John Roberts, Joe Biden, Congress discussed on Erick Erickson


Course, there's a lot of other stuff happening. There's actually some breaking news happening right now. The fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has left the Texas law in place the abortion law in place. SB eight. They refer to it as And their reasoning again highlights some of the the hysteria out there before I do that before I get into that, though, and everything else. The phone number here is 87797 Eric 87797374 to 5. If you would like to be on this year program, you are more than welcome to. It's kind of a free for all today it is Friday, after all, so you can call in and Help set the agenda. Let me explain this issue because it's the press is doing such a terrible job. As I have said ad nauseam. Now I'm just repeating myself. The American press tinge to be pro abortion, whether you are or not. The American political press in particular, and news channels tends to be and so they oftentimes will wilfully mis report things when it comes to abortion. This is one of those situations that this circuit Court of appeals Is allowing the Texas law to stay in place for one reason and one reason only. The plaintiffs sued the wrong people. It is Law school one. Oh, one. In order for a court to have power over someone that person must be responsible in some way. If you sue the wrong people, the court can't help you. And when you sue people and say these people are going to enforce the law, ordered them to stop enforcing it. And those people have no power to enforce the law. The court can actually help you. So you have to sue the right people, and they didn't do the right people. So, for all of this hysteria over the courts have overturned Roe versus Wade surreptitiously. That's not really true. It's not really true. What actually happened is the lawyers for the plaintiffs screwed up. They sued the wrong people. And part of me thinks that given the way the media continues to willfully misrepresent what actually happened in Texas, that is that may have been by design. It may be part of a coordinated PR strategy to rev up hysteria. I don't know, though, that they can rev up hysteria as much on that as the hysteria on vaccines. I talked in the first hour about the legality and let me just review this real quick for those who weren't here in the first hour. Let me review just really quickly the legal issue with Joe Biden's vaccine mandate before I get into this hour now the political issue on the legal side of things Congress established OSHA, the Occupational Safety Health Administration, or whatever Occupational Health and safety administration it is a federal agency under the executive branch that Congress established to Oversee workplace environments and safety. There are And these guys OSHA employees tend to be would be desperate. Anyone who has ever dealt with OSHA will tell you, they tend to be the worst of the worst federal bureaucrat. They are invasive. They are bullying. They are inept, and they don't care. And so Joe Biden is empowering one of the most intrusive federal agencies even more so than the IRS two degree to oversee vaccine mandates. And essentially, you must either be vaccinated or tested constantly, Uh, about covid that take your pick. And in so doing, there is a question as to whether or not OSHA has the power under the legislation that chartered them into being do they really have the power to do that? Now there is a legal case called Chevron. And the Chevron standard. Let me see if I can actually pull up the Chevron standard. Um, for Oh, Well, this Yeah, the chevron doctrine. Uh, yeah. Let me let me let me Let me do this. I'm going to read this because it probably, um, will make more sense that if I try to explain to my ward Chevron deference is a doctrine of judicial deference that compels judicial courts in reviewing a federal government agencies actions to defer to the agency's construction of a statute that Congress directed the agency to administer the original two ships step Chevron process was outlined in the case. Chevron USA versus Natural Resources Defense Council eek. The 1984 ruling provided federal courts with the following two step process. The court must determine whether Congress expressed intent in the statute. And if so, whether or not the statutes intent is ambiguous. And then in X Tamminen, the agency's reasonable construction of the statute, of course, must assess whether the decision of Congress to leave an ambiguity Or failed to include expressed language on a specific point was done explicitly or implicitly. Now, what does this actually mean in the real world? It means that when Congress creates a federal agency The legislation that creates those agencies tends to be volume, voluminous volume US and convoluted and very ambiguous. And so when there is ambiguity in the creation of a federal agency under the Chevron tests, courts defer to the agency to make sense of the ambiguities, not the courts to make sense of the ambiguities. For a very, very, very long time. There has been a growing argument that you can't do this in 2000 and one in the case of United States versus Mead Corporation. The Supreme Court reigned in the Chevron step reigned in the Chevron deference. And essentially said a federal court must determine whether or not Congress intended for agencies or courts to possess interpretive authority. And in most cases that in and of itself is ambiguous. Neil Gorsuch and Bread Capital are actually two of the major leaders and John Roberts saying you we got to get rid of Chevron. We're going to rein it in its court should be able to interpret and by the way, if Congress writes an ambiguous statute that's on Congress's fault, it's not actually our fault. Uh and This setup is Joe Biden giving OSHA power to enforce vaccine mandates, even though there's not clear statutory authority to do so. But Congress chartered OSHA To establish workplace safety and health guidelines. So arguably, Biden can can arguably say well, so I can mandate a vaccine through OSHA and enforce it at the workplace. So now the courts are given the perfect opportunity to rein in in the Chevron doctrine and say, no, you can't that that's too broad, too. Too vague. You can't do that. The courts generally say if something is too broad and too vague and too ambiguous, she can't do it. If I haven't lost you, and if I have let me get you back here. What's actually happening here is Joe Biden wants the courts to strike this down. Joe Biden knows no president should have the power to mandate vaccines. But he's got to look powerful. He's got to do something. And so he can rely on the courts to say sorry, Chevron Standard out the window. You can't do this. OSHA doesn't have the power, so Joe Biden can say, Well, I tried, but it's those stupid Trump judges. It's their fault. So it saves Joe Biden from himself and allows him to blame Trump judges. But the politics of this we need to focus on the politics of this. That's the legal issue. We need to focus on the politics here. Yeah. I now maintain. We can't really rely on polls except in two ways. If all the polls show something there's probably there there. And if all the polls are headed in the same direction, there's probably there there. We may not know how many people support or how many people oppose. But we can probably say, you know, we have a sense that the American people are headed somewhere. Here's where the American people seem to be headed in all of the polling. It shows public majority not not plurality, but majority support for vaccine mandates. You and I may not like them. But we should understand even if we say the polls are wrong when all of the polls out there show that most Americans favor, Um, the odds are most Americans favor him. But Those are also most Americans living in blue states who are already gonna vote Democrat. What about the Atlanta suburbs? What about New Hampshire voters..

Coming up next