Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Court Rules Firing of Felon Phoenix VA Director Unconstitutional
PJ Media ^ | 05/10/2017 | By Tyler O'Neil

Posted on 05/10/2017 1:04:01 PM PDT by Rusty0604

On Tuesday, the Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit ruled that the firing of former Phoenix Veterans Affairs (VA) Director Sharon Helman, a convicted felon, was unconstitutional. While this does not mean Helman will return to work, the ruling may strike a powerful blow against VA accountability reform.

"Today's ruling underscores yet again the need for swift congressional action to afford the Secretary effective and defensible authority to take timely and meaningful action against VA employees whose conduct or performance undermines Veterans' trust in VA care or services," VA Secretary David Shulkin declared in a statement. He praised H.R. 1259, the VA Accountability First Act of 2017 — which has passed the U.S. House of Representatives but not the U.S. Senate — as "a vital step toward providing the tools necessary to address misconduct while ensuring due process."

The problem is, the Federal Appeals Court ruling struck down portions of a 2014 law meant to expedite the firing process at the VA as unconstitutional, and the act before Congress seems vulnerable to the very same legal attacks.

Unless the Senate drafts a different bill, the Supreme Court would have to strike down this ruling in order to give the VA Accountability Act of 2017 a fighting chance ...

Alternatively, if the Senate passes the 2017 accountability act and if President Donald Trump signs it, Congress and the president should declare definitively that they do not consider this federal court ruling binding, and that in keeping with their pledge to uphold the Constitution, they consider this expediting provision to be fully constitutional. While many consider the courts to have the final say on whether laws are constitutional, there is precedent that Congress and the president have this same authority, and the Republicans and Trump should use it in this case.

(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: veterans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last
... Unfortunately, it seems the public sector unions will fight tooth and nail against reform, seeing accountability as a denial of their employees' rights. Expect a protracted battle on something that should be common sense.
1 posted on 05/10/2017 1:04:01 PM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Naturally, the Federal Appeals Circus has Ruled again.


2 posted on 05/10/2017 1:08:45 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Why are they so reluctant to mention this is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?

Is this another appeals court at the state level?


3 posted on 05/10/2017 1:11:34 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Happy days are here again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Disband the unions.
Problem solved..............


4 posted on 05/10/2017 1:11:39 PM PDT by Red Badger (Profanity is the sound of an ignorant mind trying to express itself.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Okay, we’ll let her run the VA office while she’s on probation, so more vets can die under her watch. She pled guilty to a felony offense. What a bunch of dumb asses.


5 posted on 05/10/2017 1:14:36 PM PDT by mass55th (Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway...John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Union, plus union, and it is the darn AFGE union.


6 posted on 05/10/2017 1:15:24 PM PDT by Lumper20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

No union for government types period. The Congress has AFGE insurance. How do we fire these clowns except at the ballot? The military has nothing like these prima donna BS types.


7 posted on 05/10/2017 1:19:05 PM PDT by Lumper20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

That would be the ideal solution.


8 posted on 05/10/2017 1:21:08 PM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

More rule by judicial fiat.


9 posted on 05/10/2017 1:31:39 PM PDT by headstamp 2 (Ignorance is reparable, stupid is forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

Yep. It’s wearing on me.


10 posted on 05/10/2017 1:35:01 PM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

I can’t seem to find the justification or foundation for how firing this person, in this role, in the givernment is unconstitutional.


11 posted on 05/10/2017 1:44:38 PM PDT by Vendome (I've Gotta Be Me - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-pk2vZG2M)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

CAFC is a federal circuit court - it has some “specialty” jurisdiction.


12 posted on 05/10/2017 1:46:28 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

I’m going to hunt the decision, but my guess is some sort of “separation of powers” rationale. Not that the employee can’t be fired at will, and if cause is necessary, not that cause wasn’t met. The notion of an unconstitutional firing is just plain weird for anything but separation of powers reasons.


13 posted on 05/10/2017 1:49:12 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

There was a time where any felony conviction was an automatic disqualification for any government service position.


14 posted on 05/10/2017 1:49:17 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
(HR 1259) this is the history of what has been done.

(go here to follow the bill from the start)

we need a smoother leaner Congress...make each state like Senators, equal in each state for starters rather than the present law. This huge body is unwieldy and not always well informed about the laws they pass among other business. While reading about the history of HR 1259, I ran across a note of tribute to one NINA M. SERAFINO; don't mean to be persnickety here, but seems to me the people's time could be better spent with fewer than 614 words...point is, there is a place and time for such tributes...the Bureaucracy in America is tremendous...and very wasteful. The VA is very important and should be run by well qualified people. See to it Congress!

15 posted on 05/10/2017 1:54:38 PM PDT by yoe (Genesis was first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
I'm going to hunt the decision, but my guess is some sort of "separation of powers" rationale. Not that the employee can't be fired at will, and if cause is necessary, not that cause wasn't met. The notion of an unconstitutional firing is just plain weird for anything but separation of powers reasons.

HELMAN v. DVA - US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Case 2015-3086, Merit Systems Protection Board DE-0707-15-0091-J-1

I haven't studied in detail yet, but the issue seems to be a power of an Administrative law Judge to render a conclusive ruling, cutting off all Article III judges. Plaintiff is free to (continue to) pursue her claims, and the power of ALJ is curtailed by this ruling. Nothing on the merits, just a venue issue.

16 posted on 05/10/2017 1:56:10 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Why are they so reluctant to mention this is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?

Because it's not. It's the Federal Circuit, a different federal appeals court.

17 posted on 05/10/2017 1:56:17 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604; All

The politically correct terms, “constitutional” and “unconstitutional,” when volunteered without reference to supportive constitutional clauses which reasonably justify such decisions in the context of the issue, should be officially interpreteted to mean the following.

“Constitutional,” because such a decision advances our unconstitutional agenda, or “unconstitutional,” likewise because such a decision advances our unconstitutional agenda.


18 posted on 05/10/2017 1:57:13 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

It’s all about people’s entitlement attitudes.....they will continue to use the courts to “obstruct” in order to retain their power and protect whatever shenanigans they’ve been up to.


19 posted on 05/10/2017 2:00:13 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

I’m not quite understanding then.

If it’s a Federal Circuit Court of appeals..., how many layers do they have of Federal Circuit Courts of appeal?

I thought there were roughly nine such courts?

Are then tens or 100s below the nine?


20 posted on 05/10/2017 2:01:00 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Happy days are here again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson