4 ms·
If a single man can forgive $400 billion in loans with the stroke of a pen, why even have a congress?
by monero-xmr 3y ago
If a single man can forgive $400 billion in loans with the stroke of a pen, why even have a congress?
- krger 3y agoCongress gave that single man the authority to do so.
- peepeepoopoo13 3y agoJudging by this ruling, evidently not.
- krger 3y agoA majority opinion doesn't change reality.
- tedunangst 3y agoSo the loans are going to be forgiven?
- krger 3y agoNo idea how it'll end up playing out. The reality I was referring to was the reality of Congress having delegated this authority to the Executive Branch. Read the dissent if you haven't.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoThe dissent doesn't make it reality.
- krger 3y agoThe dissent doesn't need to make it reality. The delegation of authority happened in 2003. It was broad. The delegated authority had been exercised before. The current Court is just hell-bent on dismantling the ability of the Executive Branch to regulate based on delegated authority.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago> The delegation of authority happened in 2003. It was broad. It wasn't this broad. > The delegated authority had been exercised before. Never this broadly. The reality is that this was a huge overstep by the administration. The majority is correct.
- fzeroracer 3y agoNo. The majority is incorrect. This is a broad overstep of the court's authority. The individuals in question have zero standing and if it was such a broad overstep then the call should be on congress to sue the executive branch and pull back that authority. Not on the judicial branch to make up what they think congress's authority should be. The reality is that this court is increasingly corrupt and going over their authority. And they should be reigned in.
- peepeepoopoo13 3y agoIt really does though, because the Supreme Court is the authority who determines whether or not it was authorized, and it was not.
- phone8675309 3y ago[flagged]
- GoodJokes 3y ago[dead]
- esotericimpl 3y ago[dead]
- treeman79 3y agoThey did not.
- jonnycomputer 3y agothat's what the whole dispute was about! and the SC ruled that Congress had not granted the executive branch that authority. and let's be honest, it was always a bit of a stretch to believe that Biden could do it under that authority. Congress should get of its butt and do it the right way.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago[flagged]
- krger 3y agoGo ahead and read the dissent.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoI'll take that as you conceding my point.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoIt's the dissent. Read the majority.
- legitster 3y agoCounterpoint, they did not. The administration was trying to exploit a loophole in an emergency law.
- krger 3y agoThe Administration was availing itself of the broad authority delegated to the Executive Branch by Congress almost 20 years prior. I would have enjoyed watching Scalia try to come up with a rationale for voting with this majority. He might have even voted with the minority.
- legitster 3y agoTo the majority argument, the authority was only so broad. The Postmaster General has broad authority to run the postal service, but that does not mean they can shut down every branch and convert it into a rave. The department of education was given the authority to grant and alter loans for the purpose of issuing loans. Does that actually mean they have the authority to declare "psych" to Congress and do the opposite? Perhaps, but I lean with the majority here.
- dkqmduems 3y agoIn many ways, the difference between 1 and 535 is insignificant.
- krapp 3y agoIf nine unelected people in a smoke filled room can create and nullify law at will, why even bother with democracy?
- youreincorrect 3y agoI'm going out on a limb here and saying that these SCOTUS opinions are more transparent than, for example, the 5,000+ page bills passed by Congress that you know could have only been written by teams of lobbyists rather than actual representatives.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoIt's true that they aren't elected directly but they do have to selected and approved by our elected representatives. And can be impeached. So it's a bit disingenuous to describe it in this way (but then the tone of your comment makes it obvious that's what you were going for).
- mrguyorama 3y agoWhat is written on paper and what is being done are two totally different things, and we only live in reality. At least one of the justices is bought and paid for, getting gifts you aren't legally allowed to receive as a DMV employee, but because they like the outcome, millions are against any impeachment.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoI am not a huge fan of Thomas and I think the gifts should have been reported before (although he was not required to do so). And perhaps he should resign as a result. However that's more of an exception AFAICT
- WalterBright 3y agoWe don't have a Democracy, we have a Constitutional Republic. Besides, I don't recall any national vote on loan forgiveness.
- Gibbon1 3y agoYou might want to sit down before I tell you about the give away the Federal Reserve did during the pandemic.
- gochi 3y ago[flagged]
- SllX 3y agoNeither are the words “the legislative power”, “the executive power” and “the judicial power”. We have clearly delineated the separation of powers and the Judiciary has ruled that for the Executive power to do what the Executive power wants to do they must first receive authorization from the legislative power. That is well within the scope of the judicial power per our own laws, the same laws which authorized these loans but notably did nothing to force anybody to sign on the dotted line to receive them. If we want a policy change, it has to come from Congress and until there is a change, the existing policy is the status quo.
- justin66 3y ago> If a single man can forgive $400 billion in loans with the stroke of a pen, why even have a congress? I think we can all agree that in the interest of governmental restraint, he should be required to use something heavier than a pen, like a big hammer or crowbar.