Sonia Sotomayor silences Supreme Court chamber with blistering challenge to Trump lawyer

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Raw Story

December 9, 2025 2:05PM ET


An exchange between Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Donald Trump's Solicitor General D. John Sauer briefly silenced the U.S. Supreme Court chamber Tuesday.

Sauer argued in Trump v. Slaughter – a case that could redefine the limits of presidential power over independent agencies and give the Trump more authority to fire officials – that the Constitution vests full removal authority in the president and that a 90-year precedent insulating officials inside those agencies should be discarded — showing how far the government intended to take the challenge, reported Newsweek.

“You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent,” Sotomayor said. Justice Samuel Alito asked Sauer to respond, and he assured the court that overturning the Humphrey’s Executor precedent – allowing President Donald Trump to fire independent agency leaders – would not fundamentally reshape the government.

“The sky will not fall,” Sauer said. “The entire government will move toward accountability to the people.”

Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-v-slaughter-2674383338/

---

“The sky will not fall,” Sauer said.

No but the U.S. WILL fall.

[FakeNoose]

1. Oh my God ... this needs to be broadcast far and wide

Chump wants to remove the constitutional powers of oversight from Congress ... and piss it all away!

[KS Toronado]

10. PURE UNADULTERATED FASCISM !

[liberalla]

13. Asks about Elon Musk and campaign contributions. . . approx 3 minutes

.

[OldBaldy1701E]

2. The fact that this even reached this high is enough to legitimately question our entire legal situation here.

Hoping that this current Supreme Court will rule correctly is even more frightening.

Still no treason arrests and still no Epstein files, I see.

[Ponietz]

3. So ironic that the original precedent came from an anti-FDR anti-New Deal court in 1935

[mpcamb]

9. I thought of that, too. Compare trump and FDR.

One was a statesman who brought the country thru a depression and a war.
The other caused a depression and is itching to start a war.

[popsdenver]

28. The Republicans

have loathed FDR for all he did.......especially Corporations.............

AND, we have to quit saying Trump this, and Trump that........It is the Republican Party, The Republicans in the House and Senate, and the Republicans on the supreme court......
By saying "Trump", ....what will happen when he is gone, the Republicans will all be able to say to their voters that it was Trump and they were an innocent victim of him........and continue on doing everything they have enable him to do......

We dems need to start saying: THE REPUBLICANS

[tavernier]

4. The sky will not fall.

That there is real legal eagle talk. He could have added, a penny saved is a penny earned. Or perhaps, different strokes for different folks. Or the ever popular, let a smile be your umbrella.

But I guess it doesn’t matter. Our justice system was sold to the highest bidder and Roberts and company will give them whatever they want. They don’t really even have to send a wanna-be lawyer to represent HRH.

[malaise]

5. Rec. Rec. Rec

Important

[markodochartaigh]

6. I hope someday that young people

will learn about Justice Sotomayor's stand here as they tour the Museum of Travesties and Horrors in the repurposed Epstein Memorial Ballroom. They will be forced to face the failures of their parents and hear that there were those who stood strong against them.

[Solly Mack]

7. "... move toward accountability to the people"

Snort

[eppur_se_muova]

19. ... the people who write the checks. nt

[Solly Mack]

20. Yep

[Uncle Joe]

8. Sauer's argument is illogical, and a literal argument for a king.

Thanks for the thread BumRushDaShow

[Dan]

11. When I hear or read something like this -

It sort of explains the Russian peoples response to Hitler's invasion during WW2 - they met the German soldiers (initially) with Salt and Bread.

[yorkster]

12. Sauer, YOU LIE!!

And Sotomayor is a legal lioness.

[ChicagoTeamster]

14. Accountability to the people will end if Trump takes power over agency heads from Congress.

[angrychair]

15. How will it move to accountability?!?

What they are asking for is partisan appointments that serve at the feet of a president. This will send regulations into a tailspin because those agencies will work only to serve the whims of a president, which is NOT always in the best interest of the people because sometimes even a president's agenda isn't always of their own making or control.

[flashman13]

16. I seem to remember that the will of the people resides within the Congress.

The president's job is to execute the will of the people as expressed through the Congress. The president is not the government.

[Irish_Dem]

17. There is no accountability by the people when elections are stolen.

And psychopaths in power use every trick in the book to steal and retain money and power.

[onenote]

18. Typical Raw Story BS.

First, during an oral argument, the Supreme Court chamber is always deathly silent unless someone makes a joke, in which case you might hear some chuckles. But rarely.

