On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. Slaughter. The case will decide whether President Donald Trump had the power to lawfully remove Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from her position at the Federal Trade Commission. Trump has fired a lot of people in the government, and opponents say he has no power to do so.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has argued that it's best to let the experts do their thing without fear of being fired. No one should have that much power.
Justice Jackson says that it is the “best interest of the American people to have certain kinds of issues handled by experts” and it is undermined when one person has too much power. Agarwal agrees, saying too much power with one person is problematic. pic.twitter.com/recl3K6SiV
— CSPAN (@cspan) December 8, 2025
Yes, a new president has every right to come in and "clean house." Next case.
At the Slaughter argument, Justice Jackson suggested independent agencies are typically run by experts. But if you look at the bios of recent commissioners, almost all are lawyers or former Hill staffers. I doubt the value of expertise that can magically be satisfied by a JD.
— John Doe (@fedjudges) December 9, 2025
That was actually one of the "Laugh Out Loud" moments for me.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) December 9, 2025
So far removed from reality as to be funny in and of itself. https://t.co/e1maRct757
That's not to say lawyers aren't a good fit to run these agencies. I think in many cases true technical experts will face difficulties becoming regulators absent significant legal and policymaking background. The LSAT, however, is not filtering for the experts of the world.
— John Doe (@fedjudges) December 9, 2025
Recommended
Our Constitution doesn't have a beauracrat clause. They're hired, not elected, and if Justice Jackson thinks their degree means that no one can fire them (let's be honest, she only means Trump can't fire them), she's granting unelected government employees too much power.
— Someone Important (@justimportant2) December 8, 2025
The Constitution does not sanction government by so-called experts.
— Jeremy Carl (@realJeremyCarl) December 9, 2025
"Experts" like Fauci or those in the American Medical Association who told us men can get pregnant?
— Pro America Politics (@Pro__Trading) December 8, 2025
No thanks.
I don't trust any of the liberal "experts" because they are partisan frauds and liars.
So we shouldn't have leaders and just defer to the "experts"?
— AltAzn (@Alt_Azn) December 9, 2025
She argued that you can't fire "experts" and replace them with "loyalists" but I am sure when the next Democrat fires the "loyalists" to hire "experts" she will be all for it.
— Blue State Blues (@BlueStateBlues3) December 9, 2025
So insane.
— Leonidas🇺🇲🇬🇧🇮🇪 (@LeonidasOneTime) December 9, 2025
It is imperative that everyone in the Executive Branch is held accountable to the POTUS, literally the ONLY ELECTED PERSON IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH and who is the Representation of the People.
His acts are the People's acts, it's the People's government.
I didn’t vote for an alleged expert though.
— Mark Delbridge 🇺🇲🏴☠️ (@DelbridgeMark1) December 9, 2025
The “experts” tend to be the ones who caused all the problems we currently face. Think: Obamacare.
— Mark Moynihan (@MarkMoynihan19) December 9, 2025
What an unbelievable ignorant statement! Completely ignores that POTUS has the authority to fire anyone in the Executive Branch. The courts don’t determine who is eligible to serve or what’s in the best interest within the Executive Branch. The voters already made the choice.
— Eagles (@Ed53861632) December 9, 2025
So unelected 'experts' are there and a president cannot get rid of them? That sounds quite horrible given our past experience with so called 'experts'
— UtSnowBird (@UtSnowBird) December 9, 2025
Americans' faith in "experts" has taken a big hit since the COVID lockdowns. We're not sure which bureaucrat's expertise is so great that it insulates them from being fired, or how you'd determine that.
***