|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Jul 28, 2018 17:44:28 GMT -5
It does not matter what we actually do. This is how we are presented to them. They will believe it. We cannot respond as other parts of the federal government speak for us to the press. The factual mistakes will not be corrected.
|
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jul 28, 2018 18:13:16 GMT -5
Okay I think it’s clear that this article is not targeted at us going by the clearly faulty facts and broad generalizations. Who is it targeted at and why? An excellent point, one that should be asked more often of more articles. I think this is aimed at the public that may be involved in the debate, to try to get them on the Administration side of the concept of having ALJ's appointed with an argument essentially "the deck is stacked for liberals. All the administration wants to do is stack it for the far right." \ "I agree, in theory. If ALJs truly were politically neutral, any order disturbed that happy status quo would be objectionable." and he goes on to say why ALJ's are a bunch of raving liberals presumably giving away the store (though he doesn't say this, and he also skips over the fact that corporations want the store given away to them). For an attorney of his august training he also misses entirely the Constitutional Lucia argument (even though the administration in discussing the executive order said words to the effect "well, we could avoid any Lucia issues by just having the Department Heads re-appoint them." |
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jul 28, 2018 18:20:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Jul 28, 2018 18:29:21 GMT -5
I heard a rumor today. Fairly well sourced but who knows. Anyway, the Trump people asked the OHO people, why are so many cases paid at the hearing level? These cases have already been denied (often twice) at the DDS level. What is so different about the cases that go before an ALJ that so many cases are approved at the hearing level?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 28, 2018 18:51:58 GMT -5
They could tell the Trump people there is a different standard of review: one uses listings, the other uses vocational considerations (at least my DDS mainly uses the listings), that there is more evidence by the time it gets to us, and it is a different case because a knowledgeable attorney is involved. There are a lot of things we could tell them, but would they understand?
|
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jul 28, 2018 19:51:31 GMT -5
Short version: alj leanings are across the board 😲🙄 And shockingly, if addressed in article, conservative judges find people disabled and liberal judges find people not disabled. Indeed, and let's face it what was a liberal Republican is now considered a RINO etc. so who can say. But the bigger point is on the bench people will rule regardless of leanings--the most liberal former income benefits advocate isn't going to give it away, though they may find a reason not to find a person's drinking problem a significant contributing factor etc. But the same could be said of a conservative who may empathize with a good ole' boy disabled who eschews pain management (sic) for a nip or two of JD or Old Windbag. What a load of stuff. Now, at FEC I know some individuals are specifically designated R or D. But that's the way that is supposed to be. At other agencies, I believe that the change of administrations (largely Republican overall in number of years each) assured that wild eyed radicals were not appointed to the bench. Of either persuasion. And as an overall large-ish group, you have here and there exceptions. Now the Federal Bench........ let's not go there. With very few exceptions the FEC General Counsel's Office is one of the most objective and ethical offices I have seen in its application of the law. The Commission is structured to create gridlock, but their advisors are exceedingly professional in their actions and many of them love what they do. Yes, there are exceptions. One imparticular comes to mind, but it was the exception that proves the rule. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jul 28, 2018 20:35:46 GMT -5
They could tell the Trump people there is a different standard of review: one uses listings, the other uses vocational considerations (at least my DDS mainly uses the listings), that there is more evidence by the time it gets to us, and it is a different case because a knowledgeable attorney is involved. There are a lot of things we could tell them, but would they understand? They would want not to understand. Explains why recon is going to be reinstituted in all states. I'm sure this admin will find the "rogue" judges are not following what 2 state agency docs decide. and if this becomes cause to fire any judges hired as excepted employees, it will be my worse nightmare(regarding SSA issues) coming true. i have some very strong opinions on this topic on why decisions come out different that are best left unspoken on a public board. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2018 20:55:19 GMT -5
