The Daily Signal - Indiana Redistricting Bill Passes Senate Committee, Supreme Court Argues 4th Branch | Dec. 9, 2025

Starting point is 00:00:00 Are you ready to be at the forefront of advocacy and campaigning? Next Campaign Summit is back, live in Toronto on Thursday, January 15th, 2026. Join campaigners, strategists, and change makers for a full day of expert speakers and panel discussions about the future of campaigning and advocacy in Canada. Visit nextcampaign.captain.ca to check out the amazing lineup of speakers. Use code Spotify to get 10% off and secure your spot before they're all gone. 9-0 Republican congressional redistricting map passes the Senate Committee and heads to have its future decided in the Indiana State Senate itself. The Supreme Court argues over the President's constitutional right to fire federal employees at the Federal Trade Commission and beyond. And tensions rise between the United States and Venezuela amid confident and controversial social media posts and posturing.

Starting point is 00:00:54 I'm Tony Kinnett, host of the Daily Signals Tony Kinnett cast, syndicated nationally at 7 p.m. Eastern. It is Tuesday, December 9th, 2025. This is the Daily Signals. Top News in 10. After 11 hours in session yesterday, the nine-member election committee in the Indiana Senate took the redistricting bill that provides a more likely 9-0-Republicing map to the rest of the Senate after the House passed it earlier this week, passing the bill with a six to three vote. All Republicans except for Indiana State Senator Greg Walker voted affirmative.

Starting point is 00:01:36 Greg Walker voted alongside Senator Faddy Kudora and J.D. Ford, to Democrats, to vote against the measure. 127 people testified against and in favor of the redistricting map. Each person being provided two minutes to spend. speak. Here's State Representative Andrew Ireland and friend of the show talking to CNN about the day's events later on. Representative, thank you so much for being with us. First off, can you tell us why you support redistricting? Yeah. So, you know, at the end of the day, this is really a federal issue and it's a response to what's going on in other states. You look at states

Starting point is 00:02:13 like California recently, but even before that, our own neighbor, Illinois, one of the most brutally gerrymandered states in the country. And it was done with the intention of taking Republicans off of the map. So Indiana is stepping up and responding and saying that, you know, we're going to play the game by the rules the Democrats have set and that we're going to help level the national playing field by redistricting. That's exactly what we're doing now. So there are in the State House differing opinions among Republicans about whether this should go in the way that you think it should. Senate President Pro Tem Roderick Bray is saying that there are not enough votes to pass the new maps,

Starting point is 00:02:53 even though, obviously, as I outlined, there is this Republican supermajority. Do you think there's enough votes? Well, I'll say that, you know, the House, we overwhelmingly supported it. We passed it with something like 80% of our caucus supporting it. I would be surprised, honestly, at the end of the day, if this gets to the floor on Thursday in the Indiana Senate,

Starting point is 00:03:10 that you don't see a majority of the caucus supporting it and pushing it over the finish line. I think you need 26. There are 40 Republicans in the Indiana Senate. While 127 people were given two minutes each to testify for hours and hours on the particular bill, there were hundreds of protesters packed outside in the hallways, chanting, singing, yelling, the works. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of the United States heard, arguments over President Donald Trump v. Slaughter, an instance in which the President of the

Starting point is 00:03:54 United States had his constitutional ability to fire members of the Federal Trade Commission questioned due to a classic Americana rule called Humphrey's executor. Here's Senator Mike Lee of Utah to explain. I just finished watching arguments at the Supreme Court in a case involving the constitutionality of president's authority to fire executor, branch bureaucrats. Now, Article 2 of the Constitution vests the President with the executive power and also the responsibility to execute the laws. When the President sees that the laws aren't being implemented, consistent with what he deems appropriate, he should be able to fire them. That's what the Constitution contemplates. There's a Supreme Court ruling from about 100 years ago

Starting point is 00:04:45 called Humphrey's Executor. And Humphrey's Executor says that the president can't fire those employees, especially if they're part of certain multi-member lawmaking and law enforcement commissions. They're sort of a hybrid. The Supreme Court appears dissatisfied with that. It looks like there are five, probably six justices who are ready to strike down Humphrey's executor. It would be a good day for America and for the Constitution if they did that look forward

Starting point is 00:05:14 to seeing how the court decides this in a few months. Two particularly interesting moments during oral arguments, one in which Justice Neil Gorsuch argued with Amit Agarwal, representing Rebecca Slaughter, pressed the counsel on just who individuals inside the executive agencies inside the federal government answered to. Our NQ, Justice Gorsuch, as we understand it, is not just based on this court's recent decision

Starting point is 00:05:39 in Trump for the United States. It goes all the way back to Marbury v. Madison. and Marbury does not use the term conclusive and preclusive, but it absolutely says... And neither does Humphreys. It uses quasi things. It talks about the distinction between authorities that are vested in the president

