KBJ goes to the mat for the 'Deep State' (12-10-2025--Hour2)

What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron, go to vpeteclendershow dot 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. So have you heard of the case Trump versus Slaughter? It is not just about whether a president can fire a bureaucrat, It's about who actually runs the country. Okay, that's the summation over at the Independent Journal Review IJR dot com. Rebecca Slaughter was a Biden era Federal Trade commission her. She was shown the door by President Trump in March, and she did not take it well. Rather than accepting that her policies and priorities might not align with the administration that's elected by the people, no, no, no, she sued, this is classic Democrat playbook, you know, sue till blue approach. Right that which we cannot get done legislatively or electorally, we will get done through the courts. Right, we will make law through the courts, because that's the only place we have any real power. At the moment, she sued the President for firing her. Her team is claiming that she could not be let go unless there was cause. Apparently, simply disagreeing with the president's entire agenda does not count as cause. So, and by the way, we know what happens when you have an entire bureaucracy, or as the Soviets called it, the new state, or as a lot of folks in Maga call it, the deep state. We have seen what happens when you have people inside of the executive branch that oppose Orange Man. They work from the inside to throw sand in the gears. They thwart him and his agenda, which is not what they're supposed to be doing. The idea is that the American people elect a president. That president under Article II the Constitution. That president then carries out the laws that the Article one branch the Congress that they pass. Right, and so you a hireling of the executive branch, your opinions do not really matter. If you disagree with the agenda that the boss is telling you to enact, that doesn't matter. You can express your opinion. You can say I disagree, this isn't the best idea. We shouldn't do this, Here's a better way. Whatever you do, that all you want, but you do have to implement the agenda. That's the job. But what the bureaucrats do is they slow everything down, They lose paperwork. They talked about this. I'm not making this up. This is from their own mouths anonymously. Of course, during the first term of Donald Trump, they talked about this in a very lengthy piece I think it was at the New York Times, talked about how they were working, you know, behind enemy lines in order to thwart Trump's radical agenda. So she sues the president for firing her. Slaughter's legal team is leaning hard on precedent, specifically a dusty old nineteen thirty five case that says presidents can't just remove officials from quote unquote independent agencies. They say the FTC is one such agency, and if you want to remove somebody, you got to go through all of these legal hoops. But as Trump's Solicitor General John Sower pointed out in the oral arguments, that precedent is a quote decaying husk a relic of a bygone era when Washington was not overrun by career bureaucrats convinced they know better than the people who actually cast the ballots. Right, and think about how big the US federal government has become since nineteen thirty five, ninety years ago, eighty five years ago. Right, This is why DOGE was so important. It's something that GOVC does never do that the private sector does regularly. Elon must proved this model, this approach right when he bought Twitter, but also in other enterprises where you fire a bunch of people and look as one who has been fired in this very same kind of cost cutting efforts and streamlining and optimization and all of that budgetary constraints. I know firsthand it stinks. It stinks. However, from an organizational standpoint, right number one, the job isn't yours. This job that I'm doing right now, this is not mine. This is the company's job. Every job has a shelf life. And there are people who do not understand this that work in government because government jobs never seem to go away. And what happens is like you just think about it from an operational standpoint, you know you're doing doing things, and technology improvements come along, you get better at your job and you're able to do the work in a more efficient manner. So then what happens when you've gotten all caught up on your workload, your paperwork is all caught up. Then what do you do? You start looking for other things that you could do. Oh, you know what, while I was working on this project, I saw some other thing that we could also do, And so you start branching out. You start, you know, mission creeping, and that's why. And then you end up adding more people because hey, I started doing this thing, we need more bodies to keep doing it better. So then you bring in more people and you end up with this bloated bureaucracy. Same thing in education. All the administrator positions, right, so it keeps growing, and it keeps growing. And in the private sector, due to budget constraints, they will come through and fire a bunch of people. They'll sort of clear out the underbrush in order to keep the forest healthy. That doesn't happen. Government never happened, especially at the federal level. That's why DOGE was so important. That's why I was so excited about what Musk was trying to do. Which has now it seems, has like crashed and burned. The only remnant of success there is the exposure of the nngos and USAID funding, the funding, you know, being funneled through all these leftist organizations giving them the the lifeblood that they needed. The Solicitor General John sower Uh points out, this is a relic, This idea is a relic. You have a much bigger bureaucracy now, he's and I Jr. Says let's talk about what went down during oral arguments now, because it got a little wild. Justice Katanji Brown Jackson or KBG, in what can only be described as a full throated defense of government by credential, argued that presidents should not have the power to fire the so called experts running the bureaucracy. I've got the audio clip. Some issues, some matter, some areas should be handled in this way by nonpartisan experts. That Congress is saying that expertise matters with respect to aspects of the economy and transportation and the various independent agencies that we have. So having a president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists and people who don't know