I heard a rumor today. Fairly well sourced but who knows. Anyway, the Trump people asked the OHO people, why are so many cases paid at the hearing level? These cases have already been denied (often twice) at the DDS level. What is so different about the cases that go before an ALJ that so many cases are approved at the hearing level? This is an intelligence gathering operation. They do not know the answer, therefore, they are straight out asking for it. And, if true, they aren’t asking these questions for no reason. They will use the data to formulate their next move to gain more control over all executive branch judges. In light of the other things they are doing, when considered collectively, one starts to see a pattern. For example, consider this: The President executed three executive orders that intends to, and does, seriously attack the ability of the Association of Administrative Law Judges’ to collectively protect their rights (and the principle of neutral adjudication) from political influence and Executive control. The President also executed a separate executive order directly aimed at ALJs to remove them from competitive service and placing them in the excepted service (thereby giving or attempting to give the Executive more control over ALJs) although the remedy was more simple and the EO was not necessary. (Hey Department Heads, you start appointing officiers and don’t delegate. That’s all he had to say). The Trump administration proposes to shuttle the Office of Personnel Management’s service responsibilities to other agencies and bring its policy arm into the White House’s management structure. OPM’s policy arm would become part of the Executive Office of the President. “This effort, along with the recent executive orders on federal unions, are the biggest pieces so far of our plan to drain the swamp," said White House budget director Mick Mulvaney. ( fcw.com/articles/2018/06/21/white-house-government-reorg.aspx?m=2 ). The placement of OPM's remaining functions — namely, the merit system accountability and compliance plus the suitability executive agent — "will be determined at a later date," the proposal states. These developments are concerning. I believe we will see many more moves by the Administration including direct threats to the department secretaries and under secretaries, and upper echelon SESs who will be in real fear of their livelihood and federal careers. He has already made examples out of the heads of his cabinet, and now it will overtly extend to the rest of the Executive Branch if they do not comply and enforce his executive orders. According to an article in another post, SSA has allegedly already “forced a new collective bargaining agreement onto the Association of Administrative Law Judges, despite the fact that the association had an existing agreement that does not expire until this fall,” although “the executive orders make clear that agencies should not overrule or void bargaining agreements that have not yet expired.” I could be wrong but, I believe we are just starting to see the beginning of more to come. (FWIW, I am not an analyst.) |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 28, 2018 21:25:24 GMT -5
I agree with much of what you said, but the last paragraph is a bit rough. Hope it doesn't come to that.
(FWIW, I wasn't an analyst either; I got right down into it) Pixie
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2018 21:29:09 GMT -5
You’re right. I fixed it.  |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Jul 28, 2018 22:43:31 GMT -5
His argument is very persuasive, as his evidence is that he knows a few ALJs and because they’re liberal all the other 1,800 ALJs must also be liberal. He knows Federal employees in DC who are liberal. SHOCKING. |
|
|
|
Post by quesera on Jul 29, 2018 4:45:16 GMT -5
I heard a rumor today. Fairly well sourced but who knows. Anyway, the Trump people asked the OHO people, why are so many cases paid at the hearing level? These cases have already been denied (often twice) at the DDS level. What is so different about the cases that go before an ALJ that so many cases are approved at the hearing level? This makes my hair stand on end. The chances of the Trump people listening to the answers with any regard for due process are nil. I just noticed a very interesting GS-12 Attorney Advisor job posting at OPM: www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/506348500. “As an Attorney Advisor in Merit Systems you will be responsible for handling a variety of legal issues and matters primarily related to administrative law to include areas such as staffing, EEO, Hatch Act administration, reduction in force, and Administrative Law Judge program.” Seems to me that OPM is going to hire GS12 attorneys to live in D.C. (most likely young, newbies willing to do so) to help slaughter the rule of law. |
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Jul 29, 2018 9:37:53 GMT -5
I would say that those I work with and have worked with are probably to the left of the general population of the state but then I'm basing that on states that went 58% or more from Trump, Romney, and McCain. As a group probably to the right of the average voter in California, New York or DC. If we are going to rely on anecdotal evidence, the most politically conservative ALJ I know (a Tea Party conservative) has the highest approval rate of any judge I know and the one most politically liberal judge I know has the lowest approval rate. I have often observed (since we are going all anecdotal on this stuff) that the political leanings of an ALJ and his or her pay rates have little correlation. Indeed, sometimes it seems as if they tend in exactly opposite directions - - almost as if the judge wishes directly to dispel any stereotype that may be associated with the judge's political background. I admit to being puzzled at times by some of these judges, but I just may be the easily puzzled type. |
