|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 30, 2018 17:48:42 GMT -5
No question that the article at the top of this thread is based on anecdote rather than data. However, not many responses have addressed the question: for those of you who might know, are the current crop of ALJs more likely to vote D than R? While maintaining silence on the issue at work is the wisest course (and how I wish more people would abide by that!), can any insiders venture educated guesses about their ALJ colleagues? Given the defensiveness of some of the responses here, I'm guessing that the author of the original piece may be closer to the truth than a lot would like to admit. And given the wildly disproportionate rates of donations to political candidates by federal employees, discussed in a different thread, I think the author could well be on to something. On to something? More like on something. I have no idea what the percentages are. Lots of vets, who tend to vote R, lots of former feds who are presumed to vote D. Of course I’ve heard tell that people are not static caricatures and might actually change who they vote for as they get older, or depending on the candidate, or not straight line party vote. Also, what are we to do with ALJs that vote for libertarians or the Green Party? What about ALJs who don’t vote at all? How can we detect their secret allegiances? What if someone is secretly liberal but votes R for job security? Or vice versa? Hey maybe if we just make it a rule that ALJs can’t vote that’ll solve all these supposed problems? Make me an ALJ, and I’ll continue to not vote. Or donate and vocally support whoever the current leader is. Is this the preferable position? Very distressing that everything is being turned into a partisan zero sum game. Historically that hasn’t turned out to well. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jul 30, 2018 17:58:28 GMT -5
No question that the article at the top of this thread is based on anecdote rather than data. However, not many responses have addressed the question: for those of you who might know, are the current crop of ALJs more likely to vote D than R? While maintaining silence on the issue at work is the wisest course (and how I wish more people would abide by that!), can any insiders venture educated guesses about their ALJ colleagues? Given the defensiveness of some of the responses here, I'm guessing that the author of the original piece may be closer to the truth than a lot would like to admit. And given the wildly disproportionate rates of donations to political candidates by federal employees, discussed in a different thread, I think the author could well be on to something. Sure, I'll venture a guess. My office is more than half conservatives that almost certainly voted republican in the last election. I've known plenty of conservative judges in the other two offices I've worked in. jimmyjiggles is right in that there is a large number of veteran judges that self-identify as conservative that are currently employed in the agency. |
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on Jul 30, 2018 18:12:50 GMT -5
Even if they self-identify as conservative, I think by far most of them strive for a "correct" decision that will pass muster at the AC and Fed Ct.
|
|
|
|
Post by saaao on Jul 30, 2018 18:16:39 GMT -5
No question that the article at the top of this thread is based on anecdote rather than data. However, not many responses have addressed the question: for those of you who might know, are the current crop of ALJs more likely to vote D than R? While maintaining silence on the issue at work is the wisest course (and how I wish more people would abide by that!), can any insiders venture educated guesses about their ALJ colleagues? Given the defensiveness of some of the responses here, I'm guessing that the author of the original piece may be closer to the truth than a lot would like to admit. And given the wildly disproportionate rates of donations to political candidates by federal employees, discussed in a different thread, I think the author could well be on to something. FWIW the few ALJ's who I know who have let slip their political leanings have generally been Republicans, but everyone stays away from political talk almost as reflex. As a rule of thumb I would suspect that ALJ's generally have the same political leanings as the professional class where they happen live. One of the joys of the ALJ position is it allows one to be a judge without having to seek political patrons or stand for elections, so I'm sure quite a large number are fairly apolitical aside from specific issues that would affect them on a personal level. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jul 30, 2018 19:01:58 GMT -5
No question that the article at the top of this thread is based on anecdote rather than data. However, not many responses have addressed the question: for those of you who might know, are the current crop of ALJs more likely to vote D than R? While maintaining silence on the issue at work is the wisest course (and how I wish more people would abide by that!), can any insiders venture educated guesses about their ALJ colleagues? Given the defensiveness of some of the responses here, I'm guessing that the author of the original piece may be closer to the truth than a lot would like to admit. And given the wildly disproportionate rates of donations to political candidates by federal employees, discussed in a different thread, I think the author could well be on to something. [br I have an inkling on 1/2 of them and it’s an even split. |
|
|
|
Post by shoocat on Jul 30, 2018 19:03:23 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? Or DDS gives a medium RFC just to ensure they don't grid, ignoring the evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by shoocat on Jul 30, 2018 19:04:07 GMT -5