Starting point is 00:05:55 and the president's powers in the constitutional sense, and executive power in the constitutional sense, and it actually cites Marbury v. Madison for that proposition. Oh, sure, I would hope it would. For that proposition, and Marbury itself distinguishes

Starting point is 00:06:08 in the context of removability of federal offices. I guess I'm just wondering, are we going to get, If we take your theory to backfill Humphreys and go down this road, how are we supposed to decide which powers are exclusive for your purposes? As you understand it, not as I understand it from Trump v. United States, but as you understand it, what powers are going to fall in and what going to fall out? Are we going to have just as much litigation over that as anything else we might do in this case? I don't think so. We've had this modern era of

Starting point is 00:06:42 of traditional independent agencies for a long time. We haven't had any precedent ever striking them down. And this court has not been, as far as I know, overwhelmed with difficult questions of line drawing. In fact, from 1935 to 2025, we had pretty much unanimity among courts that traditional independent agencies are fine. To go back to your-

Starting point is 00:07:01 We haven't had a lot of litigation over Humphreys and its limits and its boundaries. And I mean, see the law. You invoke it as a great decision. We've had a lot of litigation. We do invoke CLA as a great decision. We're always going to have litigation over the separation of powers, aren't we? There will always be litigation, absolutely, but the point is that this court's precedence

Starting point is 00:07:22 affirming Congress's authority to work with presidents to create traditional independent agencies has not generated any significant problem, still less insurmountable problems. Thank you. And liberal justice Katanji Brown Jackson appointed by the Biden administration tried to get her mind around the balance of power. between the legislative branch and the executive branch in how federal agencies are operated. I'm trying to understand why you think that Congress is somehow less democratically accountable for the way in which it constructs these agencies and determines the term of office of the

Starting point is 00:08:01 officers. You seem to think that there's something about the president that requires him to control everything as a matter of democratic accountability. When on the other side, we have Congress saying we'd like these particular agencies and officers to be independent of presidential control for the good of the people. We're exercising our Article 1 authority to protect the people by creating this independent structure. And I don't understand why it is that the thought that the president gets to control everything can outweigh Congress's clear authority and duty to protect the people in this way. And the President of the United States continues to assert that the kinetic strikes and other

Starting point is 00:08:47 military movements in the South Caribbean are saving American lives. So every boat we knock out of the water, every boat we save 25,000 American lives. That was a boat loaded up with drugs. I saw the video. They were trying to turn the boat back to where it could float. And we didn't want to see that because that boat was loaded up with drugs just like everything else. But every boat we shoot down, and I don't know if you know, we're 92 or 94% down in drugs coming in by the sea. President Trump isn't the only one making continued statements about Venezuela and narco-terrorist boats in the Southern Caribbean. Senators like Rick Scott of Florida have been making the case that Nicholas Maduro is not a true leader of Venezuela in the democratic sense, but a narco-terrorist and a dictator.

Starting point is 00:09:34 Here he is on Fox yesterday. Well, first of all, I really believe we're going to have before, Christmas, we're going to see Maduro out. Let's remember, he's an indicted drug trafficker. He lost the election. He's not the president of Venezuela. He's ahead of drug cartels. The U.S. Southern Command, or Southcom, has carried out a series of kinetic strikes,

Starting point is 00:09:56 as well as military interventions in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. In a social media post by Southcom yesterday morning, a U.S. service member was depicted with a Jerusalem cross patch on his helmet. The same Jerusalem cross, which adorns many of the Christian buildings in Jerusalem, and also a tattoo depicted on the chest of Secretary of War, Pete Hegeseth. This is what has a lot of individuals, officials, pundits in the United States on the left side of the aisle upset, suggesting that there has been a violation of the First Amendment of the United States in which the U.S. Southern Command had somehow suggested Christianity as a federal position by a soldier wearing a patch on his helmet. Meanwhile, the New York Post is reporting

Starting point is 00:10:42 that U.S. troops are amassing on Puerto Rico. Their final destination, or if they are to be used at all, or if this is a training exercise, is not yet known. In perceived response to the United States and Southcom posting and making statements, moving troops around in the Caribbean, the Venezuelan government released a video posturing about its military capabilities. Now believe it or not there are a few issues and inconsistencies with this particular video posted by Venezuela. But to get a look at those, you'll have to head over to the Tony Kinnett cast this evening, which you can find a link to subscribe to in the description below. I'm Tony Kinnett, and this has been The Daily Signals.

Starting point is 00:11:31 Top News in 10. Take care. Thank you. Have you that you could economize your ordinance of Uigovi? Telecharge your cart rabbi at wigovie.ca today. These exclusions can't apply.

Starting point is 00:11:55 Thank you.

The Daily Signal - Indiana Redistricting Bill Passes Senate Committee, Supreme Court Argues 4th Branch | Dec. 9, 2025

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.