anything, is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States. These issues should not be in presidential control. So can you speak to me about the danger of allowing in the these various areas the president to actually control the Transportation Board and potentially the Federal Reserve and all these other independent agencies in these particular areas, we would like to have independence. We don't want the president controlling I guess what I don't understand from your overarching argument is why that determination of Congress, which makes perfect sense given its duty to protect the people of the United States, why that is subjugated to a concern about the president not being able to control everything. I mean, I appreciate there's a conflict between the two, but one would think under our constitutional design, given the history of the monarchy and the concerns that the Framers had about a president controlling everything, that in the clash between those two congresses view that we should be able to have independence with respect to certain issues should take precedence. So what is she arguing for there the deep state, some fourth branch of government that Congress sets up, some quote unquote independent agency and that they then get to do whatever they want. That's not what the framers had in mind at all. In fact, if Congress wants to set up some you know, advisory board made up of experts, they can do so, and that could inform them and they can pass legislation based on the advice and council of the experts. But if you're going to create agencies that fall under the executive branch, then the executive should have the ability to run those agencies, because that's what you're hiring the executive to do. No otherwise, how do you ever get rid of somebody? It doesn't make sense. She essentially wants to hand the keys to unelected lifers who answer to nobody. You know, stories are powerful. They help us make sense of things, to understand experiences. Stories connect us to the people of our past while transcending generations. They help us process the meaning of life, and our stories are told through images and videos. Preserve your stories with Creative Video started in nineteen ninety seven and Minhill, North Carolina. It was the first company to provide this valuable service, converting images, photos and videos into high quality produced slide shows, videos, and albums. The trusted talented and dedicated team at Creative Video will go over all of the details with you to create a perfect project. Satisfaction guaranteed. Drop them off in person or mail them. They'll be ready in a week or two. Memorial videos for your loved ones, videos for rehearsal, dinners, weddings, graduations, Christmas, family vacations, birthdays, or just your family stories, all told through images. That's what your photos and videos are. They are your life hold through the eyes of everyone around you and all who came before you, and they will tell others to come who you are. Visit creative video dot com. A couple of text messages here on topic on topic Pabo on topic The Hellian says this is so embarrassing. Was reacting to the uh the comments there from KBJ Katanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court justice so embarrassing. Is she a judge or a lawyer here? Well, she's a lawyer with a wardrobe change. See that's why I call them that. Eric says Elon with Doge was getting too close to the politician's corruption, so he had to go. Unfortunately Trump didn't back him. In the swamp one out Ian says KBJ sounds a lot like AOC whose voice moves even the most serene souls to render their own flesh. Ooh bad sounds bad. Um okay, So let me go back to this piece at IJR dot com Independent Journal Review or Journalism Review. I should say what Justice Jackson is suggesting in her argument is not some obscure legal argument. It's a direct challenge to Article two of the US Constitution, the part that says the executive power belongs to the president. So that's a slight little detail there. Under her vision, that power gets sliced up, watered down, and then hand it over to a bureaucratic priesthood with Ivy League degrees and zero accountability. And this is not just about the FTC. If the Court sides with Trump, as it seems like the six Conservatives on the Court seem inclined to do, it could finally start pulling some of the tangled wires of the administrative state out of the Constitution's throat. This case could reassert what has been obvious to every Civics student until recently, which is that presidents run the executive branch, not boards, not commissions, not consultants, not panels. Presidents do. David Harsani from The Washington Examiner points out that there is no such thing as an independent agency. Not in our constitutional framework. There is no fourth branch of the government. He says, it's hard to believe this is even controversial. Costas Moros, he is the director of Legal research and Education at the Second Amendment Foundation. He says, Congress can decide if an agency gets funded, and Congress can decide what it's submission and authority is. They can do that, but it cannot delegate away the president's power. Right. Congress can't take that power from the president because it's enshrined in the Constitution. If you want to change that, you got to run an amendment to the US Constitution. You want to create independent agencies that are not administered by the executive branch, run an amendment. It cannot delegate away the president's powers as the Constitution is clear that the full power of the executive branch is vested in the president alone. He gets to run the agencies and that includes hiring people and yes, firing them, and if Congress doesn't like it, they can stop funding the agencies. He says. You can't have it both ways. You want a big, expansive federal government unlike what was ever intended. Well, the price is that sometimes somebody you don't like is going to get elected president and they're gonna take it out for a joy ride. That's the deal, Democrats, that's the deal. You should have listened to people like me who were saying government is too big and you're not gonna like it when somebody you don't like is in charge of it. Here's a great idea. How about making an escape to a really special and secluded getaway in western North Carolina. Just a quick drive up the mountain and Cabins of Asheville is your connection. Whether you're celebrating an anniversary, a honeymoon, maybe you want to plan a memorable proposal, or get