5 ms·

They still don't know. The public has learned that it is all about 'owning the libs'. People have been conditioned to NOT think about what would be positive po

They still don't know. The public has learned that it is all about 'owning the libs'. People have been conditioned to NOT think about what would be positive policy. I.e. sadopopulism: the government makes you hurt, and then you want somebody else to hurt more.

rayiner 2y ago
Rooting out the "Resistance" in the executive branch--the democrats who run the country regardless of who wins the election--is literally Item #9 of Trump's 2024 platform: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-party-platform https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-pa.... I think that for the most part federal employees are good people who work just as hard for one president as another. I used to work at a government agency. It was full of fantastic, dedicated, hard working people. But in recent years there seems to be a large number of people who think that being a federal employee gives them the right to use their positions to “Resist” what people voted for. And such thinking has no place in our democracy. And it’s shameful that federal employees didn’t condemn what happened in 2017.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  > Executive branch employees should have no ability to resist or frustrate those changes. Yes, they should. Unless you believe that it's so easy to run the government that you can replace all the workers every four years (doubtful at best), you need to keep these people in their roles. It doesn't matter what the Constitution theorizes; the simple truth is that an advanced country needs career civil servants capable of thinking for themselves. That inherently means they will loudly disagree if they think the president is doing something stupid.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Sorry, no. The constitution matters and democracy matters. We do not have a system of governance by credentialed technocrats. Those people are absolutely necessary. But they must abide by democratic values. Their job is to put their talents to work implementing the agenda of the guy people elected to set policies, no matter who wins. It’s like a lawyer representing a client. You owe the voting public—through the president duly elected to represent it—zealously advocacy, regardless of your personal opinions. It is unconscionable to have a system where the federal workforce enthusiastically implements the policies of the president from one party, but hinders the policies of the other. And to be clear, I don’t think most federal employees think this way. I think most federal employees, especially the old school ones, see it as their duty to do their job the best they can regardless of who sets the policy. So I was shocked and upset by what I saw in 2017. Not just that a vocal minority of federal employees declared they were bad at their jobs and disloyal to the duly elected president. But moreso because the silent majority of good federal employees stood quiet and didn’t say anything.
    - goosedragons 2y ago
      Okay. And what if those policies actively hurt people and do more damage than good? Should they just give in? When does it stop? When can they say no? Only when a judge explicitly says it's illegal despite it obviously being illegal?
      - rayiner 2y ago
        The whole point of democracy is to have a way for people who don’t agree on what’s “good” or not to live together and make collective decisions. You completely throw that away if you allow federal employees to substitute their own judgment and value system for those of voters. That’s absolutely corrosive to democracy. And remember the Resistance wasn’t about things that were “obviously illegal.” It was federal workers trying to frustrate immigration and environmental policies they disagreed with. That’s simply way out of the proper lane.
        goosedragons 2y ago
        No you don't. Civil servants disagreeing with stupid policy or malicious policy is a feature. It says the policy is bad, full stop. Civil servants generally have more knowledge about what they do and are doing than elected leaders. It's just a consequence of working in it. Blind yes men is corrosive to democracy.
        rayiner 2y ago
        Show me where in the federalist papers it says that civil servants can frustrate policies they think are “stupid.” What you’re talking about is full mask-off “people should be governed by their betters” technocracy.
        dttze 2y ago
        No one cares about the federalist papers.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  It is literally their job. Since the 1940s. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 contains the rule that prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Specifically, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) directs courts to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."
  - rayiner 2y ago
    I’m familiar with the APA. It’s a statute that allows judicial supervision of executive branch actions. It absolutely doesn’t empower individual executive branch employees to try and frustrate the policies of the president. If you think an action will be set aside by the courts, there are processes for handling that through in-house as legal departments and ultimate the President’s Office of Legal Counsel. And those lawyers have the job of aggressively representing the elected administration’s interpretation of the law before the courts. But line federal employees have zero role in the APA process.
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      It does though. It requires federal employees to not behave in an arbitrary and capricious manner. It requires them to move slowly when arbitrary and capricious policies come down. Go read the case law. They can't just to be told to start denying people something because the President wants it so, unless the authorization for what they are doing allows the President that sort of authority. They very much can and should follow the actual law and policies, not 'what the President wants'. What you are talking about is a banana republic, not the USA executive branch as it has worked since the 1940s.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        I literally litigate APA cases. The APA is what you invoke if the government grants you a permit and then takes it away without a good reason. But individual executive branch employees cannot invoke the APA to oppose an administrative policy they disagree with.

