• cyd@vlemmy.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know this upsets a lot of people, but the ruling isn’t without justification. $450B++ in government spending should not be accomplished through a legal loophole. (Quite aside from the fact that fiscal stimulus is the last thing the economy needs right now.)

    • KingCyrus20@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It is absolutely without justification. The language of the HEROES Act allows the Secretary of Education to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial aid programs under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965.” This is not a loophole, it is the law, passed by Congress. And regardless of any foreseen impact on the economy, SCOTUS should not legislate. Otherwise, they’re just an activist court.

      • Chipthemonk@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Interesting. With regards to the Supreme Court legislating: I suppose they have the power to decide if something is legal? And if they can that, isn’t that legislation, to a degree? They don’t enforce the legislation, only whether the legislation is valid, right?

        I need to read up on my separation of powers.

        • KingCyrus20@lemmy.fmhy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The power most people know the Supreme Court for is “judicial review,” the ability to decide if existing legislation is constitutional. This power is not actually granted to the court by the Constitution, but it has been traditionally wielded by them since a precedent was set by Marbury v. Madison.

          Otherwise, they’re a trial (for disputes between states, involving ambassadors, etc.) and appellate court for cases that reach them and are granted certiorari, such as this case (actually two cases, Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown). So, in those cases, they decide if actions are legal, based on existing law. That is not legislating, as legislating is literally law making.

          • Chipthemonk@lemmy.fmhy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks for your reply! Fascinating that the constitution does not grant the power to the Supreme Court. Was an amendment added? Or is it functioning, at least in part, on precedent?

            • KingCyrus20@lemmy.fmhy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No amendment was added. Rather, it’s implied by the Article III establishing judicial responsibilities regarding cases needing to be judged based on law, combined with the supremacy clause in Article VI establishing that the Constitution is the supreme law of the U.S.

      • cyd@vlemmy.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There’s also the doctrine that “Congress does not hide elephants in mouse holes”. It’s much like the idea of minting a trillion dollar coin to pay for America’s debt, which a lot of people were similarly enthusiastic about, but many others warned won’t pass judicial review. Over the years, Congress has passed a ton of buggy legislation that can be interpreted as delegating crazy amounts of powers to the executive. There is also a long history of the SC pushing back against executive attempts to exploit poorly worded legislation.