Discendo Vox posted:

Yes, it's this. There are ways for the feds to back out of a conditional offer, but they're highly constrained. "Disagree with their politics" doesn't work, and coming up with a pretext (especially in the context of a position like an immigration judge) is also not going to work.

Josef bugman posted:

It's a conditional offer. Why on earth is "we are not the same regime" not considered a fair reason? Especially when it is obvious that there are no required reasons that these people are better than any others who might be considered?

Alongside that I do have to look back at the whole "the ends never justify the means" and have to wonder if people think about things ending at all? If the means themselves justify themselves then nothing needs changing ever.

Josef bugman posted:

It's a conditional offer. Why on earth is "we are not the same regime" not considered a fair reason?

Josef bugman posted:

It's a conditional offer. Why on earth is "we are not the same regime" not considered a fair reason? Especially when it is obvious that there are no required reasons that these people are better than any others who might be considered?

Discendo Vox posted:

Not replacing your civil service with each party swap is one of the things that reinforces rule of law, and distinguishes the united states from states on the edge of collapse. It's been a foundational aspect of federal government since the post-civil war reforms.

Reality Protester posted:

Trump fired the head of the fbi and faced 0 consequences, and the guy never got his job back. Trump also had the deputy director fired, and while a lawsuit got him his pension restored, never gave him his job back.

I think people, average people, care a lot less about judicial appointments than you think they do. If Biden is doing a good job, and has three and a half years left to continue to do a good job, there should be no problem in firing a bunch of trump holdovers from the most racist immigration system in history. He should be applauded for doing so, scrubbing the stain of trump off the federal government.

But he's not, because it's business as usual for Joe, and Joe hates the immigrants too.

Discendo Vox posted:

Not replacing your civil service with each party swap is one of the things that reinforces rule of law, and distinguishes the united states from states on the edge of collapse. It's been a foundational aspect of federal government since the post-civil war reforms.

Owlspiracy posted:

because the us specifically has a non political professional bureaucracy which has protections from at will firing to ensure there is a core of non political professionals at all time that can operate the routines of government. that’s literally just how it is.

nobody is saying the ends never justify the means - what we’re saying your end is “saving the US from a pending fascist takeover” the means are not “firing judges” it’s “jailing Republicans”

GreyjoyBastard posted:

My presumption is that Garland would, at minimum, quite like to have more Garland hires and less Barr hires, and as such that if he could trivially fire / not-hire these people, he would. This dovetails with what little I've been able to find so far (and what Vox said) about conditional offers not being totally arbitrarily reversible.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

i have absolutely no idea what they are like in the UK, but these folks are not being hired by Bojo to review French unauthorized immigrants, they're being hired by the Biden DOJ

quote:

Suitability and Citizenship:  It is the policy of the Department to achieve a drug-free workplace and persons selected for employment will be required to pass a drug test which screens for illegal drug use prior to final appointment.  Employment is also contingent upon the completion and satisfactory adjudication of a background investigation. Congress generally prohibits agencies from employing non-citizens within the United States, except for a few narrow exceptions as set forth in the annual Appropriations Act (see, https://www.usajobs.gov/Help/working-in-government/non-citizens/). Pursuant to DOJ component policies, only U.S. citizens are eligible for employment with the Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Trustee’s Offices, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Unless otherwise indicated in a particular job advertisement, qualifying non-U.S. citizens meeting immigration and appropriations law criteria may apply for employment with other DOJ organizations. However, please be advised that the appointment of non-U.S. citizens is extremely rare; such appointments would be possible only if necessary to accomplish the Department's mission and would be subject to strict security requirements. Applicants who hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and another country will be considered on a case-by-case basis. All DOJ employees are subject to a residency requirement. Candidates must have lived in the United States for at least three of the past five years. The three-year period is cumulative, not necessarily consecutive. Federal or military employees, or dependents of federal or military employees serving overseas, are excepted from this requirement. This is a Department security requirement which is waived only for extreme circumstances and handled on a case-by-case basis.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

trump was not, in fact, able to fire the entire federal government and replace it with card-carrying nazis

we can be reasonably confident that he wanted to

he made some - too much - headway in making conditions uncomfortable enough that a lot of people quit, and in refusing to hire more people, but he was not able to legally abolish the FDA, or replace HUD with people who would pay all of the money to Trump properties

sexpig by night posted:

I don't think Trump personally gave a single poo poo about the government as an organization and I'm going to need you to prove he did just like apparently that other guy had to 'back up' his claim that less white supremacists in charge of immigration is good.

sexpig by night posted:

I don't think Trump personally gave a single poo poo about the government as an organization and I'm going to need you to prove he did just like apparently that other guy had to 'back up' his claim that less white supremacists in charge of immigration is good.

quote:

At the department level, the Biden team will have the steepest hole to climb out of at Education, which has seen a 15% decline in employees since late 2016. That is up from 11% about halfway through Trump’s term. Both State and Labor employ about 12% fewer workers than they did prior to Trump's presidency. State kept a hiring freeze in place for 16 months until Secretary Mike Pompeo ended it in 2018. While he and department officials said they had instituted plans to restore hiring, State has only seen its net reduction in civil service workers continue to grow. The State inspector general has said the hiring freeze’s impact was deep and widespread and would not be fully reversed until 2021, though the most up-to-date figures show the department is still trending in the wrong direction.

