http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politics/top-state-department-officials-asked-to-leave-by-trump-administration/index.html

and their resignations were accepted.

The State Department’s entire senior-level management staff resigned on Wednesday, The Washington Post reported. CNN later reported that the officials were actually fired by the Trump administration as part of an effort to “clean house.” Patrick Kennedy, the under-secretary for management, was reportedly aiming to stay with the department, but resigned suddenly on Wednesday along with his top staffers described by the Post as “career foreign service officers.” It was unclear why exactly

Kennedy, who was working closely on the department’s transition after Donald Trump was elected president, decided to call it quits. David Wade, former chief of staff for

John Kerry, called it “the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate.” He added that such positions are extremely difficult to fill. Those who left were reportedly career foreign-service officers who’ve served in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/01/26/report-all-senior-state-dept-management-officials-resign.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl

If they are actually civil service employees, as opposed to political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the chief executive. High level positions tend to be political.

not at all like a political appointee. I mean, if he or one of his own conjured up excuse to fire based on supposed misdeeds that violate rules, terms of employment, then maybe they would get away with it, unfortunately. But you are correct in that there is a difference -- or at least there was -- a big difference, even, between appointees and career civil servants.

Not fired for cause but laid off as in "restructuring".

Political appointees, which the State Department officials were, "serve at the pleasure of the President".

Ordinary civil service employees - the people who help you at Social Security or who answer the phone at the IRS -are immune from political interference.

There may be another classification in between the two; I'm not sure.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/312797-house-gop-revive-rule-that-lets-lawmakers-slash-gov-employees

In United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946), the Court confronted a federal law that named three people as subversive and excluded them from federal employment. Previously, the Court had held that lack of judicial trial and the narrow way in which the law rationally achieved its goals were the only tests of a bill of attainder. But the Lovett Court said that a bill of attainder 1) Specifically identified the people to be punished; 2) Imposed punishment; and 3) Did so without benefit of judicial trial.

they serve at his or her pleasure. That doesn't mean they are kicked out of the government - they are merely moved to another position.

because Trump and Bannon (a) don't believe in practicing diplomacy and (b) want to purge the State Department of people who have risen via merit and replace them with their fascist puppets

The Civil Service system exists as it does to prevent overtly political firing and hiring. It was put in place to prevent the sort of patronage that used to go on.

to fill these positions, with the hiring freeze?

To Russia.

his brain is not frozen - it is fried

But that does allow RIFs and restructuring.

However, I believe that if substantially similar jobs are then created in the same job category, the RIF'd employees have preferential consideration in hiring.

There's a lot of ways to bend and wiggle, but at some point the public employees unions are going to become an issue.

May take a while, though.

wearily,
Bright

He can fire appointments at will.

they were all, I believe, currently were presidential appointees and thus subject to dismissal.