Ding dong, Chevron is dead! (07-01-2024--Hour3)

[00:00:00] What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to three on WBAT radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily

[00:00:17] show prep with all the links, become a patron, go to thepetekalinershow.com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button. Get every episode for free right to your smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for your support. Got a press release here.

[00:00:31] This was put out by the Liberty Justice Center right after the word came down on Friday that the U.S. Supreme Court had overturned the disastrous and controversial Chevron Doctrine. In a historic decision, the Supreme Court formally overturned the Chevron Doctrine,

[00:00:50] a rule that it adopted in 1984, under which federal courts defer to federal agencies' interpretation of their own powers as a matter of course, and ruled in favor of some fishermen who had argued their case. It was Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo, who was before the court in January 2024.

[00:01:16] So these fishermen argued that the National Marine Fisheries Service had overstepped its limited authority by interpreting broad legislation to specifically require that every fishery pay the daily salary of an agency-mandated monitor, a monitor that they had to have on the boat. It's a person, okay?

[00:01:40] It's not like a device. It's a person on every voyage and oversee all operations. I believe the figure was $700 a day. It was costing these fishermen. In its decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the fishermen and overturned Chevron,

[00:02:00] the legal precedent that had emboldened the agency to demand the fishermen fund the program. So before the ruling, the Chevron Doctrine effectively required courts to take the side of the federal regulator whenever an individual challenged a regulation that the agency enacted

[00:02:18] under a federal law that was deemed ambiguous in its scope. So when Congress writes a law, they make it really ambiguous because they stink at writing laws. They don't know how to do it anymore. But there's always unintended consequences, right?

[00:02:30] So they leave it ambiguous on purpose or they just are not good at writing it. And so it turns out to be ambiguous. And the Chevron Doctrine allowed the agencies, when they get sued for enacting the law, and

[00:02:45] they get sued for whatever reason, the Chevron Doctrine says that the courts are supposed to defer to the agencies. They're just supposed to be like, well, you know, they're the experts, which to me is

[00:02:59] one of the hilarious responses in all of this where you see a lot of leftists that are saying, oh my gosh, how could these judges take the power away from the experts, these bureaucratic experts in the federal government, right? They're the ones that should be crafting these regulations.

[00:03:15] The judges aren't experts, but aren't they? They're experts in the law, right? That's how they got to be a Supreme Court judge, right? Why are you denying their expertise? In the decision, the Supreme Court struck down the doctrine and returned the role of

[00:03:39] statutory interpretation to its rightful place with the judicial branch. This change... Oh, that's the other argument I've seen. We're going to have so many lawsuits now. Okay, well, wouldn't the trial lawyers association, the bar, like aren't you guys going to be kind of happy with that?

[00:03:56] Like, you make a lot of money, right? But also, I don't know, maybe that will restrain some of the overreach and worst transgressions that we've seen. The change significantly rolls back administrative agencies' ability to determine the scope of their own power.

[00:04:14] So what Chevron undid was this ability to have agencies basically write law, right? When the law is ambiguous, they get to fill in the gaps. And then if you sue the agency for the way they filled the gap, they get a presumption of legitimacy in the courts.

[00:04:35] And so it's like, well, sorry, Chevron doctrine. So this is why I heard... I think it was Friday, Chad Adams, who was filling in for Brett Winterbohl, I believe he's in again today for Brett. He had Dan Bishop on Friday, and Bishop mentioned Title IX.

[00:04:52] And you saw it with Obama, and then again with Biden, and then the inverse occurred under Trump, which was the reinterpretation of Title IX, where they made sex equal gender, right? This is why I was always joking that sex and gender are different, unless, of course, we

[00:05:12] need them to be the same thing, because sex is listed in the law, right? So when the law said sex and the Congress passed the law saying you can't discriminate based on sex, race, creed, national origin, right, all of that, they said sex in the text

[00:05:30] of the legislation. And they clearly meant... And the ones who wrote the law have said they meant men and women. They were using sex and gender as the terms were always used prior to like a minute ago, when now they're different things.

[00:05:49] So when they said sex in the law, they meant male and female. But then Obama comes along and is like, no, no, no, sex and gender are the same thing. Even though we've been getting beaten over the heads with the idea that they're not the same thing, right?