family and friends together for a big old reunion, Cabins of Asheville has the ideal spot for you where you can reconnect with your loved ones and the things that truly matter. Nestled within the breath taking fourteen thousand acres of the Pisga National Forest, their cabins offer a serene escape in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Centrally located between Ashville and the entrance of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. It's the perfect balance of seclusion and proximity to all the local attractions with hot tubs, fireplaces, air conditioning, smart TVs, Wi Fi grills, outdoor tables, and your own private covered porch. Choose from thirteen cabins, six cottages, two villas, and a great lodge with eleven king sized bedrooms. Cabins of Ashville has the ideal spot for you for any occasion, and they have pet friendly accommodations. Call or text eight two eight three six seven seventy sixty eight or check out all there is to offer at Cabins Offashville dot com and make memories that'll last a lifetime. Amy Howe, writing at SCOTUSblog dot com Scotus obviously standing for Supreme Court of the United States, talking about this case Trump versus Slaughter, the Supreme Court signaled that it was likely to strike down a federal law that restricts the president's ability to fire members of the Federal Trade Commission. During two and a half hours of argument in the case, a solid majority of the justices appeared to agree with the Trump administration. A law prohibiting the president from firing FTC commissioners except in cases of quote, inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. That this violates the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government. Okay, So the law that was passed to set up the FTC said that the president can fire somebody, but only for inefficiency, neglective duty, or malfeasance. But what if the person is working to thwart the boss's agenda? No, can't fire them for that. I guess a decision in favor of the Trump administration would significantly increase the president's power over not only the FTC but roughly two dozen other multi member agencies that Congress intended to be independent. President Trump has also fired members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, which I've never even heard of, the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Supreme Court has already allowed those firings to take effect in proceedings on its interim docket, but the Court's ruling in the case of the FTC Commission or Rebecca Slaughter will provide a more definitive ruling on the legality of those firings. Now some background on who Slaughter is. Trump actually nominated her to fill one of the seats on the FTC, which was slated to be a Democrat seat. Then President Joe Biden in twenty twenty three tapped her to serve a second term, which is slated to end in twenty twenty nine. But in March, after winning reelection, Trump sent Slaughter an email firing her. He did not cite any reason for her removal, other than that allowing her to remain on the FTC would be inconsistent with the administration's priorities. So there is a nineteen thirty five ruling in the US Supreme Court. It's called Humphrey's Executor versus us, or they referred to it as Humphrey's Executor. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the FTC's removal statute against a challenge that was brought by the Roosevelt administration. Only the Supreme Court could overturn that case. That's what the Supreme Court said at the time. They said, only we can overturn this ruling. And so here we are. It took eighty five years, but here we are, or ninety years. Representing the Trump administration, the US Solicitor John D. Or Sorry D John Sower told the court that Humphrey's executor was an indefensible outlier and a decaying husk that must be overruled. The Supreme Court's cases in recent years, he said, have repute the very foundation of that original ruling. The lawyer representing Rebecca Slaughter, A Meet Argowall, stated that the president's constitutional duty to execute the law does not give the president the power to violate that law with impunity. If the Trump administration is correct that the removal statute at the center of this case violates the separation of powers, then, Argurwall argued, all three branches of government have been wrong from the start of our country's history. A lot of the argument focused on potential broader effects. The justices questioned whether a decision in Slaughter's favor would give Congress sweeping power, including the authority to convert existing cabinet departments into multi member agencies that would be insulated from presidential control. Can you imagine the chaos that would create Congress basically turned say the Department of Defense into an independent agency, and then they pack it with a bunch of their people. Then what could you end up with like twenty fifth Amendment stuff going on? Here where they work against the sitting president. Argwall agreed with Chief Justice John Roberts when he was asked whether Congress could just take over some cabinet departments. He said, such a result is probably within the realm of possibility. That seems like a problem, right. Justice Kavanaugh was worried about such a scenario, telling Argowall that it would allow Congress to create independent agencies without any requirement of partisan balance and with lengthy terms for the agency heads. Right. Why not create a Department of Green Energy and pack it with only Democrats and give them thirty year terms? Right? This would give Congress the ability to create agencies that would thwart future presidents. On the other side, some justices expressed concern that a ruling in favor of the Trump administration would affect other multi member agencies like the NLRB as I mentioned, but also the US Tax Court and the United States Court of Claims, also the Federal Reserve, and Argo Wall said, if Trump wins, everything's on the shopping block. Justice Sonya Sutomigor echoed this sentiment, telling saur that he was putting those institutions at risk. Justice sam Alito, though was more sympathetic. He argued that sour Or. He asked sour whether the Court could issue a narrow ruling that did not address the concertstitutionality of removal provisions for things like the tax court, and Sower said that it could. The Supreme Court has discovered the Supreme Court has discouraged general pronouncements on issues that were not before the justices right, so they could they could