"Interesting" new / old power the house gave itself.

[crashtech]

You need to start paying attention.

I'd pit my ability to attend to the facts against any average voter's without fear. I'm sure we just don't see things quite the same way, for which you find me deficient, while I merely find you different.

 

[Brainonska511]

This rule sounds like a great way to erode the non-partisan nature of the civil service. I guess if we've elected the second coming of Andrew Jackson, we may as well bring back the spoils system too.

Wouldn't cutting a specific civil servant's salary this way amount to an unconstitutional bill of attainder?

 

[Jhhnn]

Like the way the Obama white house stonewalled against multiple orders from a federal judge in Golinski?

fify

This case, where Holder & Obama were obliged to support DOMA until they found the right time & the right way to torpedo it?

http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/golinski-v-us-office-personnel-management

Which also has nothing to do with the topic at hand, either.

Just tearin' down the dirty Democrats.

 

[Sonikku]

This rule sounds like a great way to erode the non-partisan nature of the civil service. I guess if we've elected the second coming of Andrew Jackson, we may as well bring back the spoils system too.

Wouldn't cutting a specific civil servant's salary this way amount to an unconstitutional bill of attainder?

Andrew Jackson balanced the budget. The chances of Trump or the GoP in general making that happen are somewhere between 0 and 0. Comparing him to Trump does Trump too much service.

 

[crashtech]

Wouldn't cutting a specific civil servant's salary this way amount to an unconstitutional bill of attainder?

Probably not, since this argument has not been utilized successfully since 1965.

 

[crashtech]

Excuse me, but the civil service is part of the executive branch, accountable to the President, not directly to Congress at all. Repubs attempt usurpation of the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution.

Further reading leads me to believe that congressional action under the Holman Rule will still require the signature of the Chief Executive, is this not so?

 

[Paratus]

I'd pit my ability to attend to the facts against any average voter's without fear. I'm sure we just don't see things quite the same way, for which you find me deficient, while I merely find you different.

The federal civil service reports to the President. The direction of those departments are set by him. However the money to follow out those directions comes from money appropriated by congress. Both the executive and the legislative have a say in what the civil service of the executive does.

If congress as a whole doesn't like the direction of certain department then the appropriate response is to work a change through the budget and law making processes.

This law either does an end run around the executive powers of the president OR allows retaliation against specific civil servants. Essentially it used to punish civil servants for doing what congress (past and present) and the president (past and present) told them to do

Don't like an investigation by the justice department, reduce the salary of all lawyers on the case.

Lastly any money "saved" by reducing salary or programs is likely not saved. That money was appropriated by law and must be spent according to that law.

 

[superstition]

This case, where Holder & Obama were obliged to support DOMA

What they were obliged to do was comply with a federal judge's court order. They were also obliged to comply with the second order he gave after they ignored the first one.

until they found the right time & the right way to torpedo it?

Would that be before or after putting out unscientific legal briefs (often labeled "hate briefs") to support it?

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, either — which is: Just tearing down those dirty Republicans.

fify

 

[Jhhnn]

Further reading leads me to believe that congressional action under the Holman Rule will still require the signature of the Chief Executive, is this not so?

Repubs have no qualms about holding the entire govt hostage to their whims & they probably won't need to do so with Donald at the helm.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Oh, please. Attribution of partisanship to civil servants is bullshit.

Sure it is, just check it out with the IRS, Lois Lerner, John Koskinen and the whole 501(c) scandal where some conservative groups still haven't gotten their tax exempt status after years of delays while leftist groups get theirs within weeks or months.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/18/the-5-biggest-lies-myths-and-debunked-claims-of-the-irs-scandal/

 

[Jhhnn]

What they were obliged to do was comply with a federal judge's court order. They were also obliged to comply with the second order he gave after they ignored the first one.

The chief executive is not obligated to follow orders of a lower court while the case is under appeal.

Would that be before or after putting out unscientific legal briefs (often labeled "hate briefs") to support it?

fify

Would that be an attempt to deny the fact that Obama & Holder were instrumental in the repeal of DOMA? Or just a continued duh-version from the topic at hand?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Excuse me, but the civil service is part of the executive branch, accountable to the President, not directly to Congress at all. Repubs attempt usurpation of the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution.

Nope, this is the executive branch and the legislative branch working in concert against a bloated and corrupt bureaucracy.

 

[crashtech]

The federal civil service reports to the President. The direction of those departments are set by him. However the money to follow out those directions comes from money appropriated by congress. Both the executive and the legislative have a say in what the civil service of the executive does.

