Not all the Supreme Court verdicts released this week went Trump’s way, but the ones that did, the liberal media spared no grief over. MS NOW’s Ali Velshi, on the congealed propaganda slop disguised as his talk show The 11th Hour, started off Monday’s episode lamented over the Court’s decision on Trump v. Slaughter, which ruled that the president can indeed fire commissioners of executive agencies without cause.  Trump “won the kind of sweeping power that is more typically held by kings than presidents,” Velshi, dramatically proclaimed in his opening monologue.  He then explained how certain government agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, from which Rebecca Slaughter was removed, work: “Their jobs are essentially to be government watchdogs, to enforce the laws that are passed by Congress.”  Now, it’s not clear whether Velshi ever passed a fifth grade government class -- he only holds an honorary Doctorate of Laws from a Canadian university -- but the enforcement of the laws falls to the executive branch, not the legislative or judicial. As the head of the executive branch, according to Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, President Trump holds the power to “appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for.”     The position of Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission has no special exemption from this statute, so the President is at liberty to appoint someone to that job. It logically follows that the president may also fire a person holding that office.  But according to Velshi, this simple logic promotes a dangerous theory: In ruling in Trump's favor, [the Supreme Court] is promoting the Unitary Executive Theory, a concept that's found all over Project 2025. The Unitary Executive Theory seeks to massively expand the power of the presidency, proposing that the President has far broader authority over the executive branch than he currently has. The decision gets us one step closer to handling - handing authoritarian power to a person who aspires to be an authoritarian, and that was the intended result.  These are the same people who beat their chests and gnashed their teeth over D.O.G.E. firing useless government bureaucrats, the removal of Scott Pelley from CBS, and any other personnel changes they can even tangentially tie to Trump. In their minds, once people they like get into any kind of job, they should be able to hold it forever, no matter how unqualified or downright harmful they end up being for the company, agency, or government. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MS NOW's The 11th Hour with Ali Velshi 6/29/26 11:01:32 ALI VELSHI: It is Monday, June the 29th, 127 days until the midterm elections. And today, at the hands of the Supreme Court, Donald Trump lost one tool in his voter suppression arsenal, one personal vendetta, and the ability to freely meddle in the federal reserve, for now.  But he didn't lose everything. In one unusual case, he won the kind of sweeping power that is more typically held by kings than by presidents.  (...) 11:03:28 Cook's case is tricky for Trump because the Supreme Court sees the Federal Reserve as a 'quasi-private, uniquely structured entity.' It stands apart from other federal agencies in the government's domain.  That's why this second case that the Supreme Court decided today is the thornier one, the one that will have broader implications going forward. The woman at the center of that second case is named Rebecca Slaughter. She was originally appointed by Donald Trump to fill a vacant seat on the Federal Trade Commission. After Slaughter completed her first seven-year term, Biden renominated her. But when Trump returned to office last year, he swiftly fired Slaughter and the other Democratic Commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya.  In a few moments, I'm going to speak to the former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, who served alongside both Slaughter and Bedoya. But listen to what Khan's initial reaction was when I spoke to her about this last year, just days after the two commissioners were fired:[Cut to interview] LINA KHAN: This is blatantly illegal. That's the first thing to know that the law is crystal clear, that commissioners can only be fired if they do something egregiously wrong, if they engage in malfeasance, neglect of duty, some type of inefficiency. So there's no gray zone here. What the administration is trying to do by firing them violates the law.[Cut back to live] VELSHI: Now, you may not think much about the Federal Trade Commission, or the National Labor Relations Board, or the Merit Systems Protection Board on a daily basis, but their work is essential in making society function in all sorts of ways.  There are about two dozen agencies like these. Their jobs are essentially to be government watchdogs, to enforce the laws that are passed by Congress. They're responsible for regulating safety standards, overseeing worker protections, protecting consumers and businesses alike. The list goes on.  These agencies are established by Congressional statute, and they were intended to be independent, to operate outside of political influence. While their officers are often appointed by a president, they're often led by people who are experts in their field. And for the past century, it's been understood that the heads of these agencies don't serve at the whim of the president.  When Congress created the Federal Trade Commission in 1914, it included a provision that commissioners could only be removed for 'inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance.' Two decades later, after then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to fire a man named William Humphrey, the Supreme Court upheld that law and said that the president does not have 'Illimitable power of removal.' That case is known as Humphrey's Executor v. the United States. And for 91 years that was the law.  President could not fire the leaders of independent agencies without cause. Until today. The six conservative Justices who make up the majority of the Supreme Court ruled that Trump can fire Slaughter, expanding the powers of the presidency as we know it. Slaughter spoke about her concerns earlier today: [Cut to video] REBECCA SLAUGHTER: What I'm worried about the most is the way the agencies that are going to use tools that were set up to be applied, applied neutrally, without fear or favor, instead, to create enormous fear by wielding incredible favors at the President's behest.[Cut back to live] VELSHI: But the Supreme Court has unleashed something even more serious than that. In ruling in Trump's favor, it is promoting the Unitary Executive Theory, a concept that's found all over Project 2025. The Unitary Executive Theory seeks to massively expand the power of the presidency, proposing that the President has far broader authority over the Executive Branch than he currently has. The decision gets us one step closer to handling - handing authoritarian power to a person who aspires to be an authoritarian, and that was the intended result. On social media, Donald Trump called it a, 'BIG WIN,' all capitals. He said the quiet part out loud, calling the decision 'The greatest increase in presidential power in the last 100 years.' 'The greatest increase in presidential power in the last 100 years.' That's not a good thing.