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on Jul 29, 2018 12:41:21 GMT -5
I cannot weigh credibility, I can only address consistency with medical evidence. Some days that’s a blessing, and some days it’s a curse. Some days that might tie my hands. Some days it might not. Life in the ALJ hearing room is seldom black and white. Grid rules often tie our hands and that is something not understood by many people. And, political leanings are often more complicated than the article contemplates. But why let vast over generalization slow down an opinion piece. Ducky's description is consistent with what I have observed at SSA. I have worked with a number of ALJs over my time with the agency and political philosophy is not the reason a claimant is granted or denied benefits. The ALJs I have been fortunate to work with do not allow their politics to influence decisions. I have seen personally conservative and very liberal ALJs with 50/50 agree/deny rates. I think another writer on this thread correctly stated the situation--ALJs are like most of us, our prior education, life experiences, current philosophy, and history of health issues go into forming who we are and how we make decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jul 30, 2018 6:06:19 GMT -5
Back in 2013, this thread would already be shut down. I guess now that there is no register, we can talk liberal v. conservative, union v. management, just go off on any crazy tangent we wish. This article is idiotic! It is obviously written by a RIGHT WIND IDIOT, I have only done this for 4 years, but I have been down South and way West, when ALJs used to be selected after a long testing process that DID NOT give one second of thought about your political background, graded you on the various tests and interviews, ranked you with a NOR score and hired you after YET another interview with the agency. To suggest with the previous process somehow produced liberal ALJs is as idiotic as anything that FunkyOdar (now a FunkyOHO) has ever uttered on this board. I have met very FEW liberal ALJs, most all are right of center (or barely center left) as I can smell a rightwinger from a 100 yards!  (That's a joke for the idiots on this board!) If I had posted this in 2013, ALJD and Pixie would have shut this thread down already. Sounds like 2018 will be fun times for TigerLaw on the board! To me it sounds as if it might be short times on the board for ole' Tiger Law in 2018. Pixie
You know what they always say Pixie ....the "TigerLaw" never falls far from the tree or the "TigerLaw" can never change his stripes....LOL!
Lighten up TigerLaw as all those individuals still on the register and in the process of OPM competitive testing just got kicked in the teeth by an issued Executive Order. Let's cut everyone on the Board a little slack to express some opinions, but don't stretch that rope too far or you could hang yourself! Sorry Pixie , I couldn't resist in honor of my good friend funkyodar .
|
|
|
|
Post by kylearan on Jul 30, 2018 14:24:42 GMT -5
I’m ultra conservative, to the right of Bork and Thomas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mermaid on Jul 30, 2018 14:34:51 GMT -5
I’m ultra conservative, to the right of Bork and Thomas. That means you are a socialist. You knew that, right? |
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Jul 30, 2018 15:01:11 GMT -5
Everyone knows that Bethesda, MD is a bastion of lefties. THAT's why he has only known liberal ALJs. As for the actual breakdown between right and left in DC, I have always found the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy to be the wisest course for government employees. Nothing has changed since becoming an ALJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jul 30, 2018 15:34:58 GMT -5
On the question of the OPM attorney to handle alj issues could be they anticipate litigation from shutting down the list? Speaking of which, for those interested in litigation, note any statute of limitation issues and don't let time drag on too long or any TRO you wish may be denied.
As to the question about favorables/unfavorables, as everyone probably knows, the real stat issue is attorney represented vs not represented. If someone is represented they present a full record. Further, they can address questions of functionality over a work week not just whether in isolation the applicant can sit/stand for a number of hours. First day? Maybe. Second day? Still recovering from first, but can do it with increasing pain as the day wears on.Third day more so etc. Rarely see someone who the DDU has sent for a Vocational analysisis.
As before, if judges have concerns, while they may or may not voice concerns publicly, they need to get the word to the counsel for applicants so that there starts to be pressure by not only applicants but by entire states who could see a large group of their citizens cut off and then what?
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jul 30, 2018 16:08:49 GMT -5
sorry for duplicate post. You can delete your duplicate posts. Click on the little cog icon and pick from the dropdown. |
|
(That's a joke for the idiots on this board!) 
