Welp. Not surprising in the least — Hinderaker simply ignores… the actual SCOTUS’s prior decisions. See, Humphrey’s Executor v. US, 295 US 602 (1935).
Sure, the Supremes can, and (to come out the way John wildly hopes, tonight) — must — expressly overrule Humphrey’s Executor — a case decided on precisely these same facts, and same agency, even (the FTC)… from 1935.
But they will have to explain why this has been considered settled law for 90 years — yet was suddenly, this term, labeled as “wrong” — and yet they never bothered to over-rule it, in nine-tenths of the last century’s time. [They also should explain why they’ve implicitly followed it — all those decades — in no less than fifteen other cases, at the lower courts’ levels.]
My bet?
There simply aren’t five votes to toss Humphrey’s Executor [even though this has long been Justice Roberts’ own pet peeve, for decades on end].
The argument — to and fro, was just that — argument. For show (to mollify MAGAts, that Roberts is one of them), not substance — the actual work of crafting binding legal opinions, in important cases (on separation of powers).
The money bets say FTC remains an independent agency, as does FDA and IRS and SEC and of course, the Federal Reserve.
Do stay tuned — but laugh with me, at John’s wide incompetence on matters of law.
He truly is… senile. And that is… sad.
O U T.
Powerline Lies... 
Alas, I wish I shared your optimism, but I think our current SCOTUS has transcended history, precedent, and the rule of law, and will conjure up a flimsy reason to overturn Humphrey’s. Roberts, Thomas, and Alito are a given, and I have a feeling Goruch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett will be on board as well, as another standard of our democratic republic falls to dust.
But let’s talk about John’s post, because boy oh boy does he swing for the feces (misspelling intentional). Start with the headline: “Supreme Court Poised to Restore Constitution?” What the hell is he talking about? What is there to “restore”? The unitary executive theory has never been the standard; it is a modern-day fiction invented by right-wing zealots.
Then he makes this wild claim:
If that were the only sentence of Article II, he might have something there. But it isn’t, as John well knows. A good-faith reading of Article II (beyond the first sentence) reveals that:
The maximalist unitary executive theory is not grounded in the text, structure, history, or practice of Article II.
But ultimately, what is the outcome if SCOTUS sides with the president (as it likely will)? Each new president will get to completely reshape the aims and directives of all formerly independent agencies? That is a recipe for chaos and destruction.
LikeLiked by 1 person