Appointments

     OK, now I see what Obama is doing.
     He’s not packing the Supreme Court with liberals – he’s packing it with women. If he gets his way and there are just six more retirements, we could have an all-woman court.
     So much for the Obama country-of-origin birth certificate controversy.
     What we are now going to see is the Obama sex-of-origin birth certificate controversy.
     After all, how do we really know he’s a guy under those male-looking suits? Has anyone really investigated?
     I didn’t think so.
     But even if the president isn’t a woman in disguise, why would he want to pack the Supreme Court with women?
     OK, most straight men would want to pack any room with women. Maybe that’s the answer.
     Or maybe, just maybe, he’s tired of looking at guys in robes.
     Women just look better in those outfits.
     
     TIMELY MEMO. Oddly enough, the president also issued a “Presidential Memorandum” last week on the topic of federal hiring.
     It may partly explain the choice of a Supreme Court nominee without much of a paper trail.
     Under this directive, federal agencies have been instructed to “eliminate any requirement that applicants respond to essay-style questions when submitting their initial application materials for any Federal job.”
     It’s so much easier to get a job if you don’t express opinions.
     There are some other things in the memo that, to me anyway, seem a trifle odd.
     For example, agencies aren’t supposed to use the “rule of 3” under which managers have to choose one of the three top-scoring applicants for a job. Instead, the selection has to come from a “larger” number.
     Four?
     Is the idea to give people who don’t score well a chance to get jobs? But then why, a few paragraphs later, tell the agencies to recruit highly-qualified employees?
     It’s so confusing.
     And then there’s this: agencies are supposed to “allow individuals to apply for Federal employment by submitting resumes and cover letters or completing simple, plain language applications, and assess applicants using valid, reliable tools.”
     Hammers? Screwdrivers?
     Perhaps, gavels?
     Or are the applicants supposed to be using the tools while being assessed?
     Well, if the tool isn’t a pen or a keyboard, I guess that makes sense.
     Don’t be surprised to see guys with chainsaws in the coming years in your local federal government offices.
     
     AVOIDING ELECTIONS. If you think the appointment process for U. S. Supreme Court seats has become strange, you should take a look at what’s going on in Minnesota.
     Check out a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling called Clark v. Ritchie, in which that court rules on how its own chief justice should be selected.
     You’d think that Supreme Court might have a bit of a conflict of interest in there, but it doesn’t seem to mention it.
     What’s even weirder is that two of the plaintiffs are people who would like to be Minnesota Chief Justice.
     And the ruling – you can read it yourself to get the details – is that the state governor can avoid ever having an election for the job if his appointees don’t stay on the job for more than a couple of years.
     Really.
     The governor there is about to appoint his third chief justice in four years so he gets to avoid elections because none of the appointees have been in office long enough to be required to face voters.
     The succession could go on forever if the governor lives that long.
     I’m assuming none of those appointees will have to write essays.
     

%d bloggers like this: