We Seem to Have the Supreme Court's Originalism Fail of the Term

"On Monday, the Supreme Court heard argument in a case that could upend how the federal government has been run for over a century. In Trump v. Slaughter, a challenge to the president's firing of a Federal Trade Commission member without cause, the court seems poised to toss one of its 90-year-old precedents, nullify dozens of laws enacted by both political parties, and shift massive power to Donald Trump that Congress never intended to consolidate in one person."

"You'd think there would be a rock-solid constitutional basis for unelected judges to dictate this kind of governmental restructuring. Or at least a hesitance to usher in such a radical break from established practice unless it was strictly in line with a judge's guiding judicial philosophy, as originalism is supposed to be for so many conservative justices. But Monday's oral argument revealed a shocking lack of interest in the Constitution's history and original meaning"

"Since the 1800s, our elected branches of government have created independent bodies like the FTC to implement laws that address industrial life and commerce-think nuclear power, children's toy safety, deceptive advertising, bank solvency. The idea is to have the finer points of these issues managed by a group of subject-matter specialists who head such agencies, serve as a check on one another, and aren't all swept from office with every new administration."

On Monday the Supreme Court heard argument in Trump v. Slaughter, a challenge to the president's firing of an FTC member without cause, that could upend how the federal government has functioned for over a century. The court appears poised to overturn a 90-year precedent, nullify dozens of laws, and transfer substantial power to a single president. Conservative justices showed little engagement with constitutional history or original meaning during oral argument. Independent agencies like the FTC were created since the 1800s to manage complex regulatory matters through bipartisan specialist commissions insulated from partisan removal. Those officials are intended to be protected from wholesale removal for policy disagreements.

Read at Slate Magazine