Supreme Court Uproots the Administrative State; Biden Calls to Drop Filibuster to Codify Roe V. Wade

Hey, welcome back everyone. One of the biggest cases I think actually we've seen in quite a long time just happened in the U.S. and I think almost everybody missed what was important about it. The Supreme Court made a ruling on the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and in doing so what they actually did was made a ruling against the administrative state. This is basically changing the way the governments worked for like well over 80 years, which is probably longer than that, since like the 1930s, where agencies, right, different government agencies can basically create their own laws. Laws as in, you know, the administrative laws, not necessarily passed through normal legislative process laws, meaning that basically we've been living under an administrative state, not the government that the founding fathers imagined. The Supreme Court just made a ruling on the EPA and as part of that they actually challenged this whole administrative state idea. That's important to anybody who knows about like the deep state or, you know, these permanent bureaucrats or these agencies. This is really what it is. The Supreme Court essentially undid a lot of that in this recent ruling. I'm going to be explaining to you exactly what happened, why this matters, how that whole thing worked, because honestly I really haven't seen many articles online talking about it. There were some beforehand, but really afterwards it was almost like radio silence. It was very strange. Also folks, the Supreme Court, striking yet again, just put new restrictions on gun control. Restrictions on gun control, i.e. the move to take guns away from people. And what we saw them do was actually very interesting. I talked about the recent ruling in New York on concealed carry permits and I mentioned, well, the big thing with that was not necessarily the ruling on concealed carry. The big thing the Supreme Court did was made it so that different governments in the U.S., if they want to pass gun control legislation, they have to demonstrate really that they're adhering with American tradition. You know, they have to make sure they're adhering to all these different things. The Supreme Court just sent these cases back to the lower courts and told them to reassess the case based on this new guidance. So we're now watching that specific part I mentioned before getting put in practice. I'll be explaining that as well. That said, folks, happy 4th of July. Happy Independence Day. One of the most common holidays in the world, celebrated by more than 60 different countries, is countries celebrating how they, well, kicked the British out and achieved independence. So this is an international holiday in some ways, just celebrated on different days. Folks, pleasure having you all here. Let's get started. So first off, real quick too, those of you on YouTube and Rumble, we also have a special today as well, July 4th, Independence Day, 50% off on Epic TV. Make sure you grab that, jump over, join us on Epic TV. Again, we do about, you know, 20-ish minutes on YouTube, other channels. We do an hour and a half show on Epic TV. So join us for the full show, the Q&A. There's always a lot of stuff I'd like to get into that, well, we just can't get into on YouTube because they give us strikes for doing it. All right, folks, let's talk about the EPA, though. Really, the impact of this, the significance of this really can't be understated. And frankly, the impact of it and the significance of it was missed by like almost every article I read, which blew my mind a little bit. Basically, the Supreme Court, they had a huge impact on rolling back government overreach. And maybe a lot of people don't realize the nature of government overreach. What they're talking about typically is what you call the administrative state. Let me explain. Now, first off, let me show you where this all started, at least, I mean, on the current case, the EPA rule, not the whole history of the administrative state. It goes back to the 1930s, technically. But on the EPA ruling, this is Harvard Law talking about this. All right, this is what Biden was trying to do with this whole ruling. It says the Biden administration set a goal of creating a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035 and net zero emissions economy-wide by 2050. Net zero. Folks, you and I are made of carbon. Cows breathe out carbon. We breathe out carbon dioxide. Net zero is impossible to do unless you like eliminate all life on earth. But this was the goal, right? Yeah. Zero emissions 2050. To achieve those targets, the administration is taking, this is Harvard, the administration is taking a whole-of-government approach. EPA has a key role in regulatory effort, right? Regulatory effort, right? I'm talking about for the power sector. And below is a compilation of our legal analysis, podcasts, and tracker posts of the Biden administration's efforts to advance these rules. Rules, again, pass through the administrative state, not through Congress, not through the normal legislative process. Now, they say this includes rebuilding the regulations that the Trump administration rolled back. Remember, most of what Trump did when he was president, a lot of the economic benefits we saw, even America becoming a net exporter of oil, a lot of that was not him essentially creating things. A lot of that was him cutting red tape. What Trump was doing in a lot of cases, including with environment, including with the businesses, was really getting rid of regulations. He was cutting away at the administrative state. Now, what Clarence Thomas just did really is like Trump times a thousand, because he just basically dismantled this thing to a huge extent. I'll get into that in a bit, but let me tell you a bit of what this had. So, this new Biden energy policy, this is what it was going to have. It was going to have greenhouse gas emission regulations, mercury and air toxic standards, coal ash rule, cross state air pollution rule, guidance from major sources under the Clean Air Act, greenhouse gas, performance standards for power plants, national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter and ozone, power plant startup shutdown and malfunction rule, power plant effluent limits, regional haze rule, so on and so on. They were even creating different regulations for the EPA and other areas that could even go for racial justice. That ties into a whole other issue when you talk about racial justice. Also, they're doing this to the health administration, because again, why are they involved in human affairs, essentially? This is, again, part of the overstepping of the administrative state, where each branch of the government, every single little agency, even agencies you'd never think are doing anything, can create piles and piles and books and books and books of new laws that don't go through the normal process of legislation. Essentially, you get these unelected bureaucrats in place, and they can just do almost anything they want. Now, that has some interesting caveats to it, which I'll get into. But first, let me talk more about this case. Politico said this in 2021, last on Biden's new push for all this stuff and how he's trying to use the EPA for this Environmental Protection Agency. Politico said this, they said, President-elect, when he was, again, President-elect in 2021, President-elect Joe Biden's EPA could have significant legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants after a federal court on Tuesday struck down one of the Trump administration's biggest climate change rule rollbacks. The split-panel opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit for the first time offers a binding judicial opinion on the statutory scope of EPA's regulatory powers on greenhouse gases. Biden will launch his presidency on Wednesday with the most ambitious climate change plan ever sought by a White House, and the new ruling will make it easier for his administration to create rules, create rules, i.e. create laws while bypassing the legislative process, to create rules that help drive the nation's power grid toward net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2035, a goal that Biden has laid out. And folks, that was the trajectory we were on, that was where things were heading. Then this happened. Let me show you. This is the Supreme Court, West Virginia et al. versus Environmental Protection Agency et al., and the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA, meaning not only did they toss out that whole Biden plan, that whole big thing they were celebrating last year when he was still President-elect, not only did they get rid of that, but by using that, they also made a huge, huge dent into the administrative state, into the ability of government agencies to create laws without having to go through any normal process. These unelected bureaucrats, they basically, again, create books upon books upon books of new regulations and new laws that people have to follow, and if you violate them, ironically, actually, you can't even go through the normal court process to challenge them. Now, it was passed in a 6-3 ruling, kind of how the new norm, I'd say, for the Supreme Court, at least currently. On this, the court limited the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. Basically, it made it so the EPA cannot set climate standards for power plants, that's like the surface level, and that's really the part, I think, that most people talk about right now, in terms of what actually happened with this ruling. That's about as deep as a lot of media are going on this. Now, the court also ruled that this power is on Congress, not the EPA, and that's where it gets significant. So, by doing this, the court ruled on the EPA, in terms of precedents and all these things, and the way the Supreme Court works, by making this ruling, they made the determination that these types of powers, that regulatory ability, is not on agencies, but on Congress, i.e. in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. Meaning, they cannot bypass the normal legislative process to create laws. Meaning, really, a huge, huge percentage of the U.S. government is basically illegitimate now. I mean, to put it bluntly, that's essentially what it means. It means that they basically made books upon books, I mean, if you stacked them, it'd probably be taller than a building of laws, of regulations, made them just illegitimate. Because, again, they were created by bypassing that process, which the Supreme Court now says you have to go through if you want to do this kind of stuff. The kind of stuff that, well, the Constitution of the United States says you have to go through if you want to do this kind of stuff. Like, you know, welcome, folks, it's Independence Day, you just got your independence back. This is the new American revolution, and for some reason, almost nobody's talking about why this is such a big deal. This is the dismantling of the regulatory state, the dismantling of, really, the deep state, these unelected bureaucrats, to an extent that, I mean, I never thought I'd see in my lifetime, to some extent. Let me go more into this. Now, what this means, again, is that if Biden wants to pass now his climate agenda, if he