[00:06:06] That your sex is one thing, and then your gender is what you identify as, and that's a fluid thing, and you can do whatever you want, feel however you want, be whatever you want, and all of that. They're totally different.

[00:06:16] Unless, of course, you need them to be the same thing so you can then ram through some law, right? And so that's what they were doing. That's what... It's a good example of it. They just reinterpret quote, ambiguous law.

[00:06:29] And then they empower themselves, and then they start nailing people. Here's a thread from Austin Allred. He's the CEO of a company called Bloom Tech, right? And he went on to Twitter, formerly X, and he said this ruling, the Chevron overturn,

[00:06:48] said maybe the most impactful thing to happen to startups in a long time, in ways that people don't even realize. He says federal agencies could interpret unclear law in any way that they saw fit and simultaneously

[00:07:03] hold anyone accountable for any law in any way that they saw fit too. It was a gross overreach of power. He said, I personally spent huge amounts of time working with Congress on Capitol Hill, as did many others, begging for clarity on how ISAs should be treated.

[00:07:24] ISAs, I believe that stands for industry standard architecture in the computing world, okay? So they were asking the government for clarity. Many years later, federal agencies then went after his company, citing the very laws that we were begging them for clarity on.

[00:07:48] So we go to them and we ask them, what are the rules? Where are the guidelines? Where are the guardrails? And they're like, can't help you. So then they're like, okay, we're just going to do it this way. And like, busted! That's the wrong way to do it.

[00:07:59] Well, why didn't you tell us this was the wrong way to do it? Show me the man, I'll show you the crime. Importantly, in some instances, it's never even revealed how to stay within the law. The federal agencies don't even have to do that.

[00:08:15] They just have to say that you broke the law, no explanations really needed. While we had our preferences with regard to ISAs, we weren't prescriptive. We just wanted to be given any guidance at all that we could operate under.

[00:08:29] We would have complied with anything and we were given nothing. It was kept intentionally vague with no answers to be given up until and including the point where various federal agencies went after everyone in the ISA space for things that we had begged for answers for.

[00:08:49] It bankrupted nearly everyone other than Bloom Tech. We see the same thing happening in crypto. The SEC continues to go after Coinbase and other players whose giant legal teams are doing everything they possibly can to stay within the law.

[00:09:05] The SEC over and over again says you're breaking the law. And then when Coinbase asks for clarification, they don't get any. Their result is a kangaroo court and many millions of dollars spent on legal fees without any clarity whatsoever.

[00:09:19] And agencies who were given full power to simultaneously make up what the gray area in between the law ought to be and go after companies for it. They do this while citing Uber and Theranos, claiming that companies are trying to be above

[00:09:33] the law or that they're skirting regulation. But oftentimes the exact opposite is true. Companies are trying hard how to stay within regulatory guidelines. They need to know how to do that and nobody tells them. So there's only two ways to fight this. Well, until the Supreme Court decision.

[00:09:54] One, outrageously expensive court battles that take years or decades even and may not even come to a final conclusion. And the other? Settle with the federal agencies and then let them say whatever they want to in press releases. So all of that's over. And that's a good thing.

[00:10:15] That's a really good thing. Because it disempowers unelected, unknown, faceless administrative state actors, which is kind of what we have in the White House right now. There's the connection. I get the sense that there are some people that I don't know who they are and I don't

[00:10:37] think they're elected and they may be doing some stuff right now that they were not empowered to be doing. So this is sort of like the Chevron White House. The Family Fishing Company, which is awesome, the fact that this was a family owned operation,

[00:10:58] it wasn't like some mega corporation that brought the case, you know, is responsible for the destruction of this awful doctrine. I've been opposed to this thing for 20 years since I first learned about it.

[00:11:13] Federal agencies have been able to interpret laws to mean whatever they want and the courts just had to go along with it. Spike Cohen, founder and president of the You Are The Power Network, YATP, or the YATP Network as it's known.

[00:11:31] He goes through some of the examples of what the Chevron deference or Chevron doctrine did. It put bureaucrats in charge of the country, aka democracy. I mean, that's what I'm supposed to understand because the people who are so outraged about

[00:11:48] the overturning of the Chevron deference or Chevron doctrine by the U.S. Supreme Court putting the power back into the legislature where it was vested, where it should be. That's not democracy. Apparently, the people that are outraged at the overturning of the Chevron case, the Chevron

[00:12:08] doctrine, they're all the big defenders of the democracy. And so the only thing I can figure out is that democracy means having unelected bureaucrats writing laws for us and then not telling us how we're in violation of them until they find us. That's what democracy is about.

[00:12:23] See, all this time I thought it was just a chant when they were walking down the street saying show me what democracy looks like. They really didn't know. Interesting. They were like asking me. I thought it was just a chant all this time. So that's my bad. Sorry.

[00:12:40] OSHA. OSHA was able to decide that everybody who worked for a large company had to get the COVID vaccine or be fired. That's what Chevron got us. Because no law gave them that authority. They just made that authority up for themselves.

[00:12:59] It's how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a quote machine gun. It's how they were able to decide that a small puddle was a protected wetland. It's how out of control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air and force

[00:13:15] you to comply. And the courts had to simply defer to them because they were the quote experts. It was not only blatantly unconstitutional, it caused immeasurable harm to everyone. We haven't even begun to feel the effects of this decision in the courts.

[00:13:29] The law will be used for years to come to roll back federal agencies and we all will be better for it. And that's why politicians and corporate media are freaking out about it. Because they're going to actually have to pass legislation.

[00:13:46] They're going to actually have to do work. There is a writer named A.G. Hamilton does a substack, longtime contributor to various conservative publications. He said all these people want to defer to unelected bureaucrats because they're allegedly experts.

[00:14:03] But apparently they're not willing to defer to the legal experts who actually understand what overturning Chevron does and does not do. Right? Namely, the Supreme Court judges requiring for Congress to actually write clear laws when

[00:14:17] they want to defer to the administrative state does not prevent the existence of a federal bureaucracy. It just means those bureaucrats can't invent laws by themselves by twisting what the current law says. Right?

[00:14:29] So for all of you that are oh so worried about the dismantling of the federal government leviathan, it's OK. Don't worry. It's not going anywhere. Right? The natural tendency of government like fire is to spread. OK, so it's going to keep spreading.

[00:14:49] It's going to find ways the people who are there are going to find ways to encroach and overreach. They're going to keep doing that. Rest assured. The friendly leftist, rest assured. They're just not going to be able to make up laws.

[00:15:03] You're going to actually have to do some work in Congress. You're going to have to write some laws. You have to write them tightly. And if you get it wrong, you're going to have to go back and fix it.

[00:15:11] You know, kind of like all the states already do. State legislatures, they've been doing this sort of work since the 80s when Chevron was first passed. So, like, look to the state legislatures and look a lot of you guys in Congress. You come from the state legislatures.

[00:15:29] So you should you should be familiar with the process. There was a mortgage broker guy. He says this is a huge win for the mortgage industry because they would call up the CFPB Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, right?

[00:15:54] And they would call the CFPB for clarification on what was or was not allowed for advertising. And so they'd want to stay within the law. So we want to do some advertising. Okay, what do we need to do? What can't we say? Whatever.

[00:16:07] And the CFPB would flat out refuse to answer them, would not give them an answer on how to stay within the law for advertising. And then they would nail them with $10,000 fines for guessing wrong. I'm so happy Chevron's dead. I am so happy it's dead.

[00:16:31] And this connects back to the presidential debate. Because just as you've got nameless, faceless people inside the federal government at a bureaucratic level, inside the agencies that are doing this kind of stuff, and God knows where they get the ideas for some of this stuff.

[00:16:47] Some of it's in-house. Some of it's just, you know, what was the old line from the Obama administration? A low-level official in the Cincinnati field office, right? And then maybe that's where the idea to slow roll all of the Tea Party non-profit status requests, maybe.

[00:17:05] But also maybe it comes from somewhere else. Maybe there's some political pressure from the boss. Maybe the boss's boss. Maybe the boss's boss's boss. Maybe the president. I don't know. Right? But this will help to short circuit some of that.

[00:17:21] But it also then makes you wonder if the people that are promoting the democracy are also promoting the idea that these nameless, faceless government agencies should be dictating all these facets of our lives without clear guidelines and rules set down in paper first.