...

Agencies have used various methods to shed employees. The Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department initially offered separation incentives to workers, though Congress has since blocked those efforts. Other agencies have relied on attrition. Some took a novel approach, seeking to incentivize employees to leave by relocating their offices. When the Agriculture Department moved two of its components—the Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture—from Washington to Kansas City, then Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said it was a “wonderful way” to get long-time career workers to quit.

Agriculture has seen a 7% workforce reduction under Trump, but at ERS and NIFA the attrition rates are 33% and 24%, respectively.

Josef bugman posted:

But the prior regime, and anyone that follows in their footsteps, will get rid of them if there is a risk of them compromising the regimes goals. We saw this with the FBI director as an example. But as mentioned above these folks got a conditional offer a while back. They are not yet employees of the federal government, are they?

Also "that's just how it is" is the most circular blinkin' logic I have heard. You can't justify things on "well it's just like that" when the "like that" may well result in the harming of human beings.

Sarcastr0 posted:

I saw nothing about Trump's personal respect for government as an organization in the comment you are replying to.

Reality Protester posted:

Did you know? trump decertified the Immigration Judges' union in november 2020. In theory they have very few protections right now.

I'm conflicted on whether they should take the opportunity to fire them. Unions are good, and cool, but these guys make well over 100k and are overseeing a genocide, so gently caress them.

Owlspiracy posted:

idk what you're talking about. the us has extremely strong civil servant protections to encourage a nonpolitical civil service and to specifically prevent an incoming president from cleaning house and hiring political allies. this is good in general for many reasons. the federal civil servant unions are perhaps the strongest unions in the us and are an excellent example of how a union should work and labor protection in practice - in the us federal employees enjoy excellent benefits, protection from unjust firings (they are not at will employees) and a great pension plan - because of the strength of their union. part of these protections include protecting employs who are offered positions from having their offer pulled without consequence - again, in general this is a good thing, because it protects workers. that this may protect some bad people in this specific instance is not evidence that unions are bad in general or that we should fundamentally change our federal civil servant class and the protections they enjoy.

also nobody is "justifying" anything. you once again do not understand the distinction between "is" and "ought".

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Anyway, if there is in fact a legal way to non-hire these judges, my position on the topic will move from "whatever, fine" to "should have non-hired them but whatever". I am dubious of the ability of Garland/Biden to blow up the background review process, and whether it would be a good idea.

Owlspiracy posted:

its kind of an interesting question. i personally don't feel police unions (a similar example) should be treated like other unions and you can maintain worker solidarity while wanting police unions to be disbanded.

Josef bugman posted:

In response to the bolded bit: The next governments apparatus: Will ignore per-existing legal reasons and come up with new ones to justify it's own power/ continuation of it's chosen ideals. It will do this and any attempt to appeal to prior norms will be ignored.

Josef bugman posted:

I am unsure if this is apropos for this thread, and do feel free to ignore this, but why does legality matter to you? I know in theory that it prevents the powerful from acting as they wish towards the less powerful, but I am unsure that this happens.

Owlspiracy posted:

this just isn't true. it wasn't true under trump and hasn't been true under biden. why do you think this is happening? because trump fired the fbi director?

the distinction between "is" and "ought" is important because you asked why something is, and you were answered. that is a very different question on how things ought to be. they're just... different. i don't know how else to explain it.

Josef bugman posted:

I am unsure if this is apropos for this thread, and do feel free to ignore this, but why does legality matter to you? I know in theory that it prevents the powerful from acting as they wish towards the less powerful, but I am unsure that this happens.

Josef bugman posted:

You say this as if there is not now a concerted effort by the second largest political party to prevent democracy from being realised inside of the USA. I believe it is, on balance, very likely to happen. The next time the Republicans in their present set up win then the USA will continue to have elections, it's just that you will know the result about 4 days in advance.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Owlspiracy posted:

because any functioning democratic system is premised on a shared belief in the rule of law. its literally the foundational precept to modern liberal democracies. there is no objective value or meaning to a shared legal code - it only has value if we collectively believe it has value. this collective belief is required for a functioning society.

Owlspiracy posted:

if you legitimately believe this you should not be advocating firing immigration judges, you should be advocating arresting republicans and stripping them of their civil liberties and their right to vote.

Josef bugman posted:

And if they sue and they aren't? Is the harm that they could inflict worse than the harm they will inflict on some of the most vulnerable people in the modern world if left in post?


"Modern liberal democracies" were founded after either the French Revolution or the American Revolutionary war. Both of which involved the violent overthrow of the legal authorities of their territories. I would heartily disagree with the idea that these nations foundational ideal was a belief in the "rule of law", considering this.


