Time for Chevron to die (06-26-2024--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 WBT 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 the Pete Kaliner show.com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button, get every episode for free, write to your smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for your support.

[00:00:29] All right, so one of the other Supreme Court rulings that we are waiting on is. As Paula Bolliard at PJ Media calls it, the most important Supreme Court case you've probably never heard of. Although if you listen to WBT, you probably have. It's called the Chevron Doctrine. Right.

[00:00:57] Chevron deference, it's also called. It concerns the power of federal agencies to interpret laws and promulgate them into regulations. These things, this case, this deference, it affects nearly every one of us in one way or another. Chevron deference, one of the worst rulings ever.

[00:01:26] And it's why the federal government has been able to do so much of what it currently does without legislative approval. It's how the administrative state has been able to grow so rapidly. The deference allows the courts through a two step process to defer to, quote, reasonable

[00:01:47] administrative agency interpretations if a federal statute is unclear. OK, so if if the lawmakers write a law and then, you know, it gets passed and. And, you know, it gets implemented and people are like, I'm not really sure what it is mean, whatever, then.

[00:02:12] The bureaucrats get to come in. And put some meat on the bones, if you will. Which means more regulations. By the way, this is how you end up with all of the differing opinions on Title nine stuff. Right, with like, well, what's a woman?

[00:02:33] How do you define a female sports and like all of these definitions that get twisted and turned about with the change of every administration? This is why that happens. There was this case called Chevron, and it set in motion this this doctrine or this deference.

[00:02:52] And it allows the administrators in the executive branch. To write the law. Remember with Obamacare, it was the DHHS secretary department or Department of Health and Human Services. At the time, Sebelius, right, Kathleen Sebelius, that she'll write the law.

[00:03:12] Secretary shall write the law or shall write the rule, shall write the rule. There was I forget like thousands of references to that where now lawmakers have gotten so lazy that they don't even write all of this stuff. They don't think it through. They don't do the work.

[00:03:26] Right. Or OK, they don't have their staffers do the work and they just offloaded all to the executive branch. And the president isn't getting that deep into the line items. Right. Turn it over to the bureaucracies who then create all of these structures. I have a.

[00:03:49] I got a good I got a good insight to this. I was part of an organization. I'm not going to name any of the names and I'm just going to give you sort of high view stuff, but. Part of an organization and there was a person.

[00:04:08] That was in the organization with me who was a former bureaucrat at the federal level. And the person spent so much time and effort and attention on constructing frameworks for everything. Like. Would spend months talking about how to go about doing something if we so choose to do

[00:04:35] so that you never ended up moving forward like just this inertia or or lack thereof. Right. Just objects at rest tend to stay at rest. And that's where we were. It was so frustrating for people that were with this other individual.

[00:04:52] That wanted like, OK, we've identified a problem. Here's the solution. And it was like, whoa, whoa, whoa. Can't really do that solution. Going to have to create the framework on how we do this and let's try to think it through in all these different. It's just like.

[00:05:08] Like, it's just this is an easy fix. We just need to make a phone call and then they'll come out and fix it. But we need to be transparent in all of this kind of stuff. Like, oh, my gosh. Just fix the thing.

[00:05:24] There were, you know, entrepreneurs and business leaders and stuff that was part of the organization. And they they had no patience for this at all. It really was a good microcosm of the problems that are afflicting the society now. And a lot of this stuff comes from Chevron.

[00:05:42] Because the bureaucrats rule the roost. You can't get rid of them at the federal level. You can't fire these people. And then just like all large organizations, even if they were designed for good purposes, with good intentions. And then like there and I know this is government.

[00:06:00] So this is like kind of a joke, but they solve the problem. Let's say they let's just I know just like in this fantasy construct I am developing here. They they're designed to solve a certain problem and then they do it. They solve the problem.

[00:06:17] Does the does the bureaucracy go away? Does the agency disband? No, of course not. Mission creep. They start doing other things, right? It happens in all large organizations. That's why when people were like criticizing Elon Musk for firing a whole bunch of people

[00:06:38] at Twitter, like, no, I'm fine with that. I understand why that happens. Except in radio, actually. No, but well, yeah, because you got content creators. It doesn't make sense. But whatever. The thing is that you have large organizations that lose sight of core missions because they

[00:06:53] get they're successful in addressing the thing that they were designed to do. And then once they do it, they get it all worked out. Then it's like, cool. It's all running right. It's all running well. And then you're always looking for other things to do.

[00:07:06] It's like, OK, how can we get better? What else can we do with this technology? What maybe we branch out into other things. Maybe we make a new formula for Coke, you know, stuff like that.

[00:07:17] Chevron gives the federal agencies and the president in power broad authority to regulate everything from health care to immigration, to women's sports, to the covid shots. Paula Bolliard at PJ Media writes that the high court consolidated two cases.

[00:07:40] One is called Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo, which everybody loves Raimondo from what I understand, and Relentless Incorporated versus Department of Commerce. And they heard oral arguments back in January. Both of these cases, and I've covered some of the details, the specifics of the cases.

[00:07:58] I'm not going to go deep into the cases themselves, but they both concern the National Marine Fisheries Services. Did you even know such a thing existed? The NMFS or the Nymphs? Is that a kind of fish? National Marine Fisheries Services. They interpreted a federal fishing law.

[00:08:25] That requires government monitors to accompany certain fishing boats. The issue is who pays for the monitors? Because when I say monitors, I don't mean like devices. I mean people. So the agency is requiring the fishing boats to have a person on the boat, right?

[00:08:49] In order to comply with the law, because it was kind of vague when it was written. And so this is how they are interpreting it. You got to have a monitor. Oh, and because it was kind of vague when it was written, we're going to make you pay

[00:09:01] for it, fishermen. Now I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but fishing is not the most lucrative line of work. I come from Long Island, used to be a fishing island. It's shaped like a fish for crying out loud.

[00:09:18] But it's now basically one big suburb to quote the philosopher Billy Joel, who wrote a song about it. It's called Downeaster Alexa, right? That's what that song is about. And it is based in truth because now most of the stuff that occurs off the coast of

[00:09:35] Long Island, which is very long, it's like 150 miles long and there's two sides to it. You go out, you got to go far out to go fishing. If you're going into the bay, the great South Bay, you're looking for fluke and that is a fish.

[00:09:50] That is a fish. It's very much like a flounder, but it's like really, really rare that you catch it. Hence the name. But there's not a lot of money in this line of work and there's a lot of expense.

[00:10:07] And so now you got to pay to have a government agent on your boat. So that's what the case is about. All right, so talking about Chevron and it is time for this precedent, this old Supreme Court ruling to fall. It is.

[00:10:26] And I know a lot of people on the left are very worried that, oh my God, what are we going to do if we can't govern by bureaucratic fiat? Well, you know what? Then we're going to have to actually legislate. Oh no, but stuff doesn't get done.

[00:10:39] Well, don't threaten me with a good time. I am totally fine with it getting harder for the federal government to do stuff. That's not the proper role. Enumerated powers, anybody? Okay.

[00:10:59] So PJmedia.com has got a piece by Paula Bollier and she talks about the cases that got brought together, Loper, Bright and Relentless. These are the two different cases they got put together. And they're basically two fishing outfits that are paying for these government monitors

[00:11:21] on their boat, these people to come onto the boats. So who is supposed to pay for them? The statute is not clear on the point. And so using the Chevron deference, the lower court ruled that the National Marine Fisheries

[00:11:36] Services had the right to require the fishermen to pay for the monitors. You know what they cost? $700 a day. I mean, that's getting close to like John Moore producer money right there. Moving on. Make no mistake, she says, public bureaucrats are terrified that Chevron could fall and

[00:12:05] curtail the immense power they now hold. Amy Howe, writing at SCOTUSblog, that's the Supreme Court of the United States SCOTUSblog. She describes the oral arguments in the two cases that could decide the fate of Chevron. Quote, the court's three liberal justices expressed support for keeping the doctrine

[00:12:25] in place. Justice Elena Kagan repeatedly suggested that federal agencies with their scientific and technical expertise are better suited than courts to resolve ambiguities in a federal statute. Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed with Kagan. She doubted that whether there can be a best interpretation of a law when the justices

[00:12:46] routinely disagree about a law's meaning. The real question, she said, is who makes the choice about what an ambiguous law means. And if the court needs a tiebreaker, why shouldn't it defer to the agency with its expertise?

