Ah, here we go again — another week, another progressive panic attack over a president daring to, you know, act like the actual president. This time, the pearl-clutching is over Trump firing a Democrat from the Federal Trade Commission without begging Congress for permission. Cue the gasps from the left and the solemn murmurs about “safeguards,” “guardrails,” and “the death of democracy.” But what’s really at stake here? Just a 90-year-old legal relic from the Roosevelt era that lets unaccountable bureaucrats sit in powerful government agencies, insulated from the president and — more importantly — the voters.
The case, Trump v. Slaughter, centers on Trump’s decision to fire FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter — a Democrat, of course — well before her term ended, and without citing any “cause.” And the left would like you to believe that this is the beginning of the end for checks and balances. But here’s the part they don’t like to talk about: Humphrey’s Executor, the 1935 Supreme Court ruling Slaughter is hiding behind, was cooked up during a time when Congress was all too happy to expand executive agencies so long as they weren’t run by, say, a Republican president.
That dusty old ruling let Congress create quasi-independent commissions filled with bureaucrats who wield executive power — but can’t be removed by the executive branch unless they basically commit felonies. Sound constitutional to you? Didn’t think so. Justice Roberts even noted that the FTC back in 1935 had practically no executive power. Fast forward 90 years, and the modern-day FTC can steamroll businesses, set rules with real consequences, and regulate everything from tech mergers to what qualifies as “misinformation.” But heaven forbid the President remove one of its overlords.
🚨 JUST IN: The Supreme Court has now granted President Trump TWO major victories in just one day, defeating activist judges who asserted themselves as President of the United States.
– Let Trump fire a Democrat FTC commissioner
– Allowed Trump to round up illegals in Los… pic.twitter.com/GDEbxWJ9rV— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 8, 2025
Naturally, the liberal justices — ever the guardians of unelected power — wailed about the “structure of government” being at risk. Justice Sotomayor, never one to miss an opportunity for melodrama, warned that overturning Humphrey’s would “destroy” that structure. She even asked where else such a “fundamental” change had happened before, as if the Constitution itself didn’t place the executive power in one person: the president.
Meanwhile, Justice Kagan worried aloud about the “slippery slope.” Because of course — any move to give elected leaders more authority is seen as the first step toward tyranny. It’s almost like they trust anonymous career appointees more than voters.
And let’s talk about that phrase: “without cause.” The left acts like it’s some sacred doctrine that presidents must endure hostile opposition inside their own executive agencies unless they can dig up dirt on someone. But in any functioning system, if you don’t align with the direction of the administration, you’re out. That’s how leadership works. No private company, nonprofit, or — heck — even progressive political campaign would tolerate internal saboteurs who get to keep their jobs “just because.”
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer hit the nail on the head, calling Humphrey’s a “decaying husk” — and he’s not wrong. It’s a relic of a different era, one that tried to pretend unelected bureaucracies were somehow outside the reach of democratic oversight. That fantasy has crumbled over time, and the court knows it.
So now the question is: will the Supreme Court finally finish the job? They’ve been edging toward this for years — just chipping away at the myth that these “independent agencies” deserve lifetime protection against the president’s authority. They asked the right questions: Is this really constitutional? Should Congress be allowed to wall off executive power from the executive?
BREAKING: Justice Brett Kavanaugh sharply challenges Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson during Supreme Court arguments over President Trump’s authority to fire Democratic FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. 🫳🎤pic.twitter.com/mOLEHX4DbE
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) December 8, 2025
If the court sides with Trump — and signs point that way — it won’t just be a win for him. It’ll be a win for the basic idea that presidents should be able to govern. Period. Not with one hand tied behind their back while career activists in government positions run rogue. The unitary executive theory may sound like legal jargon, but the core idea is simple: accountability. If presidents are going to be blamed for everything that happens under their watch, they should also have the power to control their own agencies.
Liberals might hate that because it limits their ability to entrench ideologues in government no matter who wins elections. But elections are supposed to matter. That’s how our system was designed.
A decision in Trump v. Slaughter is expected by June. And if the Court overturns Humphrey’s, expect more tears from the usual suspects — and maybe, just maybe, a little restoration of common sense in Washington.
