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...