[rayiner]

That was a fine notion before it became apparent that skilled professionals are unable to separate their work from their political ideology: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea...

This was a huge problem in the first Trump administration: https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/20222702-federal-burea.... Do you really think that, for example, DOJ lawyers who defended Biden’s mass immigration policies are going to flip and use 100% of their talents to figure out how to do mass deportations now? If that’s genuinely the case, then there’s a place for the idea of a neutral civil service. But I don’t believe that’s the case, and that’s an unacceptable state of affairs.

[acdha]

> Do you really think that, for example, DOJ lawyers who defended Biden’s mass immigration policies are going to flip and use 100% of their talents to figure out how to do mass deportations now?

Yes - every lawyer I’ve met considers it their professional obligation to work on their client’s behalf, even if it’s behaviour they personally disapprove of. This is especially true in government where the merit-based civil service is centered on following laws and policy.

Biden didn’t have those scary-sounding “mass immigration policies” - he asked Congress to pass much-needed reform but limited his actions to what was authorized under existing law.

[rayiner]

Lawyers are highly political, as we saw during the Trump administration. The ABA, for example, has been peddling completely absurd ideas, like that rhetoric Equal Rights Amendment has been ratified.

Reversing Trump’s immigration policies is one of the first things Biden did: https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_biden-signs-executive-orders-r...

[acdha]

The ABA is part of the merit-based civil service now?

Your second link supports my point: there were changes between administrations but many of the people who worked for Trump also worked for Biden, and they followed the policies given by the current president. That’s the role you accept in that job, trying to interpret those policy directives under the various applicable laws, and everyone who applies to be a civil servant knows that this can mean big changes from administration to administration.

[DFHippie]

> Do you really think that, for example, DOJ lawyers who defended Biden’s mass immigration policies are going to flip and use 100% of their talents to figure out how to do mass deportations now?

This is precisely what lawyers do. They try to make the best argument for their client's case. If they do not want to make that argument, they let their client find a new lawyer (resign, if they work for the government). They don't make a shitty case because they think their client is wrong. (That being said, they cannot lie without professional repercussions.)

P.S. There were no mass immigration policies under Biden. You have been misinformed.

[rayiner]

Government lawyers absolutely failed to represent the Trump administration as aggressively as they did the Biden administration. There are reports of political appointees having to follow PACER themselves because staff lawyers weren’t keeping them up to date on cases.

And yes, Biden enacted mass immigration policies. Revoking Trump’s EOs was one of the first things he did: https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_biden-signs-executive-orders-r.... He also granted TPS to hundreds of thousands of immigrants, created the CBP One app to facilitate illegal immigration, etc.

This isn’t even really disputed. Border crossings are already down 60%: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-era-southern-border-s.... Migrant shelters are being shut down, migrant caravans are being turned around, etc.