[00:13:04] Justice Katonji Brown-Jackson posited that the Chevron doctrine serves an important purpose. Under Chevron, she suggested, Congress gives federal agencies the power to make policy choices, such as filling gaps or defining terms in the statute.

[00:13:20] But if Chevron is overturned and agencies no longer have that power, she predicted, then the courts will have to make those kinds of policy decisions. Or the lawmakers can. Indeed, they should. When you read statutes, when you read bills, right, they have entire sections devoted to definitions.

[00:13:42] And guess what happens if something is unclear and someone comes along and they're like, hey, this is unclear? It gets back to the legislative body and then that body can add in a definition. They can pass a law that says, here's the definition.

[00:13:58] We're going to amend that law. And we define this thing to be what it is. So no, the agency cannot require the fishermen to pay it. The agency has to pay it. They got to they have to pay for the monitors. Right.

[00:14:13] They need to provide that clarity to the agencies. They don't just get they don't get to go all old Jason Bourne here. It's second reference in the show today. It's not intentional. I promise. Going over this Chevron deference ruling that we are anticipating from the U.S. Supreme

[00:14:28] Court. There's a story I'm seeing that apparently the court inadvertently, erroneously published an opinion or something today and it wasn't supposed to. It's like, oops, I sent that over. No recall. Recall. No, sorry. It's already got posted.

[00:14:47] So they they retracted it like they're not done with it yet. But anyway, but it's not on this case. Paula Bollier at PJ Media says, understand that this is all about power and who should have it.

[00:15:03] That's what the Chevron deference is about, whether the executive branch and the the bureaucrats get to write these rules when the law is, quote, ambiguous. She says, to be fair, both sides have used federal agencies and Chevron deference to advance policies that they can't get through Congress.

[00:15:20] It makes a mockery of the separation of powers established in the Constitution. But it works for as long as a president is in office. Every time there's a new president, all the little hamsters in the federal agencies go to work changing the rules. Or they don't actually, right?

[00:15:39] They'll slow down on the hamster wheels. They'll they'll they'll gum up the works, throw sand in the gears. Which brings me to a piece of The New York Times by Charlie Savage, Reed Epstein, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan.

[00:16:00] An emerging coalition that views Donald Trump's agenda as a threat to democracy is laying the groundwork to push back if he wins in November, taking extraordinary preemptive actions. So first off, New York Times, is this really an emerging coalition?

[00:16:21] Because I kind of feel like this coalition has been together for a while. Right. OK. They report that opponents of Donald Trump are drafting potential lawsuits in case he is elected in November and tries to carry out mass deportations.

[00:16:37] One group has hired a new auditor to withstand any attempt by a second Trump administration to unleash the IRS against them. You mean like Obama did with the Tea Party? Oh, that's different because it was a Democrat. Right. OK. Democratic run state governments are even stockpiling abortion medication.

[00:17:00] This is what I said earlier in the program. Like if you listen to NPR. You are fed a constant diet. Of how Trump is going to be the next Hitler. And that is not a healthy diet, people. It's not. OK.

[00:17:20] A sprawling network of Democrat officials, progressive activists, watchdog groups and ex Republicans. OK, so basically everybody that's already been. That's what I said. This this is not emerging. This is not an emerging coalition. They've been taking extraordinary steps. Really? Are they extraordinary?

[00:17:42] I think after eight years, that counts as ordinary at this point. Don't you think? I do. They're taking extraordinary steps to prepare for a potential second Trump presidency drawn together by the fear. I would just put a period right there, guys.