Second, I listened to the argument and the amount of time between Sotomayor's statement and Sauer's response was approximately one second. You can check it out by listening to the argument online at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/25-332 at around the 2:23:35 mark.

To be absolutely clear, I am not in any way, shape or from disparaging Sotomayor's argument, which is spot on. But Raw Story's claim that it somehow "silenced" the chamber is hyperbolic nonsense.

[BumRushDaShow]

21. Remember that they usually get their material from

1.) other news sites
2.) social media
3.) "guest" writers from news/blog sites
4.) their own staff actually watching any programming and/or monitoring events and publishing summaries

Newsweek had pretty much the identical "take" - Sonia Sotomayor’s Remarks Silence Supreme Court

I was originally going to use that but I don't like to have the same source multiple times in a row (had posted something from Newsweek earlier) or within too short a timeframe, and prefer to find a variety of sources for the same story.

Dismissing them because of their somewhat "tabloid style" headlines is a mistake because the current so-called "mainstream media" is now almost totally compromised, offering "bribes" and "quid pro quos" to stay in the favor of 45. So we are going to have to broaden our perspectives to find alternates to actually find out what is going on because those other, formally "trusted" sources, are either going to "catch and kill" the story or will delay reporting on it (either by claiming a "publication date/time" but not actually linking to it on their websites until a day or more later), or will skew it.

[onenote]

22. I'll give Newsweek this much:

It says that the point at which Sauer "paused' before responding to Sotomayor was when she said “What you’re saying is the president can do more than the law permits.” That is true to the extent that Sauer was "silent" for around four seconds before he responded. But that occurred nearly 25 minutes AFTER the exchange Raw Story claims "silenced" the chamber.

I've attended a lot of Supreme Court arguments. I've never argued a case myself, but I'm a member of the Supreme Court bar, have participated in drafting petitions for certiorari, merits briefs, amicus briefs, etc. What I heard in listening to over two hours of the argument in the Slaughter case was not much different than what I've heard in any number of cases -- "sharp exchanges" are not uncommon at all.

[BumRushDaShow]

23. They run the delayed audio of hearings too

(I recall listening to the Bush v. Gore one)

I would think that in general, a courtroom is generally "quiet" (I sat on a jury last year myself and it only got raucous at the very end when the defendant's family started cheering when we acquitted the guy, and the judge had to get control). But I expect given the gravity of the situation and her remark, they chose to characterize and punctuate what she said.

[onenote]

24. Yep. I posted a link to where anyone interested can listen to the argument.

And one can also read the transcript, which helpfully has 'word' index at the end.

[intheflow]

25. Her silencing quote: ""What you're saying is the president can do more than the law permits."

FFS, if you're going to claim something in an OP, sure, put a link in, but considering this story only had four more, single sentence additional paragraphs, it seems weird you didn't quote what the headline said. Feels click-baity, even if the link proves the title. I mean, why did I have to click through when you could have posted

“You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent,” Sotomayor said.

Justice Samuel Alito asked Sauer to respond, and he assured the court that overturning the Humphrey’s Executor precedent – allowing President Donald Trump to fire independent agency leaders – would not fundamentally reshape the government.
...
The court's liberals appear inclined to believe those removal protections preserve congressional intentions in creating the agencies while the conservative majority appears to view those limits as incompatible with Article II of the Constitution.

“What you’re saying is the president can do more than the law permits," Sotomayor said.

Anyway, sorry for the rant, I just don't understand not quoting the part a headline is about. It's happening more and more frequently here.

[BumRushDaShow]

26. There is a copyright issue involved and LBN (and really, every place on DU) requires no more than 4 "paragraphs"

In some cases, the articles have almost "paragraph-long" sentences and in other cases, the article itself is very short.

And for LBN, I don't like to "snip" paragraphs together like one might see in General Discussion or Editorials & Other Articles - mainly in order to be succinct and neat and move on.

The link IS THERE so one can read more information.

I prefer to spend the time digging to find and post the copies of any court orders and/or lawsuits, as well as links to press releases and reports, etc., that are referenced in some of the articles, in order to provide "value added" info for those posts where such might apply, and the additional material is available.

[Ol Janx Spirit]

27. The court is going to allow this and Democrats had better take advantage of it when they are back in power.

They better at least fire everyone The Wizard of Snooze puts in place and replace them before embarking on the quest to codify something that needed to be codified long ago.

I'm all for being Mr. Nice Guy; but not Mr. Last Guy.