[00:17:40] Is it that big of a stretch to think that they wouldn't be okay with running the White House in a similar fashion? Right? Because what I saw on Thursday night, what you saw on Thursday, what everybody saw on

[00:17:51] Thursday night with Joe Biden's performance, it's very clear that a whole bunch of people in the White House have been lying to the American people. A lot of people in the media have been lying to the American people as well. Right? And so I don't know.

[00:18:11] I kind of feel like I'm owed some kind of an explanation or owed an apology or something like that. Right? But I think the most important lesson from the debate should be betrayal. We've been betrayed. That's that's what people realize. There has been a betrayal.

[00:18:31] The so-called elites, right? They've known what Joe Biden's condition has been. And they've been lying about it. Moral compass in a tweet. It's a tweet. Pete, I can buy that Joe Biden was overprepped for the debate.

[00:18:51] When you try to pour a gallon of knowledge into a shot glass of a brain, you're going to spill some. OK. OK. So a couple of things. Barack Obama. Sent out a tweet about Joe Biden's performance after you let it you let it percolate for a little while.

[00:19:14] Right. You let people get panicked. You let the Democrats start infighting or whatever. And then, you know, Obama can come in as above the fray and I will come in and I'll make my pronouncement and then all will fall in line. So what does he say?

[00:19:26] He says bad debate nights happen. Trust me, I know. But this election is still a choice between someone who has fought for ordinary folks his entire life and someone who only cares about himself.

[00:19:39] Between someone who tells the truth, who knows right from wrong and will give it to the American people straight and someone who lies through his teeth for his own benefits. These are all, by the way, this is the false construct of a false dichotomy. Right.

[00:19:54] There are these are the only two choices available. No, like they can both be liars. You know, I don't have to pick one. Like if one's a liar, it doesn't make the other one not a liar. Right. Last night didn't change that.

[00:20:07] And it's why so much is at stake in November. And then he's got the link for Joe Biden dot com. So Daniel Berman, who works in the House, I guess he's a staffer of some sort, formerly of the Senate.

[00:20:25] It's got like tons of degrees in history and politics and Iranian studies and history of international relations, all sorts of different degrees. And he works in he works on Capitol Hill. And he read that tweet from Barack Obama and he said, Obama probably grasps. What others are missing?

[00:20:51] Is that replacing Biden in these circumstances for this reason means something and it means something pretty bad. He is president. If he cannot exercise the duties of a candidate, then he cannot exercise those of a president. Right.

[00:21:12] And if the party admits that, then it means that they admit that they lied. Right. That Joe Biden was fine, that he's totally capable, not in any kind of decline. Don't believe your lying eyes, all of that.

[00:21:30] So this is not Biden deciding on his own, he cannot do the job. This is other Democrats deciding that he will lose because too many people found out. Correct. It's bad enough for voters to suspect you lied, he says. It is another to admit it.

[00:21:48] For over a year, every major Democratic figure has come forward to gush about Biden's cognitive abilities in private. To force him out now is to admit that they've been gaslighting us. Gaslighting the American people over the most important and consequential issue imaginable.

[00:22:09] This is doubly true of any plan to try to remove Kamala Harris. To suggest that not only is Biden unfit to be president, but so is Harris? To succeed him? Well, that's to admit that the Democratic elite for its own ends installed a president

[00:22:31] and a vice president who are both unfit for office. Hmm. Yeah, it's not a good look. This is why I keep saying like, I don't see either of these guys, you know, Trump and Biden.

[00:22:45] I think these are the these are the guys we're going to get to vote on in the November election. I don't know how it's going to turn out, but I like I cannot I cannot fathom a way that you can tell Kamala Harris we're going to leapfrog you.

[00:22:59] You got it. Like I said this the day after the debate, one of the first things I said, like they got to figure out a way to get rid of Harris. Like that's that's the first step.

[00:23:09] Now, if they that's that is going to be the canary in the coal mine here. When we see a move against Kamala, if they try to do something, they try to like, OK, she's going to go do this other thing or whatever.

