The Supreme Court Just Gave Trump New Powers (with Mark Joseph Stern) - Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick

[In It to Win It]

This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Visit http://www.slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.

The end is nigh!

Or, the end of this Supreme Court term is nigh, at least.
On the second to last day of this term, the court’s right wingers delivered a sweeping ruling that will reshape the federal government for years to come. In Trump v. Slaughter, the conservative supermajority voted 6-3 to allow the president to fire members of independent regulatory agencies—overturning Humphrey's Executor, a 91-year-old unanimous precedent—and handing Trump effective control over agencies that regulate consumer protection, nuclear energy, union activity, mine safety, and more. But the Roberts majority weren’t quite ready to hand the nation’s credit card (and their investment portfolios) over to the mad king, and so the Federal Reserve got a carve-out in a separate 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Cook. How did they reach these wildly different conclusions in such closely related cases? Justice Roberts offered a barely argued rationale, but who needs a rationale if your red lines are painted in a crimson of pure cynicism?