If congress as a whole doesn't like the direction of certain department then the appropriate response is to work a change through the budget and law making processes.

This law either does an end run around the executive powers of the president OR allows retaliation against specific civil servants. Essentially it used to punish civil servants for doing what congress (past and present) and the president (past and present) told them to do

Don't like an investigation by the justice department, reduce the salary of all lawyers on the case.

Lastly any money "saved" by reducing salary or programs is likely not saved. That money was appropriated by law and must be spent according to that law.

My understanding of the Holman Rule is that any congressional action under its invocation still requires the signature of the Executive. The fact that lots of participants here don't like who that is doesn't change the nature or the legality of the process. There have been cases where the use of this extrodinary power might be warranted; some bad apples can be deeply entrenched and otherwise difficult to weed out.

http://www.govexec.com/federal-news...-long-its-their-personal-time-va-says/127771/

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure it is, just check it out with the IRS, Lois Lerner, John Koskinen and the whole 501(c) scandal where some conservative groups still haven't gotten their tax exempt status after years of delays while leftist groups get theirs within weeks or months.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/18/the-5-biggest-lies-myths-and-debunked-claims-of-the-irs-scandal/

That article is from May 2015. Slightly out of date, not to mention utterly biased/

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So you have no problem with Republicans back door cutting the ethics office of the US? Yeah let's just make that swamp bigger.

Whose ethics?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Nope, this is the executive branch and the legislative branch working in concert against a bloated and corrupt bureaucracy.

You sound like an old school Bolshevik.

 

[crashtech]

Repubs have no qualms about holding the entire govt hostage to their whims & they probably won't need to do so with Donald at the helm.

That assertion regrettably has nothing to do with the fact that you claimed the power of the Executive was being usurped.

 

[Jhhnn]

There have been cases where the use of this extrodinary power might be warranted; some bad apples can be deeply entrenched and otherwise difficult to weed out.

Like what cases?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

That article is from May 2015. Slightly out of date, not to mention utterly biased/

The IRS scandal started in 2013, it's still going on, it never stopped and it won't stop until we get the partisan progressives out of the IRS. There are still conservative groups that have yet to get their legally allowed status of 501(c)4.

 

[superstition]

The chief executive is not obligated to follow orders of a lower court while the case is under appeal.

Everything I read at the time, including on a lawyer's blog, said the WH was required to comply with those orders which is why the judge issued the first one and then issued the second with a massive complaint. If you have proof otherwise then post it.

Would that be an attempt to deny the fact that Obama & Holder were instrumental in the repeal of DOMA?

Again, is that before or after Holder's DOJ put out hate briefs (with material that would make Anita Bryant proud) and Obama said he supported them?

Ted Olson was instrumental in getting rid of DOMA.

 

[Victorian Gray]

The IRS scandal started in 2013, it's still going on, it never stopped and it won't stop until we get the partisan progressives out of the IRS. There are still conservative groups that have yet to get their legally allowed status of 501(c)4.

Authoritarians do love their purges.

 

[crashtech]

Like what cases?

I posted a link to one in the post you quote, though I won't expect it to prove compelling. Good night!

 

[imported_tajmahal]

You sound like an old school Bolshevik.

You're Canadian, tell it to pretty pony Justin and his love affair with Castro.

 

[Paratus]

My understanding of the Holman Rule is that any congressional action under its invocation still requires the signature of the Executive. The fact that lots of participants here don't like who that is doesn't change the nature or the legality of the process. There have been cases where the use of this extrodinary power might be warranted; some bad apples can be deeply entrenched and otherwise difficult to weed out.

http://www.govexec.com/federal-news...-long-its-their-personal-time-va-says/127771/

First off a 2/3 majority can override the veto. So ask yourself if you think there is a situation that could arise where this congress or the next could override the executive.

2nd in the case where the executive and legislative agree on a change, why use this rule to target and individual why not use the standard legislative and executive processes?

 

[crashtech]

First off a 2/3 majority can override the veto. So ask yourself if you think there is a situation that could arise where this congress or the next could override the executive.

I'm not prescient, so I won't hazard a guess, but what does this have to do with the constitutionality of the rule, or its application?

2nd in the case where the executive and legislative agree on a change, why use this rule to target and individual why not use the standard legislative and executive processes?

Because the individual may have abused the system to avoid consequences, as in the link I provided that keeps getting roundly ignored.