own like they could look at just only this FTC issue. Kavanaugh suggested the Court could craft a decision that would not call into question the removal laws, the clauses for the Federal Reserve Bank. That's possible. Atlanta Kagan portrayed Congress's creation of independent agencies like the FTC as the result of a bargain over the last century. Congress, she said, gave the independent agency substantial authority beyond executive power, and it bestowed that power precisely because the president does not control the agencies. But if part of that bargain is eliminated by giving the president control over those agencies, it would give the president massive, uncontrolled, unchecked power. Yet where Kagan saw a problem, Justice Neil Gorsich saw an opportunity. All right, If you're listening to this show. You know I try to keep up with all sorts of current events, and I know you do too. And you've probably heard me say get your news from multiple sources. Why well, because it's how you detect media bias, which is why I've been so impressed with ground News. It's an app, and it's a website, and it combines news from around the world in one place, so you can compare coverage and verify information. You can check it out at check dot ground, dot news slash pete. I put the link in the podcast description too. I started using ground News a few months ago and more recently chose to work with them as an affiliate because it lets me see clearly how stories get covered and by whom. The blind spot feature shows you which stories get ignored by the left and the right. See for yourself. Check dot ground, dot news slash pete. Subscribe through that link and you'll get fifteen percent off any subscription. I use the Vantage plan to get unlimited access to every feature. Your subscription then not only helps my podcast, but it also supports ground News as they make the media landscape more transparent. Let me get to the text line. Some messages here from RJ quoting Federalist paper number forty nine. No major question of governance should be permanently removed from the reach of the citizens and their elected representatives. He says, whether every individual outcome is good or bad, the directional thrust of this court is unmistakable. Major policy fights are being kicked back to the arena where citizens actually have a vote, whether through their state legislatures, Congress, or the president that they just elected. And I am grateful for it, seven oh four Numbers says regarding Kaitanji Brown Jackson, no kings or pro kings. Her view of independent experts sounds a lot like the monarchy in England and Dana the dem I assume I thought you said our government was set up on checks and balances. Well you thought correctly. I have said that. In fact, you should have learned that in school. In I'm just kidding, we don't teach civics anymore, but you probably should have learned that in school. But it is true checks and balances. She goes on to say, but it seems as if you too want the president to have indefinite power and do almost anything he wants. No, I, in fact, have long argued for reigning in the imperial presidency, reigning in the executive branch. See, but I am able to look at an issue outside of a prism of Donald Trump. I'm able to look at the case as presented and listen to the arguments with an understanding of the checks and balances system, as is Justice Neil Gorsich, he says well Amy Howe, writing its Scotus blog, she says Gorsich has long sought to revive what's called the non delegation doctrine. This is the idea that Congress cannot delegate its own lawmaking powers to other institutions. See because Dana, when Congress does stupid stuff like that, right then there are no more checks and balances any longer. You're creating a fourth branch of government, a quote unquote independent agency, not elected by anybody, not under the control of any of the branches of government, setting up rules aka laws. That's how we ended up with the abomination that's Obamacare, because when they wrote the law, they just offloaded all of the responsibility for writing the actual details of the law to the Health and Human Services Secretary. Oh is it like ten thousand times? The phrase the Secretary shall make up the rules. That's not the way this is supposed to work. Gorset emphasized, the Supreme Court has allowed agencies to exercise a great deal of power, and in particular significant legislative power, for a very long time. That doesn't make it right, but that doesn't make it right or constitutional. This idea that the Supreme Court has never made rulings before that were actually unconstitutional. It's bizarre to me. The Supreme Court has gotten stuff wrong all sorts of times. Gorst said, maybe it's time for the Court to do something about it. This accumulations of power in independent agencies. Kavanaugh echoed that, indicating that broad delegations to unaccountable independent agencies pose serious questions about civil liberties and regulatory burdens. Amy Cony Barrett She noted that Congress once had a legislative veto until the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional. And here's the thing. When Congress had that veto, it allowed it to overturn decisions that were made by these administrative agencies. Congress may have been willing at one time to give these agencies like the FTC sweeping powers because Congress thought that it could override the agency decisions. But now independent agencies aren't accountable to either Congress or the president. That's not a check or balance, Dana, it's neither. Without that check on their powers, the agencies had become something Congress did not intend. Right, So, there seemed to be a clear majority on the Court that is ready to rule that Trump does in fact have the power to fire executive branch employees. But it's less certain whether these judges are going to take an additional step of completely overruling the original nineteen thirty five case called Humphreys Executor. Gorsuch, though, said that the opinion was poorly reasoned, one of the factors that justices consider in determining whether to overrule a past precedent. So they could, but Amy, howse says it didn't seem like there was enough support, at least articulated during oral arguments. All right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. 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. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to dpetekallanershow dot com. Again, thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.