Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 12:16:26 GMT -5
I had a chance to exchange an e-mail with an AALJ Officer. I could get no additional information to pass on, with the exception that they are aware, they are working on it, and we should get a statement soon.
So, not much. But, I did get the distinct impression that the AALj was working all possible options. It occurred to me that the right pressure applied in the right place, i.e. the right conversation with the right people, might cause the Agency to just withdraw this stupid thing, and that would actually be the best for all involved. So, if I was making decisions for the AALJ, and I am most certainly not, that would be the thing I would try first, and that might explain the current silence. That is wild conjecture of course.
Like everyone else, I will try to be patient.
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Jan 9, 2014 13:53:12 GMT -5
I am not going to get into an extended debate with you, this is my last comment on the subject. The problem with your question is that it is based on an unproven political assumption reflecting your own political views. The issue of administrations not supporting ALJs is longstanding and not restricted to the current party holding the White House. The problems with AALJ is a different subject that I will never need to worry about. I still hold that political discussion is inappropriate on this board.
[Agreed. Political post moderated. - ALJD]
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jan 9, 2014 15:19:00 GMT -5
I am not going to get into an extended debate with you, this is my last comment on the subject. The problem with your question is that it is based on an unproven political assumption reflecting your own political views. The issue of administrations not supporting ALJs is longstanding and not restricted to the current party holding the White House. The problems with AALJ is a different subject that I will never need to worry about. I still hold that political discussion is inappropriate on this board. I agree Chinook that the issue regarding lack of support for ALJs has occurred with all political parties holding the White House. It is not an unique phenomenon with this White House, but a long standing problem for ALJs in general.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 9, 2014 17:24:10 GMT -5
I am not going to get into an extended debate with you, this is my last comment on the subject. The problem with your question is that it is based on an unproven political assumption reflecting your own political views. The issue of administrations not supporting ALJs is longstanding and not restricted to the current party holding the White House. The problems with AALJ is a different subject that I will never need to worry about. I still hold that political discussion is inappropriate on this board. [Agreed. Political post moderated. - ALJD] I agree with 90% of this. Where I disagree is that simply because the SSA ALJ PD doesn't affect you, that it is something that need not concern you. Other agencies need SSA ALJs. If they are bred and schooled as hearing examiners unworthy of implementing the APA, they may not be able to cut the mustard when they need to do more than implement the Commish's Policy.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 9, 2014 18:25:01 GMT -5
Other agencies need SSA ALJs. If they are bred and schooled as hearing examiners unworthy of implementing the APA, they may not be able to cut the mustard when they need to do more than implement the Commish's Policy. So if the SSA ALJ pool becomes unqualified to fill spots in other agencies, maybe they will start looking to the register for candidates more often . . . No not really. As I have posted before--usually they don't want the risk. They want their car certified. Secondly your score must be at the very top.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Jan 9, 2014 18:39:20 GMT -5
So if the SSA ALJ pool becomes unqualified to fill spots in other agencies, maybe they will start looking to the register for candidates more often . . . No not really. As I have posted before--usually they don't want the risk. They want their car certified. Secondly your score must be at the very top. Yep, an ALJ in our office was just offered an ALJ position with another federal agency which has adversarial proceedings and the rules of evidence apply.
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Jan 9, 2014 22:29:23 GMT -5
So if the SSA ALJ pool becomes unqualified to fill spots in other agencies, maybe they will start looking to the register for candidates more often . . . No not really. As I have posted before--usually they don't want the risk. They want their car certified. Secondly your score must be at the very top. Perfect, I am certified pre-driven. Maybe just certifiable, on second thought.
|
|
|
Post by crab on Jan 10, 2014 8:59:38 GMT -5
Other agencies need SSA ALJs. If they are bred and schooled as hearing examiners unworthy of implementing the APA, they may not be able to cut the mustard when they need to do more than implement the Commish's Policy. So if the SSA ALJ pool becomes unqualified to fill spots in other agencies, maybe they will start looking to the register for candidates more often . . . IMHO, there will always be well-qualified ALJs to transfer to other agencies regardless of how they are required to operate during their tenure at SSA if they came to the position with adversarial/APA skills. You can take the ALJ out of the APA, but you can't take the APA out of the ALJ as the saying goes. A little taste of adversarial oil knocks the rust off real quick like in my experience. Just one crab's thoughts ...
|
|