I actually agree with you (I mean, you're just stating facts). But the other commenter is trying to spin this simple fact as a "political appointment", when every job is "you serve at the pleasure of your boss". Only government work has had this strange notion of perma-employment, where nobody can fire you, lest it become "political". So you pile up corrupt morons like Peter Marks and Ashish Jha...

Anyway, it seems to me that the subtext here is that nobody can serve in this administration or they get attacked for being on the wrong side by partisan hacks. I'm actually happy that someone as competent as Prasad made it to a position of power -- it's one of the few bright spots in government right now. He's someone who has made a lot of enemies by standing up to pharma corruption, and I don't know if any other administration would ever have given him the kind of authority needed to clean house.

▲

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent [-]

> But the other commenter is trying to spin this simple fact as a "political appointment", when every job is "you serve at the pleasure of your boss".

Simple fact: That's false.

Unionized employees. Montana's "Wrongful Discharge in Employment Act". Bosses whose "pleasure" includes firing the newly pregnant employee for that reason. Etc.

> Only government work has had this strange notion of perma-employment

Similarly incorrect. Tenure's a thing, even at private universities. For fairly similar reasons, even.

> So you pile up corrupt morons like Peter Marks and Ashish Jha…

Marks was fired (well, forced to resign); he had some civil service protection (having been hired as a non-political appointment first), but not for the role he was in. Jha was a political appointment, and thus not subject to civil service protections; his position was done away with entirely after the work was done.

You are citing successful removals to claim people can't be removed, which is… a bit interesting.

▲

timr 2 days ago | parent [-]

You have spent a lot of words arguing about anything other than the core point: the fact that Prasad was hired into Marks' old position does not suddenly make the position "political".

Marks resigned, Prasad was hired. Same position. Arguing that he can be fired is...true, I suppose (in the same way that Marks was "fired"), but non-responsive.

▲

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent [-]

> the fact that Prasad was hired into Marks' old position does not suddenly make the position "political"

Correct, but "non-responsive", as you say.

> You have spent a lot of words arguing about anything other than the core point: the fact that Prasad was hired into Marks' old position does not suddenly make the position "political".

You have spent a lot of words arguing with the definition of "political appointee". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_...

Prasad and Marks are/were both political appointees because they were appointed to their roles by the President, Vice President, or a Federal agency head. In such a role, they lack certain protections (including around firing) a civil service role would possess. It's really quite simple.

▲

timr 2 days ago | parent [-]

Look, I'm tired of arguing about this, but since you're basically just appealing to authority (a wikipedia article), you should know that the one line you're quoting is actually not supported by the document that it cites [1,2]

Here's the exact definition:

> The definition of “appointee” in the Executive Order covers “every full-time, non-career Presidential or Vice-Presidential appointee, non-career appointee in the Senior Executive Service (or other SES-type system), and appointee to a position that has been excepted from the competitive service by reason of being of a confidential or policymaking character (Schedule C and other positions excepted under comparable criteria) in an executive agency.” Executive Order, sec. 2(b). However, “[i]t does not include any person appointed as a member of the Senior Foreign Service or solely as a uniformed service commissioned officer.”

So basically, there's a lot of nuance there, and your wikipedia quote is wrong. Perhaps you should change it to be more accurate (EDIT: nevermind. Did it for you!)

[1] https://www.oge.gov/Web/oge.nsf/Legal%20Docs/4EAB053F755BE59...

[2] Which, I should note, is a definition made by an executive order. LOL.

EDIT: OK, I have now followed this all the way to Wikipedia's stated source for political appointments ("The Plum Book", 2020 edition [3]), and I do not see this position anywhere in the book. Starts at page 79.

I'm sure you'll find a way to argue about it, but it seems that you are truly, definitively wrong...but who knows, since it changes every four years anyway.

[3] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020/pdf/GP...

▲

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent [-]

Your quote, summarized, says essentially “there are even more political appointees than that”. It agrees with me entirely on these roles.

▲

timr 2 days ago | parent [-]

I literally went to the source, and the job isn't in there.

▲

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent [-]

You went to the 2020 list and didn’t find the guy appointed in 2025?

I’m shocked.

	▲	timr 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		OK. It's the only published list, linked directly from the source you keep citing, and obviously definitive for the last guy who had the job, but whatever you say. EDIT: and finally, finally, here's the public job listing for the CBER [1]. It's a competitive hiring position, as part of the 21st Century Cures Act (2016) [2]. It's not a political appointment. Full stop, end of discussion. [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/182615/download [2] https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/selected-amendmen...