[00:23:22] Like that to me is going to be the move. I don't think she does it, though. She's her own person. She's going to want her own legacy. She sees this as her opportunity as well. Right. Of course, there are people in Harris world.

[00:23:34] I'm sorry, I will said that with a straight face like that's that. I guess there's a Harris world. I assume maybe. I don't know. So, yeah, but there are going to be people around her that are like, you know, you need to eyes on the prize.

[00:23:48] You need to make your move. Don't go anywhere. Just like Corrine Jean-Pierre. She's not going anywhere either. At a time back to Daniel Berman, he says at a time of domestic and global crisis. And for the next seven months, including the campaign, America will be governed by two

[00:24:07] individuals whose own party has repudiated them as incompetent for their roles and that they knew this. Like we over here in conservative media, like we've been mocking Kamala Harris because she's just an awful politician. She's a terrible campaigner. She wasn't very good in the presidential election.

[00:24:32] She wasn't hasn't been a very good vice president. She is terrible on a stump speech. Right. So I'm sorry for all of this stuff. But now think about it. If you were a Democrat voter and immersed in only, say, you know, CNN.

[00:24:50] New York Times, Washington Post or whatever, like you don't ever get exposed to that kind of ridicule that the right has been engaged in for Kamala Harris. So we all know she's terrible. And that's why I like we're like, oh, they can't they can't remove Joe because she's

[00:25:07] the one in waiting. But Obama gets it. Obama probably does know this. So they want to keep things status quo, at least through the election. Then they can try to make whatever moves they were going to try to make or whatever.

[00:25:22] But the problem is always still going to be Kamala Harris is the vice president. She becomes the president. There's nothing to be there's nothing to be done about that. Unless you find something else for Kamala to do.

[00:25:34] OK, if you're listening to this podcast, you are obviously paying attention to the world around us. You also have really great taste, I might add. But if you haven't started getting prepared for various emergencies, I got to ask, what are you waiting for?

[00:25:47] Please call my friends Bill and Jan at Carolina Readiness Supply, and they'll help get you started. If you have no idea how to start, they can help you. If you're an experienced prepper, they can help you to being prepared is just smart. We've already established that you're smart.

[00:26:01] I mean, you listen to this podcast after all. So let's put those smarts into action. Go to Carolina readiness dot com. That's Carolina readiness dot com or call them at 828-226-7239. Carolina Readiness Supply has 2000 square feet of supplies as well as educational materials

[00:26:20] that you're going to need for any kind of emergency. Veteran owned Carolina Readiness Supply. Will you be ready when the lights go out? All right, let me get to some emails here from Stan. He says the regulatory agencies love it when intentionally vague, when the law is intentionally

[00:26:35] vague as they then get to do what they want. I recently went to register for a Coinbase account and all the information they wanted based on the regulation compliance was way over the top to the extent that I thought, what's the point? And that's exactly the goal.

[00:26:51] Cryptocurrencies are a market based currency response to the poor job that the Fed, a regulatory agency, is doing managing the one currency we all use. Walking away from this experience, I had to ask the question, where do they get the authority to regulate cryptocurrency at all?

[00:27:07] My guess is that if challenged, we'd find out that they don't actually have that authority. Um. DL says Obama beat Carter as America's worst president and now Biden has beaten Obama. That's fair. Mike says Biden was semi-conscious during the debate because it was past his bedtime.

[00:27:31] Biden likes to go to bed at sundown and awaken with the rooster crowing. If Trump wants to keep beating Biden at debates, he simply needs to insist that they are scheduled for 9 p.m. like the last one. That's possible. Um, let me see here.

[00:27:49] Oh, on the Supreme Court ruling, Dennis said any decision the Supreme Court makes that ruffles the feathers of Senator Chuck Schumer lets me know that it's got to be good for the rest of us. Yeah, that's yeah, I tend to agree with that as well.

[00:28:03] So real quick, Axios has a piece Biden's salvation plan. A massive political PR campaign underway to reject calls for Biden to drop his re-election race and to rally Democrats to move on from public debate about his age, his mental faculties and his future. Why it matters.

[00:28:26] Biden has zero interest in stepping aside. First Lady Jill Biden and key family members agree. Biden who has ducked tough interviews and avoided no holds barred press conferences is now considering both. Look for a town hall or big one on one interview this month.

