A thought on its underpinnings, from Peter Wilson at the end of his The Heart of Europe: A History of the Holy Roman Empire:
Democratic legitimacy derives from the openness of debate, not the practice of voting.
He’s not far wrong, as comparisons between nations like Russia on the one hand and the United States or Great Britain on the other illustrate.
The National Labor Relations Board is supposed to protect all workers, but it’s been focused on union workers exclusively for far too long. In the effort, too, it’s become far too politicized to be useful or able to be rehabilitated.
For instance, it ignores the courts.
In [a] DC Circuit case…the NLRB ignored the court’s longstanding precedent on an employer’s bargaining obligations under a collective-bargaining agreement, forcing a Michigan health clinic to defend itself against charges it knew the court would reject.
The NLRB ignores other long-standing precedent, also. For instance, it has ruled [sic] the franchising companies—a McDonald’s, a Subway, and so on—are at least partially responsible for the employment practices of the franchise holder—a particular McDonald’s or Subway restaurant—even though employment decisions are entirely the purview of the franchise license holder.
Peter Schaumber, ex-NLRB Chairman under ex-President Bush the Younger, argued in his op-ed at the link that the NLRB could cure this by issuing a slew of regulations that would reverse those abusive practices. It’s true enough that regulations ” adopted after public notice and comment cannot be overturned without ‘substantial justification’ or renewed rule-making,” but that’s only a temporary sop. The same politicization would leave it straightforward (if cumbersomely so) to find “substantial justification” or to spend the time to go through “renewed rule-making” in order to alter the NLRB to its members’ ideology—even ego—rather than staying focused on all workers.
Formalizing regulations through rule-making processes cannot correct the board’s political biases, whichever way those might lean.
The NLRB needs to be done away with altogether.
Ex-Veterans Affairs Secretary is making his case that he didn’t resign, he was fired.
Shulkin said he had not submitted a resignation letter, or planned to, and was only told of Trump’s decision shortly before the Twitter announcement.
Of course, the format of a resignation is immaterial to the act; in particular, letters are the polite, professional way to quit, but they’re not required, not at all. Too, learning that your boss wants you to leave “shortly before the Twitter announcement” might be impolite, even impolitic, but again, learning the boss’ desire is not required for resigning. Nor is desiring one to leave the same as firing that one.
The distinction in this context might seem minor, but it actually flows from a very serious legal matter.
The semantics could be relevant to Trump’s ability to name an acting VA secretary to temporarily fill Shulkin’s place. Last week, Trump named Defense Department official Robert Wilkie to the acting position….
Under federal law, a president has wide authority to temporarily fill a federal agency job if someone “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office.” There is no mention of a president having that authority if the person is fired.
The fact is, Schulkin may have felt considerable pressure to resign, and it’s common to conflate pressured-to-resign with being fired, but the two are not the same. Especially here. Cabinet Secretaries are nominated by the President, but they are confirmed by the Senate. The President cannot fire a Secretary. He must be impeached. It may be that Secretaries serve “at the pleasure of the President,” but once confirmed, they serve “at the pleasure of Congress,” also.
Schulkin could have held out for being impeached, but he resigned—under pressure certainly, but voluntarily nonetheless.
That’s actually a serious question.
The firestorm over Facebook Inc’s handling of personal data raises a question for those pondering a regulatory response: is there such a thing as too much privacy?
And
Law-enforcement agencies rely on access to user data as an important tool for tracking criminals or preventing terrorist attacks. As such, they have long argued additional regulation may be harmful to national security.
Unfortunately, no government can be trusted with citizens’ privacy, as the Star Chamber secret FISA court, the FBI leadership (and not just the current or immediately prior crowd—recall J Edgar Hoover), prior DoJ leadership, the Robert Mueller “investigation,” and much more demonstrate.
If our government wants to learn things, it needs to get back into the HUMINT business rather than relying so much on hacking IT systems. And get an honest warrant, not just a FISA one.
Or more Progressive-Democrat contempt for conservative women. On tour to promote her book, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri says about the election outcome,
It does show that we don’t have any models for our young girls and young women who are coming up in the world now to look at for how to lead.
Sure. Because Condoleezza Rice, Provost of Stanford University, ex-NSA, and ex-Secretary of State is such a terrible role model.
Because Nikki Haley, ex-State Representative in the South Carolina House, ex-Governor of South Carolina, and current UN Ambassador is such a terrible role model.
Because Sarah Palin, ex-Governor of Alaska and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate is such a terrible role model.
Because Carly Fiorina, ex-Hewlett-Packard CEO and 2016 Presidential candidate is such a terrible role model.
Because Elaine Chao, ex-Deputy Secretary of Transportation, ex-Peace Corps Director, ex-Labor Secretary, and current Labor Secretary is such a terrible role model.
Because Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R, TN) and current Senate candidate is such a terrible role model.
Because Pam Bondi, Florida Attorney General is such a terrible role model.
Because Joni Ernst, Lt Col (USA, Ret), ex-Iowa State Senator, and current Senator is such a terrible role model.
Because Alveda King, State Congresswoman in Georgia’s House of Representatives, is such a terrible role model.
Because the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, ex-UN Ambassador, is such a terrible role model.
Because Mia Love, Congresswoman from Utah is such a terrible role model.
Because Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, is such a terrible role model.
The list goes on; I’ve only begun to start scratching the surface.
But the Progressive-Democrat says “we don’t have any models for our young girls and young women…to look at for how to lead.”
Hmm….