wants to pass Build Back Better, if he wants to regulate whatever he wants to regulate, he has to go through Congress. And so Congress needs, in the normal process, Congress needs to create their bills, and they need to present them, and they need to debate them, and they have to go back and forth, and then there might be a filibuster, it might go back, and so on, and so on, and the President, finally, at the very end of it, has to sign off on it and say, okay, I agree to it, right? That's the normal legislative process. It's very hard in the United States, the way the Founding Fathers intentionally set it up, it's very hard to create new laws under normal practice in the United States. And again, that was the way the Founding Fathers imagined it. You have to go through both the House and the Senate, and then the President has to sign off on it. And if you're under the current system, again, where the Senate has a 50-50 break between the Republican and Democrat, and you have a filibuster requiring 60 votes, it's very hard to get anything passed unless it's, you know, let's say, balanced enough in such a way that, well, Republicans and Democrats are both going to agree on it. Even then, it's very difficult to do. So, on this note, too, the Supreme Court, again, doesn't just affect this, it affects, again, the foundations of this whole administrative state. Let me explain to you some of this. Now, to show you the gravity of this, to show you what this really means, let's look at what people are saying on the left and the right, right, before this happened. Funny enough, after it happened, you didn't see as much talk. But before it happened, if you went on Twitter, you could just watch, like, the screaming at the clouds, right? Let me show you what the left was saying, right? One example of this, this is Jay Kuo. He's the head of Team Taki. He wrote this on Twitter. And, really, it's pretty comprehensive in terms of what he said, although he's saying that this is, like, the devil incarnate and these new radical extremists who've taken over the Supreme Court are trying to uproot the government itself. That's essentially what he's saying. But let me tell you what he's saying. He says, not to freak anyone out, but there are still cases to come, talking about the, you know, he's talking about Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court still doing stuff. There are still cases to come, including one that will shake the power of the federal government to its core. It's called West Virginia v. EPA. And the most extreme ruling would declare that Congress lacks the power to delegate authority, which it does under the Constitution, right? That, again, Congress lacks the power to delegate authority to federal agencies to implement policy. They cannot bypass the judicial process, the legislative process, to create new laws. Under existing law, back when this was still the case, because it just changed, folks, under existing law, Congress may delegate its regulatory power to an administrative agency, but it must provide an intelligible principle or a standard by which the agency must exercise its quasi-legislative powers, its unelected bureaucrat powers. Now it says agencies, but recently conservative courts have resurrected the non-delegation doctrine to strike down acts by agencies that would easily have passed muster before. If applied in a draconian manner, the non-delegation doctrine could end federal government as we know it. Now, they say if the court actually went so far, which they did. Now, when they say end federal government as we know it, the as we know it is the important part, because what just ended was essentially the ability of agencies to do whatever the heck they want. The ability for a government official, well, a president, to create a new agency, and by creating the new agency allow that agency to create laws haphazardly doing essentially anything. Again, the unelected bureaucrats who really became the main powers in this country, the deep state, as many people would call it. Now he continues on this. He says, as Justice Kagan said in the case in 2019, if the defendant's delegation is unconstitutional, this is essentially talking about what would happen if a case, this is back in 2019, if a case were to take place that basically represents what in fact just did happen. If the government made a determination, right? If the government made a determination that essentially the powers of the legislative process are on Congress, not on agencies, this is what it would have meant. In other words, this is what just happened. And this was the warning they had back in 2019. If that were to happen, they say that basically if the defendant's delegation is unconstitutional, then most of the government is unconstitutional, right? Which it is. Most of the government as it stands right now in the United States is unconstitutional, right? Most of the administrative state is unconstitutional. Most of the laws we have abide by that were not passed through Congress are unconstitutional. They do not stand. Kagan was writing for the polarity of four liberals joined by Justice Alito in a concurrence that has always bothered me. This, again, leftist individuals talking. He says, quote, if a majority of this court were willing to reconsider the approach we have taken for the past 84 years, I would support that effort, he wrote, teasing the idea of non-delegation to his fellow conservatives. Now, let me show you what people are saying on the right. That's what people on the left were saying. This is people on the right. This is Greg Phillips. Many of you may be familiar with him, 2000 mules, OPSEC guy, operations security