|
|
Post by christina on Jul 1, 2022 14:56:30 GMT -5
I feel ya. But I think that the forces behind the makeup of new SCOTUS are more interested in whittling down the regulatory agencies, because of the big-money interests at stake. I hope that it may be many years before the Eye of Sauron casts its malevolent gaze in our direction. We could get hit indirectly though. But for today we are employed! |
|
|
|
Post by remora on Jul 1, 2022 15:04:00 GMT -5
So, as a person interviewing next week for an ssa alj spot, what would theoretically happen to the 1000+ alj's if the eye of sauron focuses on them? Demotion? RIF? AJ designation?
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jul 1, 2022 15:13:21 GMT -5
So, as a person interviewing next week for an ssa alj spot, what would theoretically happen to the 1000+ alj's if the eye of sauron focuses on them? Demotion? RIF? AJ designation? Jumping on a very shaky limb. Maybe designate folks like the AC judges. So AJ would be closest to this. I think AC judges have same salaries as ALJs. The independence is of clear concern though |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jul 1, 2022 15:15:08 GMT -5
Look at DOJ recently firing IJs at the end of their probationary period. They didn't wait for a SCOTUS case--they just did it. I fear that this administration is going to politicize ALJs, regardless of agency. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jul 1, 2022 15:19:50 GMT -5
Look at DOJ recently firing IJs at the end of their probationary period. They didn't wait for a SCOTUS case--they just did it. I fear that this administration is going to politicize ALJs, regardless of agency. Any thoughts? Hmm if u are saying this, not good. U are generally pretty shrewd on figuring stuff like this out |
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Jul 1, 2022 16:33:23 GMT -5
I feel ya. But I think that the forces behind the makeup of new SCOTUS are more interested in whittling down the regulatory agencies, because of the big-money interests at stake. I hope that it may be many years before the Eye of Sauron casts its malevolent gaze in our direction. We could get hit indirectly though. But for today we are employed! "Gather ye rosebuds while ye may, Old Time is still a-flying; And this same flower that smiles today Tomorrow will be dying. Carpe diem, boys. Make your lives extraordinary." There's only so much we can control, ladies and gents. Enjoy what you can while you can. Of course there is cause for worry, but no one here can change the Supreme Court of the United States, so I like Christina's post. For today, employment! Eat, drink, and be merry! |
|
|
|
Post by anciano on Jul 2, 2022 16:38:51 GMT -5
The ALJ position flows from impetus of the SCOTUS in the 1940's to find a way to separate the adjudication of issues that come before an Agency from direct oversight by Agency management. The APA was modeled after the Social Security Act and until Lucia and Seila Law, was given great deference by the Supremes. If the current ALJ position becomes a nullity, a method for case determination will have to be devised. As some have suggested, total vesting of hiring and tenure in the Executive Branch could clearly politicize the process, in that it turn on the whim of the current WH incumbent. My feeling is that a total deconstruction of the system will not happen in the near future. To much risk for both parties. However, the long term is not so certain. That being said, this can be a great job and if I were starting over, I would not hesitate to take it. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Jul 3, 2022 6:51:44 GMT -5
The ALJ position flows from impetus of the SCOTUS in the 1940's to find a way to separate the adjudication of issues that come before an Agency from direct oversight by Agency management. The APA was modeled after the Social Security Act and until Lucia and Seila Law, was given great deference by the Supremes. If the current ALJ position becomes a nullity, a method for case determination will have to be devised. As some have suggested, total vesting of hiring and tenure in the Executive Branch could clearly politicize the process, in that it turn on the whim of the current WH incumbent. My feeling is that a total deconstruction of the system will not happen in the near future. To much risk for both parties. However, the long term is not so certain. That being said, this can be a great job and if I were starting over, I would not hesitate to take it. Good luck. the other option would be adjudication of each case in Article III courts, which the Supremes likely also don’t want—or at least CJ doesn’t. |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Jul 3, 2022 19:20:18 GMT -5
CJ doesn’t run things anymore. It’s his colleagues on the extreme right that control our future. If they do not care about choice, climate change, mass shootings…I don’t think they will give a … about overburdening the district courts with disability claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Jul 4, 2022 2:12:41 GMT -5
When I went to work for the Federal government, my father who had worked as a Fed for over 40 years said, “You will get into a position where you really enjoy your job and someone who has no understanding of it will spend their time trying to improve it and will ruin it.”
He told the truth.
I like the work. Study the medical files, ask some easy questions to get the claimant comfortable, ask some routine standard questions to see how their answers line up with the medical. Go down rabbit holes that pop up in their answers, try to craft an RFC that reflects what it seems they can be expected to be capable of.
I’ve got a fairly big strike zone, get the ball close to the plate, I’ll give you benefit of the doubt.
It seems that with all the improvements we’ve made with training, with better tools, writing is better than when I was a writer that AC is shrinking their strike zone in order to keep the remand rate consistent and some appear to boil down to “I’ve looked at it and I simply disagree with you denying this person.” The district court seems even more eager to simply substitute judgment rather than review for errors.
The files have changed, with Obamacare and Medicaid expansion more people have significant history of medical treatment so takes longer to get through a file.
