4 ms·
Every textualist on the supreme court should have read section 2.a.1 and said "yup, that gives the executive branch the ability to do basically anything in rega
by Sparkle-san 3y ago
Every textualist on the supreme court should have read section 2.a.1 and said "yup, that gives the executive branch the ability to do basically anything in regards to student loans during a state of emergency which we were in." Instead they invoked the Major Questions Doctrine which seems like a principle made out of whole cloth specifically for when textualism doesn't work the way they want it to.
- legitster 3y ago> 9 The dissent complains that our application of the major questions doctrine is a “tell” revealing that “ ‘normal’ statutory interpretation cannot sustain [our] decision.” Post, at 23, 30. Not so. As we have explained, the statutory text alone precludes the Secretary’s program. Today’s opinion simply reflects this Court’s familiar practice of providing multiple grounds to support its conclusions. See, e.g., Kucana v. Holder, 558 U. S. 233, 243–252 (2010) (interpreting the text of a federal immigration statute in the first instance, then citing the “presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action” as an additional sufficient basis for the Court’s decision). The fact that multiple grounds support a result is usually regarded as a strength, not a weakness.
- justin66 3y agoI doubt this is useful out of context. It turns out the dissent has something to say about more than just the court's use of the goofy (I think Kagan's phrase was "made up," which is fair enough) major questions doctrine.