guy. This is him on Truth Social. And he had, of course, basically the same take, but instead of saying, you know, fear what shall come, he's saying, geez, I hope this happens. He says, I hope y'all will consider joining us in prayer tonight. The consequences of this ruling will resonate for another 100 years. For more than a century, Congress had ceded power to write broad and far-reaching laws to bureaucrats accountable to no one. This is how the deep state was built. I pray that the SCOTUS delivers a blow from God's mighty hand. And he did. Let me show you one more. This was Fox News talking about, you know, again, it was interesting. Before the ruling, you saw a lot of people talking about why this mattered. Before the ruling, you saw a lot of different media talking about why this was such a big deal. Then after it, it was, again, kind of like radio silence. Let me show you what Fox News was saying beforehand. They were saying one more blockbuster Supreme Court decision could still be coming even after Friday's abortion ruling. And they said, believe it or not, overturning Roe v. Wade may not be the Supreme Court's most dramatic decision this year. Instead, its ruling on West Virginia versus the Environmental Protection Agency could prove far more consequential. It could literally upend how our government works, or I should say used to work. West Virginia versus the EPA asks whether important policies that impact the lives of all Americans should be made by unelected D.C. bureaucrats or by Congress, as the Constitution said it should be. The SCOTUS, it says, could well decide that ruling by executive agency FIAT is no longer acceptable. So folks, that's what happened again. The unelected agencies essentially ruling this country, they can no longer do that. They can no longer do what they were doing before. Now, briefly, as Fox was saying, the case involves the Clean Power Act, which was adopted under President Barack Obama to fight climate change. The program was estimated to cost as much as $33 billion per year and would have completely reordered our nation's power grid. The state of West Virginia, joined by two coal companies and others, sued the EPA, arguing the plan was an abuse of power. And by deciding in favor of West Virginia, they're saying, you know, this was the big if, by deciding in favor of West Virginia, the court could begin to rein in the vast powers of the alphabet agencies in D.C. that run our lives and return it to legislators whom we elect to create legislation. And again, folks, that is what just happened. This is the new American Independence Day. Could not be more fitting, frankly, because again, America has restored what the Constitution said it should be doing in terms of passing new laws, which is not bypassing the elected officials who represent the American people, right? The nature of a constitutional republic, as opposed to a pure democracy, or frankly, a dictatorship in this case, right? The difference between the two is that you have officials who you elect to represent you, as opposed to direct democracy. We are a representative democracy, which is what a republic is. We're also a constitutional republic, not just a republic. And the Constitution is what constitutes the United States. The Constitution is how things should be done. Basically, they found a and bypassed that process. And by doing so, they changed the nature of America. Now, this goes technically all the way back to the 1930s. I'm going to explain some of the history on this, how it developed, and what the new ruling means going forward. But folks, for that, let's jump over to Epic TV. Again, folks, if you don't have a subscription yet, we're giving you a free trial. Go into the description below if you're on YouTube, Rumble, anywhere else. Jump in the description below, grab your free trial, and come join us. Again, we have over an hour still on the show. And also, folks, Independence Day sale. Happy Fourth of July. 50% off. Grab that now if you have it. If you want to get one for your friend, grab it now as well. Folks, that said, see you over on Epic TV. Before we jump over, we did a really good interview just recently, if you didn't see it yet. It's the hidden agenda of population control. Again, Steven Mosher on. Let me show you a trailer of that before we jump. So when Bill Gates and people like him, whom I refer to as the billionaire boys club, they all seem to think there are too many people in the world. And I think in part, it's billionaire guilt. And when they talk about overpopulation, they really mean that there are too many poor people in the world. Now, what does that mean for us? If you have too few children, you are on a path to basically die out over time. I saw this unfolding in China back in 1980, when I was in an operating room and they were forcibly aborting women who were nine months pregnant with the goal of reducing China's population. Forty years later, they've reduced the birth rate to the point where there are so few babies birth rate and desperate to encourage everyone to have three children. All right, folks, again, be sure to check that interview out. It actually talks about some pretty crazy stuff, including how the United Nations is doing forced sterilizations. Wild stuff. That said, come over, join us on Epic TV. I want to talk about this regulatory state and what this whole thing means going forward. Significance of this new ruling cannot be understated. Come join us now. We're jumping over. All right, folks, happy Fourth of July again. Happy Independence Day. One of the most widely celebrated holidays in the world is declaring independence from the British. It's like, what, 60s?