[00:17:59] You don't have to even continue with the rest of the sentence. You're just you're just. Yeah, you're just like a ball of neurosis. That's like the third time I've said neurosis or some form of it today. But it's true.

[00:18:12] They are drawn together by the fear that they will lose money by not being anti Trump. I'm kidding. They didn't say that. They said a fear that Trump's return to power would pose a grave threat, not just to their agenda, but to American democracy itself.

[00:18:30] Note how their agenda and American democracy. Are like the same thing. Note the assumptions, right? People's fear a new Trump administration could rescind approval or use a 19th century morality law to criminalize the abortion pill, sending it across state lines. By the way.

[00:19:01] If you are so fearful of any administration, that is a sign that the federal government is too large. It is too powerful. The election of a president should not cause this kind of anxiety. The reason it does is because the federal government is too large and powerful.

[00:19:26] It is doing things that it should not be doing. The executive branch has overreached. It's been doing so for decades. This is why I talk about it as like my number one issue, federal overreach when it comes to voting for president.

[00:19:42] There's a candidate that comes out and is like, I'm going to be reigning in the federal government, reigning in the presidency, the executive branch like Rand Paul promised, although he didn't go anywhere with the message in 2016. That's why I supported Rand Paul initially in 2016.

[00:19:58] He was literally the only Republican on the stage even uttering these words. No, now we as Americans, we are apparently very comfortable using the executive branch to do stuff. So it's not that like the left, the left is sitting here making all these arguments about democracy.

[00:20:18] But what they're advocating for is tyranny. They just want to be in control of it. Right. And when you get people on the right that have traditionally historically been against that kind of abuse by the executive branch, when now I see these ranks populated by people

[00:20:36] that are like, yes, let's do that too. But do it from our point of view. That's not better. OK, well, it's a little bit better because I agree with the outcome, but that doesn't make it right. The process matters.

[00:20:50] This stuff matters when when because if you're going to do it, then then that means the other guy is going to do it. And I understand the arguments about unilateral disarmament. I get it. It's a tough spot to be in.

[00:21:01] But the the executive should not be doing these types of things, which is why the Supreme Court is. Hopefully going to kill Chevron. But I don't know if it will not after today's decision on the free speech stuff, God only

[00:21:15] knows what they got in store for this for the Fisher, the fisheries case. 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.

[00:21:27] But if you haven't started getting prepared for various emergencies, I got to ask, what are you waiting for? 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.

[00:21:40] If you're an experienced prepper, they can help you to being prepared is just smart. We've already established that you're smart. I mean, you listen to this podcast after all. So let's put those smarts into action. Go to Carolina readiness dot com.

[00:21:54] That's Carolina readiness dot com or call them at eight to eight to two six seventy two thirty nine. Carolina Readiness Supply has 2000 square feet of supplies as well as educational materials that you're going to need for any kind of emergency. Veteran owned Carolina Readiness Supply.

[00:22:10] Will you be ready when the lights go out? All right, The New York Times feeding the diet to the the deranged that Donald Trump is the tyrant. He's going to turn us into Nazi Germany and all of this stuff. And so they have this big story.

[00:22:26] And by the way, this story gets reported because people want it out there. This is fear mongering, right? This is the whole point here is to motivate the base. They're worried Biden's going to lose.

[00:22:38] And so they got to keep everybody amped up, you know, on an 11 out of 10 scale here. If Mr. Trump returns to power. He's openly planning to impose radical changes, many with authoritarian overtones, which is weird because you would think an authoritarian would just, you know, not even

[00:22:57] worry about overtones. They would just do it because they're authoritarians. That's kind of their jam, right? That's the deal. You just like I'm in charge. Boom. Smash the opposition, right? Throw them in jail like Biden's doing that kind of thing.

[00:23:11] Those plans include using the Justice Department to take revenge on his adversaries. Sent like Biden has done sending federal troops into Democrat cities. Well, that's if there's rioting, he's not just going to send them there to. Why would you leave that part out?