No question that the article at the top of this thread is based on anecdote rather than data. However, not many responses have addressed the question: for those of you who might know, are the current crop of ALJs more likely to vote D than R? While maintaining silence on the issue at work is the wisest course (and how I wish more people would abide by that!), can any insiders venture educated guesses about their ALJ colleagues? Given the defensiveness of some of the responses here, I'm guessing that the author of the original piece may be closer to the truth than a lot would like to admit. And given the wildly disproportionate rates of donations to political candidates by federal employees, discussed in a different thread, I think the author could well be on to something. [br I have an inkling on 1/2 of them and it’s an even split. Pretty much the same for me. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jul 30, 2018 19:04:14 GMT -5
No question that the article at the top of this thread is based on anecdote rather than data. However, not many responses have addressed the question: for those of you who might know, are the current crop of ALJs more likely to vote D than R? While maintaining silence on the issue at work is the wisest course (and how I wish more people would abide by that!), can any insiders venture educated guesses about their ALJ colleagues? Given the defensiveness of some of the responses here, I'm guessing that the author of the original piece may be closer to the truth than a lot would like to admit. And given the wildly disproportionate rates of donations to political candidates by federal employees, discussed in a different thread, I think the author could well be on to something. [br I have an inkling on 1/2 of them and it’s an even split. by 1/2, I mean in my office. |
|
|
|
Post by harp on Jul 30, 2018 19:17:35 GMT -5
No question that the article at the top of this thread is based on anecdote rather than data. However, not many responses have addressed the question: for those of you who might know, are the current crop of ALJs more likely to vote D than R? While maintaining silence on the issue at work is the wisest course (and how I wish more people would abide by that!), can any insiders venture educated guesses about their ALJ colleagues? Given the defensiveness of some of the responses here, I'm guessing that the author of the original piece may be closer to the truth than a lot would like to admit. And given the wildly disproportionate rates of donations to political candidates by federal employees, discussed in a different thread, I think the author could well be on to something. Demographics make it likely the majority of the ALJs in my office are conservative. All are white, and the vast majority are men. I’d guess that 75 percent of them are over age 50, and nearly all live in the suburbs. Sure, there are some over-50 white male suburban dwellers who are raging liberals, but odds are that the majority of them are conservative. |
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrisingALJ on Jul 30, 2018 19:46:47 GMT -5
What does it matter what your political party affiliation is? As lawyers- we apply the law to the facts. An ALJ slot is not a policy seat where political leaning matters.
I’m also a tad frustrated by this thread as it fails to acknowledge the existence of people who perhaps are neither democrats nor republicans... perhaps they are independents or libertarians or martians who are here to observe the frailty and hubris of the human race?
Officially fed up!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 30, 2018 22:58:35 GMT -5
What does it matter what your political party affiliation is? As lawyers- we apply the law to the facts. An ALJ slot is not a policy seat where political leaning matters. I’m also a tad frustrated by this thread as it fails to acknowledge the existence of people who perhaps are neither democrats nor republicans... perhaps they are independents or libertarians or martians who are here to observe the frailty and hubris of the human race? Officially fed up! I'm not sure I understood the reason for the thread to begin with. Even less sure now that it has run to 3 pages. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 30, 2018 23:36:04 GMT -5
What does it matter what your political party affiliation is? As lawyers- we apply the law to the facts. An ALJ slot is not a policy seat where political leaning matters. I’m also a tad frustrated by this thread as it fails to acknowledge the existence of people who perhaps are neither democrats nor republicans... perhaps they are independents or libertarians or martians who are here to observe the frailty and hubris of the human race? Officially fed up! “Fed up,” nice. I see what you did there (you did mean to do it, no?). Also, right, left, independent, libertarian, nudist, let’s just put a line in the sand - no martians. Full stop. You’re from Mars? And now you took my job? No sir. I vow to seek and root out all martians working in the deep state!!! |
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrisingALJ on Jul 31, 2018 10:45:23 GMT -5
What does it matter what your political party affiliation is? As lawyers- we apply the law to the facts. An ALJ slot is not a policy seat where political leaning matters. I’m also a tad frustrated by this thread as it fails to acknowledge the existence of people who perhaps are neither democrats nor republicans... perhaps they are independents or libertarians or martians who are here to observe the frailty and hubris of the human race? Officially fed up! “Fed up,” nice. I see what you did there (you did mean to do it, no?). Also, right, left, independent, libertarian, nudist, let’s just put a line in the sand - no martians. Full stop. You’re from Mars? And now you took my job? No sir. I vow to seek and root out all martians working in the deep state!!! Why are you discriminating against martians - if they entered legally and got a job - they too should be able to work. Come on - everyone knows from watching Men in Black that Area 51 is all about legal migration for true aliens.... and that they live among us!
