I'm not sure I'll ever get used to conservative proponents of the unitary executive theory defending agency independence and complaining about presidential termination of executive officials who wield executive powers. I thought these guys didn't believe in independent agencies!
Anyway, the EEOC is not an independent agency, though that's a common misconception. Neither its general counsel nor its commissioners are shielded by for-cause termination under any statute. Gustafson does not have a leg to stand on; this is all political posturing.
One could argue that the EEOC is "independent" in the sense that it is not under the direct control of the president, but that is because of tradition, not law. No statute bars the president from removing its general counsel or commissioners, for any reason. So this is silly.
More importantly, how is anyone supposed to take the unitary executive theory seriously when conservatives abandon it once a Democrat reaches the White House? How much more evidence do we need before concluding that Republicans think the theory applies to GOP presidents only?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Good morning! The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s) today at 10 a.m. As usual, we do not know what we'll get, so buckle up!
First opinion of the day is also Justice Amy Coney Barrett's first signed opinion of the court. It is a 7–2 decision limiting the reach of the Freedom of Information Act. Breyer and Sotomayor dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
By tradition, a new justice's first opinion is usually a unanimous one. But Barrett's first opinion draws a sharp dissent from Breyer, who closes not with the traditional "I respectfully dissent" but rather "I dissent." Might not seem like much but it signals strong disagreement.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a case this morning that could effectively doom what remains of the Voting Rights Act. Listen here: c-span.org/video/?507934-…
Justice Kagan: If a state cancels Sunday early voting, and Black people vote on Sunday ten times more than white voters, is that legal under the Voting Rights Act?
Michael Carvin, representing the RNC: Yes.
Justice Kagan: If a state allows only Election Day voting, and only opens the polls between 9-5, and voters of one race are ten times more likely to work a job that prevents them from voting during that time, is that legal under the Voting Rights Act?
Biggest news from today's Supreme Court orders: The court will hear a challenge to the federal government's denial of Supplemental Security Income—a benefit available in all 50 states—to residents of Puerto Rico. A big territorial rights case. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
SCOTUS also took up a case I am not following, Babcock v. Saul, but here's the question presented. scotusblog.com/case-files/cas…
The Supreme Court once again took no action on Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban. It's really hard to read the tea leaves here. Maybe the court refused to hear the case and a justice (Thomas) is writing a dissent from denial of cert. Maybe they're just punting a decision.
During the RFRA battles in Arizona and Indiana, conservatives claimed RFRA would not legalize discrimination against LGBTQ people. Today, conservatives oppose language in the Equality Act clarifying that RFRA cannot be used to justify anti-LGBTQ discrimination. I am confused.
If RFRA does not legalize discrimination against LGBTQ people, then conservatives should not be bothered that the Equality Act forbids the use of RFRA to justify anti-LGBTQ discrimination. If RFRA does legalize discrimination against LGBTQ people, its proponents were lying.
Progressives opposed RFRA bills in Arizona and Indiana on the grounds that they would legalize anti-LGBTQ discrimination. Conservatives accused progressives of misrepresenting the bills. Now conservatives seem to have admitted that RFRA does, in fact, legalize discrimination.