[00:23:31] Right, to control violence because you guys are not doing it yourselves, in other words, to protect citizens like that was anyway, OK, carrying out mass deportations, building huge camps to hold immigrant detainees make, which we already do.

[00:23:46] I think we do have places where they OK, making it easier to fire civil servants. No. And replace them with loyalists and expanding and centralizing executive power. So now The New York Times is worried about expanding and centralizing executive power, which has been going on for decades.

[00:24:06] Now there's concern about this. Ian Bassin, the executive director of Protect Democracy from the GOP only said the planning for how to resist such an agenda should not be seen as an ordinary policy dispute, but as an effort to defend fundamental aspects of American self-government from

[00:24:26] an aspiring autocrat. So I mean. All of this is in revolutionary language, this is how they speak, they believe this stuff, too. A lot of the people that are saying this, they're not they're not saying this out of ignorance, they're saying it because they believe it.

[00:24:44] They've either drunk too much of the Kool-Aid, right, or they're paranoid, they're neurotic, wracked with anxiety. This has become a religion for them. The leaders of many of the centrist and left leaning groups involved in the effort insist their energies are primarily devoted to preventing Mr.

[00:25:05] Trump from regaining power in the first place. Many are also wary about discussing their contingency plans publicly for fear of signaling a lack of confidence in President Biden's campaign prospects. Well, yeah.

[00:25:21] Well, yeah, I mean, that is that that's part of the that would be part of the message here, right? Because you wouldn't be making all of these plans if you were so confident. In Joe Biden, their angst is intensified by Mr.

[00:25:38] Biden's low approval numbers and by his persistent trailing of Trump in polls of states that are likely to decide the election. Notice there's no mention of the cognitive decline of Joe Biden here, which might actually be prompting some of the low polling.

[00:25:55] Well, that and all of his progressive policies that you guys are really, really insistent is democracy. Interviews with more than 30 officials and leaders of organizations about their plans revealed a combination of acute exhaustion and acute anxiety. Activist groups that spent the four years of Trump's presidency organizing mass

[00:26:17] protests and pursuing legal challenges, ultimately helping channel that energy into persuading voters to oust him from power in 2020 are now realizing with great dread they may have to resist him all over again. Oh, I'm sorry this is happening to you.

[00:26:34] But really, this gives your life meaning, doesn't it? Let's be honest. What would you otherwise what would you be doing? Right. You're not going to live in the Chazz Chop all year long, right? You know, it's just a temporary thing. Right. It's like a merit badge.

[00:26:49] You get the badge and then you get to walk around like I was at the Chazz Chop, you know, and you get to live off of that for like a decade. So a second Trump White House would be both more radical and more effective, they say,

[00:26:59] especially on core issues like immigration. So it's so so Trump would be literally the worst president since Trump. He's like it's like new and improved Trump. He's like. He's like extra special Trump with two times the Hitler like this is

[00:27:18] guys, there comes a point when the sales pitch becomes so over the top. So, so exaggerative and hyperbolic that it lacks credibility. I think you guys, you've jumped the shark on this stuff at this point, at least for

[00:27:35] me and you know me, I'm no huge fan of Donald Trump. I didn't vote for the guy the last two times. But this you're you're embarrassing yourselves here, OK? This is this is a bit much. But don't you worry, he's not going to relinquish control.

[00:27:50] I don't actually worry about that. I'm more worried about Don Jr. running and having like a political dynasty happen. I'm more worried about that than I am about Donald Trump not relinquishing control. You know, I don't know why. Because he's not in the White House right now.

[00:28:04] Past performance is indicative of future predictions. What makes you think that the guy at age 83 or whatever he's going to be 84 by the time he's done, like if he were to win, I think he's like in your face, got my second term

[00:28:18] or third, got your second, got my second term. I'm done in your face. Cry about it more, you know? And then he and then he's off into the sunset after he gives himself some pardons. All right. That'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening.

[00:28:32] 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.

[00:28:41] You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to the Pete Calliner show dot com. Again, thank you so much for listening. And don't break anything while I'm gone.