No, I do not. Even the director of OPM stated that the EO safeguards the efficiencies of the administrative courts. It had to be done. Your political hatred has opened you to ignorance on many issues.
1) The current case law pushed the Govt. into this position. It was either change they way they hire ALJs or put their decisions at risk. Since
Lucia, there have been hundreds of appeals to overturn ALJ rulings.
2) If a Gov't agency wants to hire someone, they have them apply through OPM. My old agency had a judge apply through OPM three times before she made it through the screening process, and then we hired her (she was highly qualified, but didn't get past the peon screening process--the screeners literally only look for keywords without reading or understanding the applications). The new system will be similar to how the Government hires all federal attorneys. There is still a vetting process to ensure they have qualified and impartial candidates.
3) Look at what most ALJs do. The largest number of ALJs deal with Social Security rulings. They follow very specific parameters to make their determinations. ALJ jobs are the equivalent of sweat shops for attorneys. The Government agencies require their ALJs to make a large number of rulings every day or risk getting let go. Not a lot of room for corruption. If corruption is an issue, then they way every federal judge is appointed in this country is a big problem.
I am not a Republican. I do not like Trump and worry about him being the President. I still appreciate that some things have to get done and I know enough about politics to know why most things get done. There are many things to criticize about Trump. This is not one of them. He simply shored up a hole created by the Supreme Court.
Arguing the ALJ system itself is an issue as Babe did, I can agree with. Having ALJs appointed by Article III courts would make sense. But the EO is not worth getting your panties in a bunch. I must follow the wisdom of the all knowing
@Stoked and ignore your incessant drivel.