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jul 4, 2022 7:33:42 GMT -5
When I went to work for the Federal government, my father who had worked as a Fed for over 40 years said, “You will get into a position where you really enjoy your job and someone who has no understanding of it will spend their time trying to improve it and will ruin it.” He told the truth. I like the work. Study the medical files, ask some easy questions to get the claimant comfortable, ask some routine standard questions to see how their answers line up with the medical. Go down rabbit holes that pop up in their answers, try to craft an RFC that reflects what it seems they can be expected to be capable of. I’ve got a fairly big strike zone, get the ball close to the plate, I’ll give you benefit of the doubt. It seems that with all the improvements we’ve made with training, with better tools, writing is better than when I was a writer that AC is shrinking their strike zone in order to keep the remand rate consistent and some appear to boil down to “I’ve looked at it and I simply disagree with you denying this person.” The district court seems even more eager to simply substitute judgment rather than review for errors. The files have changed, with Obamacare and Medicaid expansion more people have significant history of medical treatment so takes longer to get through a file. Like this post and I love the first paragraph 🤣 very true |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jul 4, 2022 11:55:12 GMT -5
Look at DOJ recently firing IJs at the end of their probationary period. They didn't wait for a SCOTUS case--they just did it. I fear that this administration is going to politicize ALJs, regardless of agency. Any thoughts? I respect the heck out of you but I can't take this seriously after the last administration literally froze hiring and issued an executive order in pursuit of politically appointing the ALJ corps. I don't have a crystal ball but equating firing of political appointees like Saul is a far cry from political appointment of ALJs. |
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Jul 4, 2022 16:27:35 GMT -5
apples and oranges; you are missing the point jagvet is making, or maybe you are not and merely taking an opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jul 4, 2022 16:32:31 GMT -5
apples and oranges; you are missing the point jagvet is making, or maybe you are not and merely taking an opportunity. I think I just disagree with him on what this administration is likely to do. I don't think they have politicized the ALJs and in fact have acted to protect ALJs from politics where possible given decisions that were made in the last two administrations. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jul 4, 2022 23:55:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Jul 5, 2022 11:53:57 GMT -5
Google CIS. It’s not a neutral source. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jul 5, 2022 14:00:43 GMT -5
I don't know the source of the critical article, but many probationary IJs have been let go. That is a fact. Now a group of congressmen is questioning DOJ. It really doesn't matter who criticizes or why the action is being criticized. My concern is that if the administration is using politics to fire IJs, why could it not do the same to ALJs?
|
|
|
|
Post by meglos on Jul 5, 2022 14:33:15 GMT -5
I don't know the source of the critical article, but many probationary IJs have been let go. That is a fact. Now a group of congressmen is questioning DOJ. It really doesn't matter who criticizes or why the action is being criticized. My concern is that if the administration is using politics to fire IJs, why could it not do the same to ALJs? Let's think about this critcally for a second... How many have been let go? And how does that stack up to how many the Trump administration hired? Could it be that maybe they just couldn't do their jobs? If you have any information from an unbiased source by all means... |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jul 5, 2022 14:47:08 GMT -5
I don't know the source of the critical article, but many probationary IJs have been let go. That is a fact. Now a group of congressmen is questioning DOJ. It really doesn't matter who criticizes or why the action is being criticized. My concern is that if the administration is using politics to fire IJs, why could it not do the same to ALJs? So 6 out of 550+ now constitutes “many?” Or a “purge” as it’s labeled in the article? Over 300 we’re hired under Trump, so letting 2% of them go screams political attack? There are certainly concerns about our position, but they’ve been there for a few years since our position classification was changed, etc. Of course, there was a sage voice that was the voice of reason at that time that I might recommend you listen to. Time to remove the tin foil hats. Predictions of Trump doing this and that to ALJs and SSA since 11/16 have all failed to materialize. Isn't it obvious that most of the political world cares nothing about these minor functionaries? Friends, they just don't care. Not the president. Not Congress. Don't lose sleep--come 2021, we'll still be doing everything the same way with the same people. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jul 5, 2022 16:09:14 GMT -5
I don't know the source of the critical article, but many probationary IJs have been let go. That is a fact. Now a group of congressmen is questioning DOJ. It really doesn't matter who criticizes or why the action is being criticized. My concern is that if the administration is using politics to fire IJs, why could it not do the same to ALJs? So 6 out of 550+ now constitutes “many?” Or a “purge” as it’s labeled in the article? Over 300 we’re hired under Trump, so letting 2% of them go screams political attack? There are certainly concerns about our position, but they’ve been there for a few years since our position classification was changed, etc. Of course, there was a sage voice that was the voice of reason at that time that I might recommend you listen to. Time to remove the tin foil hats. Predictions of Trump doing this and that to ALJs and SSA since 11/16 have all failed to materialize. Isn't it obvious that most of the political world cares nothing about these minor functionaries? Friends, they just don't care. Not the president. Not Congress. Don't lose sleep--come 2021, we'll still be doing everything the same way with the same people. You are correct. It is only six, not the higher numbers suggested by the first article. I may have overreacted here. Time will tell. Thanks for reminding me of my own words! |
|
