3 ms·

and whose head is appointed by one person Note that while the position is appointed by POTUS, it is a Senate confirmed position - she was approved with a vote

and whose head is appointed by one person Note that while the position is appointed by POTUS, it is a Senate confirmed position - she was approved with a vote of 55-44 [0] (with five R votes). [0] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00201 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...

runako 5y ago
Not to mention, this is exactly how representative government works. It's not controversial that we do not have a direct vote on Secretary of Defense, a position that arguably has more human impact as the head of CMS.
- sieabahlpark 5y ago
  Why are you moving the goal posts? No one said the population should directly vote on it. They said the representatives (who the people voted for) should be deciding through the legislature, not through a single appointed person.
  - runako 5y ago
    > it is a Senate confirmed position - she was approved with a vote of 55-44 (with five R votes). The elected representatives chose to delegate this power to the person they approved as the head of CMS. What principle would be involved in requiring Congress to execute its powers in a different manner (i.e. by not delegating), simply because one does not like the outcome in this case? Who would decide which powers Congress could delegate and which it had to exercise directly? Has someone already drafted the Amendment to the Constitution which would limit the powers of Congress in this way? There's no reason in principle for Congress to directly make this decision about requirements placed on CMS contractors and not other aspects of vendor relations handled by CMS. (The narrow issue here is whether CMS can require its contractors to enforce vaccine mandates.)
    - jaywalk 5y ago
      > The elected representatives chose to delegate this power to the person they approved as the head of CMS. The courts clearly disagree with you.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        No they don't. They've issued an injunction while they decide.
      - runako 5y ago
        They haven't decided yet, but it sometimes happens that I disagree with a court ruling! Courts have known to get things wrong, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
bko 5y ago
That's true. My impression is that this is more or less a rubber stamp and the head is acting on behalf of the president. I can't imagine someone getting elected to this position that wouldn't take marching orders from her appointee. It's a lot of power to give one person.
- kelnos 5y ago
  In that case I don't understand your objection; the president is an elected official, so if this department head is acting on behalf of the president, the argument that this was done by an unelected official is kinda irrelevant.

runako 5y ago

Not to mention, this is exactly how representative government works. It's not controversial that we do not have a direct vote on Secretary of Defense, a position that arguably has more human impact as the head of CMS.

sieabahlpark 5y ago
Why are you moving the goal posts? No one said the population should directly vote on it. They said the representatives (who the people voted for) should be deciding through the legislature, not through a single appointed person.
- runako 5y ago
  > it is a Senate confirmed position - she was approved with a vote of 55-44 (with five R votes). The elected representatives chose to delegate this power to the person they approved as the head of CMS. What principle would be involved in requiring Congress to execute its powers in a different manner (i.e. by not delegating), simply because one does not like the outcome in this case? Who would decide which powers Congress could delegate and which it had to exercise directly? Has someone already drafted the Amendment to the Constitution which would limit the powers of Congress in this way? There's no reason in principle for Congress to directly make this decision about requirements placed on CMS contractors and not other aspects of vendor relations handled by CMS. (The narrow issue here is whether CMS can require its contractors to enforce vaccine mandates.)
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    > The elected representatives chose to delegate this power to the person they approved as the head of CMS. The courts clearly disagree with you.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      No they don't. They've issued an injunction while they decide.
    - runako 5y ago
      They haven't decided yet, but it sometimes happens that I disagree with a court ruling! Courts have known to get things wrong, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

bko 5y ago

That's true. My impression is that this is more or less a rubber stamp and the head is acting on behalf of the president. I can't imagine someone getting elected to this position that wouldn't take marching orders from her appointee. It's a lot of power to give one person.

kelnos 5y ago
In that case I don't understand your objection; the president is an elected official, so if this department head is acting on behalf of the president, the argument that this was done by an unelected official is kinda irrelevant.