On Friday, Biden fired Andrew Saul, a Trump holdover leading @SocialSecurity. Saul claimed he would attempt to come to work on Monday anyway. But today, a White House official told me: "The government has taken steps to offboard Andrew Saul as we would any other former employee."
Here is a White House official's full statement on Andrew Saul's refusal to accept his removal from @SocialSecurity.
The White House official also pointed me toward the Office of Legal Counsel's memo clearing the way for Saul's termination, which rests on the Supreme Court's recent decisions stripping removal protections from the heads of the CFPB and FHFA. justice.gov/olc/file/14107…
Saul's removal is yet another consequence of conservative groups' attempts to abolish independent agencies by judicial fiat. The Supreme Court chose instead to simply sever removal protections, letting Biden fire a bunch of partisan Trump holdovers. slate.com/news-and-polit…
If Biden had not fired Andrew Saul, Saul would've remained in control of @SocialSecurity until January 19, 2025. Biden would've spent *his entire term* fighting a Trump-nominated Social Security commissioner who was hellbent on destroying Social Security.
Fired Trump holdover Andrew Saul told the @washingtonpost he refuses to accept his removal and insists that he is still the Social Security commissioner, even though he has lost access to his work computers and already been replaced. washingtonpost.com/politics/biden…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is long overdue. Andrew Saul and David Black were two especially noxious Trump holdovers who actively sought to sabotage the Social Security Administration.
Here's the OLC memo Biden relied on for legal authority to fire them. It's airtight: justice.gov/olc/file/14107…
The Supreme Court's decisions in Seila Law and Collins v. Yellen obviously allow Biden to fire Trump's terrible Social Security Commissioners. It would've been astoundingly naive and foolish for Biden to let them keep subverting Social Security—and undercutting his own agenda.
In June, Justice Kagan explicitly noted that the Supreme Court's recent "unitary executive" decisions give the president authority to terminate the head of the Social Security Administration, as Biden just did. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Shoutout to the Supreme Court's conservatives, whose 2010 decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB allowed Joe Biden's SEC chair to replace every member of a Trump-stacked board that oversees audits of public companies. wsj.com/articles/audit…
Biden already fired William Duhnke, Trump's chair of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Now he'll replace the entire board with progressive regulators. All thanks to SCOTUS's conservatives, who struck down removal protections for the board. wsj.com/articles/sec-r…
As I've noted before, the conservative legal movement's assault on removal protections at independent agencies—a scheme that sought to blow up countless regulations—has completely backfired and instead allowed Biden to seize control over these agencies. slate.com/news-and-polit…
By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court refuses to hear Arlene's Flowers, which involves a florist who refused to serve same-sex couples. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Gorsuch joins Thomas in suggesting that the Supreme Court consider overturning New York Times v. Sullivan, which provides strong First Amendment protections against defamation lawsuits brought by public figures. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
The Supreme Court's FIRST opinion of the day is in Brnovich, the Voting Rights Act case. It's a 6–3 decision with Alito writing the majority. All three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The Supreme Court holds that neither of Arizona's challenged voting restrictions violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The Supreme Court weakens, *but does not eradicate,* the Voting Rights Act's "results test"—which gauges the impact of voting restrictions on minorities—in cases (like this one) that involve "vote denial" rather than "vote dilution." supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
As @ClaraJeffery has pointed out, RCV is ***not*** the reason for the delayed results in New York. RCV does not delay results. The wait is due to other factors, particularly a grace period for late-arriving ballots. Lowry's criticism is extreme bad faith. fairvote.org/ranked_choice_…
Also, to claim that ranked choice voting somehow delays election results is to reveal that you have no fucking idea how ranked choice voting actually works. What absolute inanity. If he has the capacity for shame, which I doubt, Rich Lowry should be ashamed of himself.
What do conservatives think they have to gain by lying about ranked choice voting, anyway? It doesn't have a partisan valence. Or is this just another phase of their ongoing campaign to undermine confidence in the integrity of any election a Republican doesn't win?
The Supreme Court's FIRST decision of the day is in Minerva Surgical v. Hologic. It's a 5–4 decision, with Kagan writing the opinion for the court upholding and "clarifying" assignor estoppel.
While both Alito and Barrett dissented, they did so on very different grounds, and argued with each other over (among other things) what Scalia would've done in this case. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…