Reflections on Chip Roy's Criticism of President Biden and the Implications for U.S. Governance

Recently, Rep. Chip Roy has joined a growing chorus of voices questioning President Biden's fitness to serve in the highest office of the United States. While these concerns are nothing new, the recent events have brought them into sharper focus.

The Context: A Historical Precedent Set by Trump

Let us set the stage with historical context. Former President Donald Trump himself has previously argued that individuals of Biden's age should not be eligible to run for office. Mr. Trump's rationale was rooted in perceived physical and mental incapacity, aligning with Roy's current stance. However, it's worth noting that Trump himself shattered age barriers by becoming the oldest nominee in history.

Agreeing with Chip Roy's Concerns: Implications for Congress

Chip Roy's critique goes beyond the President and delves into the performance of the 118th Congress. The argument that a 'senate that hasn't even passed its very first bill to help the people of the USA' is compelling. It suggests that the legislative body's failure to act decisively is reflective of a broader lack of accountability and governance. Roy's assertion that 'nobody should vote for him because he hasn’t done his job' should be a wake-up call that applies equally to the entire congressional body.

Debunking Inaction as Virtue: The Case Against MAGA Candidates

The argument that 'if you do nothing, then you can do nothing wrong' is both a convenient and dangerous one. This mindset thrives within the bureaucratic veil, but it is disastrous for governing a nation. The inaction of MAGA candidates over the past 20 months is a prime example of this indifference. Ignoring pressing national issues under the guise of apathy fails the American people. It’s like letting a ship sail uncharted into the eye of a storm; the consequences can be dire.

The Supreme Court Decision and Its Impact

On a more legal and policy-making note, the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine is a significant development. This ruling invalidates the practice of deferring to experts in their respective fields and instead allows for more deference to the literal text of the law. While this decision can be seen as a victory for those who seek to erode expert influence, it could also lead to a divided and less informed governance. The implications of 'fishing' for officials willing to fall into bureaucratic cracks are alarming and should be met with scrutiny across all levels of government.

In conclusion, the discourse around fitness to govern has gained renewed urgency. Whether it is the actions (or lack thereof) of the President, the performance of Congress, or the shifting legal landscape, these issues collectively underscore the need for a more engaged and responsive government. The democratic process and the public interest demand nothing less.