I'm John Bachelor with Professor John Yu, writing in Civitas Outlook for the Civitas Institute,

about Justice Scalia 10 years after, but most importantly about how decisions that were made

in the 20th century by the courts and comments by Justice Scalia very much point to resolution

here in the 21st, if I understand. The case that comes first

to mind is Humphrey's executor. The man Humphrey had been appointed to an independent board.

FDR, the New Deal at the time, wanted to remove him. Well, he died in the pending in the subsequent

events. That's why it's Humphrey's executor representing Mr. Humphrey himself.

This is 1935, but it still influences decisions in Washington.

Your opinion of the court now, how does it weigh this, John, given what you said about Justice Scalia's remarks?

It's a great point, John, you've really read up on Humphrey's executor.

That is still the decision that allows the Federal Trade Commission, which was the commission

in that case, to have remained independent all these years, 90 years later, from the control

of the president or Congress.

Now, the Supreme Court has a case that it's already heard arguments

in called Trump v. Slaughter, because President Trump came to office. He agrees in his administration,

he seems to agree with Justice Scalia's dissent in Morrison, which you had mentioned,

and is pressing the court to overrule Humphrey's executor directly. In fact, Slaughter is a member of

the Federal Trade Commission, the exact same agency that Humphrey was a member of. And so this is the

thing. I think that troubled Justice Scalia the most was, well, on the one hand, I think the

Constitution is clear. And it says all the executive

powers in the president, Congress can't transfer it to some independent agency.

But what do we make of 90 years now of precedent? 90 years where Humphrey's executor has been

...