rayiner 2y ago

Rooting out the "Resistance" in the executive branch--the democrats who run the country regardless of who wins the election--is literally Item #9 of Trump's 2024 platform: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-party-platform https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-pa.... I think that for the most part federal employees are good people who work just as hard for one president as another. I used to work at a government agency. It was full of fantastic, dedicated, hard working people. But in recent years there seems to be a large number of people who think that being a federal employee gives them the right to use their positions to “Resist” what people voted for. And such thinking has no place in our democracy. And it’s shameful that federal employees didn’t condemn what happened in 2017.

SR2Z 2y ago
> Executive branch employees should have no ability to resist or frustrate those changes. Yes, they should. Unless you believe that it's so easy to run the government that you can replace all the workers every four years (doubtful at best), you need to keep these people in their roles. It doesn't matter what the Constitution theorizes; the simple truth is that an advanced country needs career civil servants capable of thinking for themselves. That inherently means they will loudly disagree if they think the president is doing something stupid.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Sorry, no. The constitution matters and democracy matters. We do not have a system of governance by credentialed technocrats. Those people are absolutely necessary. But they must abide by democratic values. Their job is to put their talents to work implementing the agenda of the guy people elected to set policies, no matter who wins. It’s like a lawyer representing a client. You owe the voting public—through the president duly elected to represent it—zealously advocacy, regardless of your personal opinions. It is unconscionable to have a system where the federal workforce enthusiastically implements the policies of the president from one party, but hinders the policies of the other. And to be clear, I don’t think most federal employees think this way. I think most federal employees, especially the old school ones, see it as their duty to do their job the best they can regardless of who sets the policy. So I was shocked and upset by what I saw in 2017. Not just that a vocal minority of federal employees declared they were bad at their jobs and disloyal to the duly elected president. But moreso because the silent majority of good federal employees stood quiet and didn’t say anything.
  - goosedragons 2y ago
    Okay. And what if those policies actively hurt people and do more damage than good? Should they just give in? When does it stop? When can they say no? Only when a judge explicitly says it's illegal despite it obviously being illegal?
    - rayiner 2y ago
      The whole point of democracy is to have a way for people who don’t agree on what’s “good” or not to live together and make collective decisions. You completely throw that away if you allow federal employees to substitute their own judgment and value system for those of voters. That’s absolutely corrosive to democracy. And remember the Resistance wasn’t about things that were “obviously illegal.” It was federal workers trying to frustrate immigration and environmental policies they disagreed with. That’s simply way out of the proper lane.
      - goosedragons 2y ago
        No you don't. Civil servants disagreeing with stupid policy or malicious policy is a feature. It says the policy is bad, full stop. Civil servants generally have more knowledge about what they do and are doing than elected leaders. It's just a consequence of working in it. Blind yes men is corrosive to democracy.
        rayiner 2y ago
        Show me where in the federalist papers it says that civil servants can frustrate policies they think are “stupid.” What you’re talking about is full mask-off “people should be governed by their betters” technocracy.
        dttze 2y ago
        No one cares about the federalist papers.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
It is literally their job. Since the 1940s. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 contains the rule that prevents the U.S. executive branch from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Specifically, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) directs courts to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."
- rayiner 2y ago
  I’m familiar with the APA. It’s a statute that allows judicial supervision of executive branch actions. It absolutely doesn’t empower individual executive branch employees to try and frustrate the policies of the president. If you think an action will be set aside by the courts, there are processes for handling that through in-house as legal departments and ultimate the President’s Office of Legal Counsel. And those lawyers have the job of aggressively representing the elected administration’s interpretation of the law before the courts. But line federal employees have zero role in the APA process.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    It does though. It requires federal employees to not behave in an arbitrary and capricious manner. It requires them to move slowly when arbitrary and capricious policies come down. Go read the case law. They can't just to be told to start denying people something because the President wants it so, unless the authorization for what they are doing allows the President that sort of authority. They very much can and should follow the actual law and policies, not 'what the President wants'. What you are talking about is a banana republic, not the USA executive branch as it has worked since the 1940s.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      I literally litigate APA cases. The APA is what you invoke if the government grants you a permit and then takes it away without a good reason. But individual executive branch employees cannot invoke the APA to oppose an administrative policy they disagree with.