(Washington Post Photograph, Sept. 26, 2020)
Questions for Judge Amy Coney Barrett that she will not answer at her Confirmation this week, but which need to be asked, come from an otherwise favorable New York Times article titled, Close-Knit Faith Group Helped Shape Barrett. The print edition was published last Friday, October 9, 2020.
The "close-knit faith group" of course is the now-famous People of Praise. It turns out they are more than just a simple "faith group."
"The group was not this bipartisan group of people. The social scene was extremely Republican, very much Rush Limbaugh." Dr. Arthur Wang, described as "a doctor in Indiana who joined the group in 1988" and "left the group around 2014[.]" That's something like 16 years, certainly enough time to gain experience and perspective on the group.
Judge Amy was a member of the POP group since she was a little girl in New Orleans, according to the article.
Ask her about that: Did this group have a particular political or secular orientation to it? If they were not bipartisan, what were they?
Did the members come from a particular social class, and no other?
How did they treat dissenters? Was dissent allowed or shunned?
Good questions for the member of any group.
Some peculiar characteristics of this particular social group are also revealed in this article. Members reportedly "sign an intention to stay with the group for the rest of their lives."
Did she sign one?
What did the one she signed, say?
Is she willing to produce a copy, to make a copy public? The job she is applying for could not be more public, nor could any other job than a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court demand more transparency and impartiality.
"Members are asked to donate at least 5 percent of their gross income to the community."
This does not sound like tithing to the Catholic Church. It sounds like a gratuity paid to POP. Confirm that she paid it and if she paid it to POP, what was it used for, exactly? It is hard to imagine what use POP could make of money that the Catholic Church -- a true "faith group" -- could not make.
"Members agree to submit to the leadership of a spiritual director and sign a 181-word 'covenant' that they frequently recite together."
This makes at least 2 agreements that POP requires its members to sign. I have been a member of faith groups but not one has ever required its members to sign any agreements.
Same questions as about the "intention to stay with" POP for the rest of their lives, above: Did she sign one?
What did the "covenant" she signed, actually say?
Is she willing to produce a copy, to make a copy public?
If not, why not?
Recent reporting on nondisclosure agreements demanded by The Occupant from doctors at Walter Reed make me wonder enough to ask if he also asked a judge to sign a nondisclosure agreement:
Did she sign any nondisclosure agreements about her appointment to the Supreme Court? If so, when, where, with whom -- and most of all, why?
Good questions all. More good questions are posed by Linda Greenhouse in her playbook for questions at the Confirmation in the NEW YORK TIMES.
Ask the questions, people.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2020 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
THEY'RE STILL IN POWER, YOU KNOW. COMMENT ON THEIR PROPOSALS ....
... at least until January 20, 2021.
Another Comment period closes on another proposal. Their proposal deserves your Comments, as their proposals mostly have deserved your Comments for four years. The situation has not changed yet, you know. They are still in power, still making proposals, and Comments are still necessary.
What follows is information for you to use regarding the Comment period that ends today on their proposal to circumvent federal labor laws that govern the federal workforce. Feel free to copy all or any part of the following in order to leave your own Comments.
Temporary and Term Employment
A Proposed Rule by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
TO: regulations.gov
Docket No.: 2020-20038.
RIN: 3206-AN92.
Comment Period Deadline: November 10, 2020.
Summary: Currently, "permanent" federal employees are in positions that are expected to continue indefinitely. "Temporary" or "term" employees are in positions with a fixed end date. The current proposed change would increase the present maximum limit of four years for most "nonpermanent" workers from 4 to 10 years.
Relevance and Justification: The American Federation of Government Employees has pointed out that federal agencies could use their authority to fill more positions with employees who will be out of their jobs when their term ends, as they do now under even more limiting rules. The AFGE notes that this sets the stage for a "disposable workforce," as distinct from a career federal workforce. The practice of hiring term and temporary federal workers is apparently widespread at the present time as it is, "with some individuals serving for years and years rotating from one temporary position to another without job security and without proper access to benefit programs," the National Treasury Employees Union has observed.
Term employees in federal employment may not qualify for an annuity benefit and may not be eligible for the same percentage of federal contribution to premiums to continue their federal health insurance coverage when they retire. Further, term employees do not have a right to appeal. As the public policy director of the AFGE has said, "It's a streamlined way to fire people--when your term has ended, they can fire you because your term has ended."
CONCLUSION
Your proposed rule circumvents federal labor laws that apply to federal workers. It is contrary to law. It must be withdrawn or, if it is not withdrawn, then it must be struck down as soon as it is issued, if ever.
Thank you for your consideration of these Comments.
Please read the disclaimer. This article ©2020 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved except that as stated, permission is freely given to quote all or part of the above Comments in any Comment on the proposed rule that may be left on regulations.gov, by any reader, with or without attribution.
Posted by Dennis J. Wall on November 10, 2020 at 07:14 AM in Comments on proposed changes to regs and rules, Comments on Proposed Rules, Regulations and rules of administrative agencies., Rules and regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tags: #Comments, #FederalEmployees, #LaborLaws, #OPM, #ProposedRules