|
|
|
|
Post by uboat on Jul 31, 2018 11:01:30 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? Or DDS gives a medium RFC just to ensure they don't grid, ignoring the evidence. Bingo! |
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jul 31, 2018 11:27:54 GMT -5
What does it matter what your political party affiliation is? As lawyers- we apply the law to the facts. An ALJ slot is not a policy seat where political leaning matters. I’m also a tad frustrated by this thread as it fails to acknowledge the existence of people who perhaps are neither democrats nor republicans... perhaps they are independents or libertarians or martians who are here to observe the frailty and hubris of the human race? Officially fed up! I'm not sure I understood the reason for the thread to begin with. Even less sure now that it has run to 3 pages. Pixie
Time for passengers to disembark as this ride ain't going past nowhere?
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeKnot on Aug 1, 2018 14:03:36 GMT -5
To put the blog in some context, the author also said, "During the first half of my legal career, I practiced from time to time before administrative law judges. In general, I did not find them to be models of impartiality. Instead, their liberalism tended to seep into their judging to at least some degree. That was years ago. But it’s hard for me to imagine that while just about everything else was becoming more politicized, the ALJs became less so. Nor do the reports I get from practitioners suggest they did."
I was curious what he meant by "years ago." The author is a retired attorney in Washington, D.C. He is a 1971 graduate of Dartmouth College and a 1974 graduate of Stanford Law School. So, in 2018, he's making assumptions about the political leanings of ALJs, based upon what he observed "from time to time" in the first half of his career. I take that to mean 1974-1996. That's a very limited sample to draw an conclusions from, and the leanings of the population could have shifted in any direction over the past 22 years. He might be right, and he might be wrong. It's just an opinion, just like the opinion that Trump's planning to stack the deck by loading up the ALJ corps with political allies and contributors. Time will tell, but unless there is a massive number of dismissals of ALJs there won't be many ALJs hired in the next few years. My hope is that they won't allow their personal feelings to drive their decisions in one direction or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Aug 1, 2018 17:54:08 GMT -5
For those questioning the value of this thread, I think you may have overlooked the (elided?) basis of the original post. If I may read between the lines, I think the full version would have read something like "Some people are saying the president thinks that ALJs are largely a bunch of bleeding heart liberals and he is manipulating the system to get more conservative ALJs on the bench. But is it true that the current crop of ALJs are really such liberals?" If you consider this context, I think the discussion is one worth having. The defensiveness of those who find the question to be insulting on its face suggests that there might be some truth to the president's imputed beliefs. What bothers me more is the assumption that those of one political persuasion or another are incapable of being fair judges. We have been schooled by the media and pubic opinion that politics matter in Art. I judicial decision making. But we are a different breed. I know of liberals who are sticklers on regulatory application. I know of hard right conservatives who confess applying the law completely differently. They are mostly able to succumb to the past realities of New Deal law making and IMHO, over compensate. The prickliness of the responses has to do with a fundamental misunderstanding of what we do when we sit in our seats. Do liberals view the 4th Amendment differently than conservatives? By and large, yes. But Justice Elena Kagan sided with the conservatives in Lucia... |
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Aug 1, 2018 18:08:21 GMT -5
Sometimes I wish that our culture could get rid of the terms "liberal" or "conservative" and just let everyone have their own ideas. Based on their own life experiences. That's how I try to view each person I interact with, at least.
|
|
