Don’t forget that in 1996 Newt Gingrich gave a line item veto to Clinton. Maybe he thought Robert Dole would win the presidency. The first time Clinton tried to use it the GOP went apeshit and took him to court and had the whole thing thrown out.
No. For example, Dems helped pass pandemic relief, even though it helped Trump politically. OTOH, Republicans routinely vote against infrastructure bills and then take credit for the projects in their state.
Both parties are NOT equal.
I think the normal Justices would be fine with the student loan relief under any president, since it’s so statutorily obviously fine.
Not saying a lot for supposed conservative opposition to judicial activism either.
I think the conservatives feel they’ve won and it’s time to start treating America like a conquered territory subject to their rule.
And the Dems’ reaction to Tester, Manchin and Sinema?
I’m not sure what that sentence fragment was supposed to mean.
If you’re talking about Smapti, those are all three Democrats who crossed the aisle to vote against a Democratic policy. I think it makes sense to ask if there will be any repercussions for doing so.
I’d say not yet, but only because the Democratic majority is so thin. Later maybe, but it could also be Dems knowing that Biden will veto it, and doing it for local political reasons relative to their state.
Sinema is no longer a Democrat; she is now an independent.
True, and I did forget that. But she still caucuses with them.
The Administration’s plan is rejected by the SC 6-3 with Roberts writing the majority opinion.
Major questions doctrine: The way that conservatives can change their mind on executive powers as it pleases them.
These rulings are really paving the way for Biden to run in '24 against SCOTUS. No abortion rights, plus suddenly becoming thousands of dollars poorer, is going to have an impact on young people voting in '24, I predict.
Not that he can do anything about those things without a senate super majority, but it should make for good campaign materials.
The bad thing here, to me, is not that they decided against Biden. It’s that they ignored the fact that there was a much a lack of standing in this case as in the one brought by the two students that they did dismiss for lack of standing, as well as a lack of actual harm. (In the same vein, the “christian” website designer had no actual harm because she’s never even started a business, much less been asked by a gay couple to design a website.) They’re making whatever law they want through whatever nebulous cases they manage to direct their way.
Did Biden have the authority through the HEROES Act? Maybe. I can see an argument either way because the wording is pretty vague in the statute. The Supreme Court decided he had the authority to modify and waive, but not cancel. Can’t he waive all future payments, modify repayments to be 0? Maybe he should just call a press conference, say that the Supreme Court said that I actually do have the authority to modify or waive, so now you must pay $1 per month and all late fees and interest are waived.
I think it’s long overdue to kill the filibuster. If Biden had forgiven loans for people who bought yachts, the best supreme court money can buy wouldn’t have even granted cert for a challenge. The motto of this court seems to be “We got ours, fuck you!”. When Democrats win the House, Senate, and presidency in 2024, I say let them forgive $50K in student debt families making less than $250K per year. If that means killing the filibuster, let it be done.
Another good ruling, IMO.
So I’m reading reactions that often say two things:
-
The/an injured party cited in this claim that their profits were never affected by the program.
-
This ruling opens the door for corporations and other businesses to sue governments when government action affects profits.
True or no?
I have set it before I will say it again: America has socialism for the wealthy and capitalism for everybody else.
There is no more glaring indicator of this fact than how the Supreme Court has handled the difference between PPP loans, and student loans.
I’m not in favor of people ducking out on their loans on purpose, but if they’ve tried in good faith to pay back loans for a long time - say, 10 years of consistent payments - and just can’t because it’s too difficult, they deserve a mulligan.