[00:28:46] Behind the scenes, some Biden friends and family blamed longtime aides who had prepped Biden. Biden complained about everything from data heavy answers to his makeup, to his briefing on camera angles. The president smoothed it over, though he called his former chief of staff Ron Klain

[00:29:02] and he said that we're not blaming you. Don't worry. So then it goes through some of the survival strategy. Here it is. Number one, dismiss bedwetting. The official White House campaign line is this is much ado about nothing.

[00:29:24] Biden works so hard, it just drains his young staffers, you know. This attitude is driving elected officials and donors nuts because they feel it's delusional because it is. Nonetheless, Biden allies are cranking out data and pushing out surrogates to insist

[00:29:40] that he had one bad night, mostly because of a scratchy voice and over preparation. OK, so that's that's the first strategy. Next, squeeze polls for juice, which I kind of feel like they've stolen my line. Is the juice worth the squeeze? I kind of feel like that.

[00:29:58] Anyway, Biden allies are circulating polls and focus group results showing the debate did little to change the dynamics of the race. But they're also ignoring any other results that show the opposite. Number three, warn of chaos, cats and dogs living together, real wrath of God type stuff.

[00:30:17] Biden allies are making plain in private conversations the perils of an open convention. Oh, sorry. Open convention. No. Also, they're warning of the risk of picking a Democrat that's even more unpopular than Biden, namely Kamala Harris.

[00:30:41] They know Biden just needs to make it to the convention in Chicago, which opens eight weeks from today. After that, unity is the only choice. So this is from the campaign standpoint. Like we just got we got eight weeks. We just got to keep them alive. Sorry.

[00:30:54] We got to keep them cogent for eight weeks. Number four, strategy point number four, limit dissent for democracy. Obviously, Biden allies helped orchestrate the support of tweets by former presidents Clinton and Obama. Those happened after furious back channeling by allies.

[00:31:14] Number five, keep elected leaders close like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. Because their members are getting real worried about the down ballot impacts. Number six, get the donor class to chill out. Jeffrey Katzenberg and other top Biden backers are working the phones to reassure the deep

[00:31:36] pockets while the campaign and the DNC keep turning out fundraising emails and highlighting successes. Number seven, prove vitality. Sorry, that's OK. All right. Yes. Words can't capture how elated top officials were that Biden was as vigorous as he was

[00:31:55] at the rally here in North Carolina the day after the debate. They're looking for as many opportunities as possible. By the way, he did a fundraiser in the Hamptons and he was on teleprompter for it. Not kidding. At like a house, he was on teleprompter. He needs it.

[00:32:14] He performs much better when he's just reading one sentence lines and everybody's cheering like, you know, clapping seals in between. Number eight final strategy point, ignore slash engage the media. On the one hand, Biden allies want everybody to ignore the prominent columnists who love

[00:32:31] Biden but are now calling for his resignation. And on the other hand, the campaign in the White House are deeply engaged with reporters like Axios writing about presidential fitness. So here's what the Biden cabinet sees a recipe, they say, for a narrow victory that includes

[00:32:48] a grand slam speech at the DNC in Chicago. Plus a strong showing in the next debate was positive economic news in the fall, maybe a Fed rate cut. That's the strategy. Nail the speech. At the DNC, number one. Number two, do better in the debate.

[00:33:14] The next debate, which I mean, like that bar is not very high. But then again, the bar for Thursday wasn't very high either. And he fell over that one. So OK, so strong speech, strong debate and then fingers crossed positive economic news in the fall.

[00:33:32] But Andy McCarthy pointed out a very good question. It's not about Joe Biden. It's about why Joe Biden? Why? Right. Why now? Why are they keeping him around? Well, because the Democrat Party is a train wreck.

[00:33:48] And as catastrophic as Biden is in his sentence, he remains useful cover for the fact that the youth energy and money in the party is woke leftist Islamist, counter constitutionalist, post-American and unelectable. All right. That'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening.

[00:34:05] I could not do the show without your support and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast. So if you'd like, please support them, too, and tell them you heard it here.

[00:34:13] You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to the Pete Kallener show dot com. Again, thank you so much for listening. And don't break anything while I'm gone.