when there s a conflict of interest in the justice department process. it s been settled law for 83 years now. early on you said that you would be willing to offer views on long settled cases. can you just tell me if humphrey executor was correctly decided? it s long settled precedented, yes. the key different here is whether you will say if something is rightly decided. i m struck about this, concerned about it because in your own opinion, in your dissent in phh, you went into a long criticism. you laid out a strong articulation of this unitary executive theory, the theory that the president has all the power of the executive branch, which is a radical theory that haas been rejected by the supreme court, i would argue and you say that humphries is long
at some risk. let me make sure i get this right. in your view, can congress restrict the removal of any official within the executive branch? under the supreme court precedent, which i have applied in times, humphries, congress historically has restricted the removal of independent agency heads and that is law that has been in place a long time. decades. on morrison, you may disagree with what i m about to say. the reason i think justice kagan felt free to talk about morrison and i did as well is it seemed a one-off case about a statute that doesn t exist anymore and that humphries is the precedent on independent agencies. you may disagree with me on that. that s the promise that she spoke. that s the premise on which i spoke. i was not intending to do either of two things. i was not intending to say anything about humphries or say anything about traditional