Do you mean legislators or standard GOP voters? Because can you not see that happening? And to quote a silly meme: por que no los dos!

I'd advocate, very seriously that the GOP is a white supremacist organisation and, if it were smaller, would be on a watchlist.

Owlspiracy posted:

i mean this kindly: have you ever studied any intellectual history or political history?

Josef bugman posted:

From what I saw it was very much that the only thing preventing people with power doing harm isn't "the law" but something equally powerful able and willing to smash their face in if they try anything on. Be that concerns about other nobles, bad press abroad or etc.

Josef bugman posted:

And if they sue and they aren't? Is the harm that they could inflict worse than the harm they will inflict on some of the most vulnerable people in the modern world if left in post?

Fritz the Horse posted:

Counterpoint that is extremely relevant to this thread/line of discussion: Trump was stopped from doing a long long list of harms by the US legal system.

Reality Protester posted:

Seems like it would be very easy to say they failed their background investigation and let them go.

Discendo Vox posted:

No, it does not make sense for the president to seize control of the federal employment background examination system and use it to replace employees with loyalists. This is seriously trying to sprint down the failed state process.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Then my current assessment that non-hiring them is probably illegal is wrong, and my primary concern* about "just fire them for being trump hires lol" is invalid. I repeat yet again: if firing them is legal, my position moves from "whatever fine" to "should have fired them, but whatever". It would be a comparatively very small, but positive, action.

* - there's some chance repeated indecorous actions might impact Biden's reelection chances more negatively than positively, and it's conceivable that some norm erosions might in fact turn out to have been bad ideas. but for the same reasons i am more interested in the big picture and large-scale remedies to the immigration / immigration judge system, i don't really think the firing of seventeen immigration judges would be an earthshaking national scandal that dooms us to destruction in 2022 and 2024

Josef bugman posted:

Does the previous regimes appointment of loyalists through means of ignoring prior guidance not already accelerate this?

Josef bugman posted:

That's because Trump, fortunately, had not done the "simple" thing of requiring direct loyalty before promotion/protection. Creating lines of clear patronage (even if it's behind the figleaf of "rewarding good work") would have meant he'd have been able to get so much more evil poo poo done. Trump (as others have argued here) had a lot of power in the imperial presidency and, to be honest, if he hadn't been so content to remain as he was, he could have done even more damage.

Trump was only ever focussed on the now and the immediate. I am thinking that the GOP, as a collective body, has started to see that democracy is no longer enough for them to continue to hold power. When that comes into ever sharper focus the efforts to create full minority rule (as in the electorate percentile, not ethnic minority) will really kick in.


Norm erosion/change is already well underway and has been since, I've seen it argued, everyone from Reagan to W. Bush. But this is the thing if they are not going to check and see, how will we know? Do you think that arguing over this will create any greater problem?

I am sorry if I am being rude. It's a bit late and I am trying to make sure I'm spelling everything out correctly, but I am really enjoying this!

Discendo Vox posted:

Not replacing your civil service with each party swap is one of the things that reinforces rule of law, and distinguishes the united states from states on the edge of collapse. It's been a foundational aspect of federal government since the post-civil war reforms.

Fritz the Horse posted:

Discendo Vox posted:

Immaterial. The goal is not to destroy the government. Using the actions of the trump administration (which did not include this form of abuse) does not some how justify new, worse abuses.

Josef bugman posted:

I'd personally disagree. Every system is breakable, all you need to do is apply enough force and what is the opposition going to do? How much of a protection is the bill of rights if your opponent has someone at their side willing to suspend it for use against you? They may well have done, but the next batch will not be half as likely to do so, for the simple reason that there will be no chance of anyone else winning.

Do you think that Civil services do not have patronage networks? Do you think that most of these folks are so removed from things that they can act "none politically"?

Because Trump is a deeply lazy person. He's also a vile human shitehawk, but he got what he wanted out of being president, he just wishes it'd lasted longer. Fame, people "taking him seriously" lots and lots of people being there and cheering. He did not want to change the basic structure of the state. There is no ideological drive to Trump, it's all reactive. Someone who is either more of a GOP apparatchik or someone really commited to the ideological fundamentals of Right-authoritarianism will not let such a small thing as "the law" get in the way.

It's fine, I'm sorry if I'm being daft.

Josef bugman posted:

That's because Trump, fortunately, had not done the "simple" thing of requiring direct loyalty before promotion/protection. Creating lines of clear patronage (even if it's behind the figleaf of "rewarding good work") would have meant he'd have been able to get so much more evil poo poo done. Trump (as others have argued here) had a lot of power in the imperial presidency and, to be honest, if he hadn't been so content to remain as he was, he could have done even more damage.

Trump was only ever focussed on the now and the immediate. I am thinking that the GOP, as a collective body, has started to see that democracy is no longer enough for them to continue to hold power. When that comes into ever sharper focus the efforts to create full minority rule (as in the electorate percentile, not ethnic minority) will really kick in.