A sharply divided Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden administration overstepped its authority in trying to cancel or reduce student loan debts for millions of Americans.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.