Vivek & Friends talk Chevron Deference & the Plot to Replace Joe Biden

Added: Jul 5, 2024

Replacing Joe Biden

Ramaswamy argues that Biden's debate performance raised serious questions about whether he is truly functioning as president. He suggests that if Biden is not actually leading the country, it creates a dangerous situation where it's unclear who is really in charge. Ramaswamy points to Biden's struggles at international summits and his repeated gaffes as evidence of his declining capabilities.

Steve Roberts, one of the guests, explains that it would be relatively simple for the Democratic Party to replace Biden as the nominee at this stage. He notes that the primary process has only elected delegates to the convention, not officially nominated Biden. Under Democratic Party rules, those delegates are not strictly bound to vote for Biden. Roberts outlines several ways Biden could be replaced, including before the convention, at the convention itself, or even after being officially nominated if he were to step aside due to illness or other reasons.

Ramaswamy speculates that Michelle Obama could emerge as a potential replacement nominee, as she is widely popular and could rise above intra-party conflicts. He suggests the Obama machine may already be pulling strings behind the scenes. The guests discuss the risks and implications of replacing Biden, including potential damage to public trust. They note it could be seen as an admission that Democratic leaders have been dishonest about Biden's capabilities.

The Administrative State and Recent Supreme Court Rulings

The conversation then shifts to recent Supreme Court rulings that significantly curtailed the power of the administrative state. Ramaswamy argues this is particularly relevant given questions about who is actually running the government if Biden is impaired. He suggests unelected bureaucrats in federal agencies may have assumed an unprecedented level of executive power in Biden's absence.

Steve Roberts explains two key Supreme Court rulings: the overturning of the Chevron doctrine, which had required courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws, and a ruling that administrative law judges within agencies like the SEC are unconstitutional. He notes these decisions will allow many industries to challenge burdensome regulations that have hindered their operations.

Ramaswamy frames the reining in of the administrative state as a potentially unifying issue that should appeal to both the left and right. He expresses disappointment that it has become viewed as a primarily conservative cause, arguing that liberals should also be wary of unaccountable bureaucratic power. The guests discuss how this represents a realignment from past decades, when skepticism of government overreach was more associated with the political left.

Paul Davis provides historical context, noting that resistance to bureaucratic control was a key motivation of the American Revolution. He observes that throughout history, there have been tensions between self-governance and rule by unelected elites. Davis suggests the current situation may lead to a reassessment of how much power citizens are willing to cede to bureaucrats in exchange for perceived stability and prosperity.

The Future of American Politics and Society

Ramaswamy outlines what he sees as an emerging divide within the Republican Party and America First movement. He describes one faction that wants to replace left-wing bureaucracy with a right-wing version focused on industrial policy and protectionism. The other faction, which he aligns himself with, wants to dramatically reduce the administrative state altogether in favor of a more libertarian approach.

The participants discuss the challenges of dismantling entrenched bureaucracies and the potential short-term tradeoffs involved. They debate whether using expanded regulatory power for conservative ends is a dangerous game that could backfire when political control inevitably shifts. Ramaswamy argues for making the rollback of the administrative state the top priority, even if it means sacrificing other policy goals in the short term.

Looking to the future, Paul Davis expresses cautious optimism about America's trajectory. While acknowledging the deep divisions of recent years, he believes most Americans still share core values and can find common ground. Davis suggests moving past the "high octane" approach to politics and focusing on a common-sense vision for the country's future.

Ramaswamy pushes back somewhat on this optimistic view. While agreeing that America still has advantages over other nations, he worries about the country losing its special role as a "shining city on a hill" that inspires the world. He argues that maintaining American greatness will require civic sacrifice and difficult choices in the years ahead.

Reflections on Recent Events

The conversation touches on other major events of the week, including Biden's struggles at the G7 summit and new Supreme Court rulings. Ramaswamy argues these developments raise serious questions about who is actually running the country if Biden is as impaired as he appeared in the debate. He expresses concern about unelected bureaucrats potentially wielding unprecedented executive power in Biden's absence.

The guests discuss the mechanics of how Democrats could potentially replace Biden as the nominee at this late stage. They outline several possible scenarios, including action at the convention or even after Biden is officially nominated if he were to step aside due to health issues. Ramaswamy speculates that Michelle Obama could emerge as a compromise replacement candidate.

Legal and Constitutional Issues

Steve Roberts provides insight into recent Supreme Court rulings that significantly curtailed the power of the administrative state. He explains the overturning of the Chevron doctrine, which had required courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws. Roberts also discusses a ruling that administrative law judges within agencies like the SEC are unconstitutional.

Ramaswamy frames these rulings as potentially reunifying issues that should appeal across the political spectrum. He expresses disappointment that skepticism of the administrative state has become viewed as a primarily conservative position, arguing that liberals should also be wary of unaccountable bureaucratic power. The guests discuss how this represents a realignment from past decades when the left was more associated with civil libertarianism.

The conversation also touches on the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity, which Ramaswamy suggests takes "another leg out of the stool" of legal attacks against Donald Trump. Roberts explains that the ruling gives presidents broad immunity for official acts taken while in office, potentially impacting ongoing cases against Trump.

Historical Context and Future Implications

Paul Davis draws parallels to past instances of presidential incapacity and attempts to conceal it from the public. He notes that concerns about leaders' mental fitness are not new, citing examples from ancient history through more recent cases like Woodrow Wilson's stroke.

The participants discuss the long-term implications of potentially replacing Biden as the nominee after repeatedly attesting to his fitness for office. They debate whether this would further erode public trust in institutions or if it could be framed as a necessary correction. Ramaswamy argues that systematic dishonesty from government and media sources on issues like the Hunter Biden laptop story and COVID-19 origins has already done significant damage to institutional credibility.

Looking to the future, the guests express a mix of concern and cautious optimism about America's trajectory. While acknowledging deep divisions and governance challenges, they suggest the country still has fundamental strengths that put it in a better position than many global rivals. However, Ramaswamy pushes back somewhat on complacency, arguing that maintaining American greatness will require difficult choices and civic sacrifice in the years ahead.

The Administrative State and Political Realignment

A significant portion of the conversation focuses on the growth of the administrative state and recent efforts to rein it in. Ramaswamy frames this as a potentially unifying issue that has been mistakenly ceded to conservatives. He expresses disappointment that modern liberals have largely abandoned skepticism of unaccountable government power that was once associated with the left.

The guests discuss an emerging divide within the Republican Party and broader America First movement on this issue. They outline one faction that wants to repurpose expanded regulatory power for conservative ends focused on industrial policy and protectionism. The other faction, which Ramaswamy aligns himself with, wants to dramatically reduce the administrative state altogether in favor of a more libertarian approach.

The participants debate the challenges of dismantling entrenched bureaucracies and the potential short-term tradeoffs involved. Ramaswamy argues for making rollback of the administrative state the top priority, even if it means sacrificing other policy goals in the near term. He suggests this will be a key fault line in upcoming intra-party debates on the right.