructing policy. A preliminary determination should be made within 30 days, as to whether probable cause exists supporting the allegation of undermining, or obstructing, the policies of the elected executive and/or his appointees. The elected executive, and his appointees are the agents of the voters, empowered by the voters to set and implement policy. The members of the career civil service are not in any way the policy setting agents of the voters.

If probable cause is found, subject to review, the employee’s suspension should be changed to without pay. The existing employment protections allowing appeal of decisions should remain in place, but actively working to undermine the executive and the executive’s appointees should be an automatic termination, with lifetime bar of federal employment.

Basically, this boils down to one word:

Insubordination.

And yes.

Insubordinate employees can and should be removed, via the established removal policies. If there obstruction is causing an immediate problem, they could be transferred to a different unit pending final review by the Merit System Protection Board.

I agree 100% that insubordinate employees should be terminated for insubordination.

But that should be done with due process.

And again, I do agree that the process should be streamlined, so that removal does not take years.

[Ben_Natuf]

strock should have been fired. and page, and ohr, and the entire crew that attempted to insert their own policy instead of trumps that testified (openly or secretly) at his impeachment long before he was ever impeached. all of them seemed to have forgotten who it is that sets policy.

[DougBH]

@Ben_Natuf

strock should have been fired. and page, and ohr, and the entire crew that attempted to insert their own policy instead of trumps that testified (openly or secretly) at his impeachment long before he was ever impeached. all of them seemed to have forgotten who it is that sets policy.

Strzok was, of course fired. IMO there would have been no need to fire him for his anti Trump views…as long as he didn’t lie about it. Just put him to investigating mail fraud or something.

[WuWei]

Isn’t there a fine line between “interfering, obstructing and undermining” and “not supporting”?

Remember, most of these bureaucratic agencies have charters. There are job roles and responsibilities and accountability to other branches.

And a lot of elected pols have no idea what they are.

Does a Trump have the right to put me in jeopardy of standing trial for not fulfilling my duties over a campaign promise?