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 ...
Now it's a requirement.
Well... when someone winds up with an “insomniac or glutton for punishment” reference, I guess I could find it an indication of disdain. If you didn’t mean it that way, fine.
I didn’t ask you to ignore me either. Did I...
I said that if it bothered you that others didn’t understand the topic as well as you did, perhaps you should not pipe up to express your knowledge on the subject.
I didn’t ask you not to pipe up.
I do appreciate the information.
Can we change Ol’ Will’s thing from —Kill all the lawyers...to Kill all the judges??
The artlicle is a little off base. The Court just ruled she was entitled to a full board review. In other words, this is just a procedural issue. Here is the full case: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:K0ajs0OPqdoJ:www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-3086.Opinion.5-5-2017.1.PDF+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Well, FWIW, I find most of the US Code and Code of Federal Regulations to be dense, obtuse, and generally sleep inducing, and if I don;t have a reaon to refer to them, I don;t refer to them. I consider myself a glutton for punishment when I read them, and the "insomniac" reference is, I believe, and obvious joke.
I know that you didn't ask me to ignore you. You just suggested that if it bothered me so much, I should refrain from contributing.
Although your advice is given I am sure with good intentions, and while you appreciate the help, I don't appreciate being maligned for giving it. I'm out of here. No good deed goes unpunished, and I've had my fill of good deed doing on this board.
It’s the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. They handle all patent cases and some other matters. Not geographically defined, but rather defined based on the nature of the issues raised.
I saw that. Thank you for all the information.
Sorry, I meant all appeals from federal district courts for patent cases...
Wish they would do that more often.
I guess that when someone says something that could be offensive, I should refrain from bring it up in a response.
When someone attributes to me something I didn’t say, likewise.
Doesn’t work that way with me.
Once again, I bring up issues for the sake of clarity.
That’s what I should do.
Thank you Piytar.
I appreciate the clarification.
Without judges demand for lawyers would now down.
It’s time to dissolve public sector unions. They were allowed by executive order and they can be disallowed by executive order.
There all 12 regional federal courts of appeals (the 1st through 11th Circuits, plus the D.C.Circuit). There is also a 13th federal court of appeals, called the "Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit," whose jurisdiction is based not on geography, but subject matter.
The Federal Circuit hears all patent appeals, regardless of the region in which they were tried (so, for example, a patent case originating in Los Angeles will be tried in the federal district court for the central district of California, but will be appealed to the Federal Circuit, not the 9th Circuit). The Federal Circuit also hears all appeals from certain specialized tribunals, such as the Court of Federal Claims. It heard this case because it was an appeal from the Merit System Protection Board (the tribunal used to fire civil service workers).
Thank you for your explanation.
Coupled with what others explained, it’s beginning to make sense.
As I would be happy to 99% unemployment on K STREET,I’d be happy to see miles long lines of lawyers looking for jobs.
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.