Opinion | The Supreme Court’s student loan case tests a president’s powers

A president, invoking broad emergency powers after legislative efforts fail, adopts a program that will cost billions. The administration then argues that its action isn’t subject to court review.It is, actually. Back in 2019, Donald Trump demanded that Congress appropriate nearly $6 billion to build his border wall. When lawmakers coughed up only about $1.

Maybe that’s right; maybe it’s wrong. Certainly, there’s a distinction between redirecting funds that Congress has already appropriated, as Trump did in the case of the wall, and implementing a policy change that, because of the large sums involved in the student loan program, has enormous financial consequences.on emergency authorities to sidestep Congress and implement policy changes.

That seems right as a question of law — and standing isn’t an issue on which the administration or a court can choose to look the other way. It has to be present for the case to proceed. But this hurdle is problematic as a matter of policy.

Preventing Presidential over-reach is the job of Congress. Congress if they wish can pass a law, in this case over the President’s veto, to prohibit student loan forgiveness. Problem solved. The Court should not insert itself, as it always seems to do between the other 2 branches

Comparable to power of the pardon, spending without consultation is royal prerogative: was the American Revolution a takeover or a makeover? POTUS very much in line with propaganda piece Leviathan. Charles I was beheaded for just such ignorance (Hobbes wrote it the year after)

I sent a test of his power to spend our money without Congressional approval?

Clarence Thomas tests the legitimacy of the Court.

We need a border wall more than Student Loan forgiveness.

I didn't know Nancy Pelosi is a Republican

Who need help for Grant and loan if you are interested dm please

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Supreme Court hears arguments over the role of state courts in reviewing election lawsA case over a state court's rejection of North Carolina's congressional map went before the Supreme Court for oral arguments on Wednesday, with potentially huge ramifications.
Source: FoxNews - 🏆 9. / 87 Read more »

Supreme Court hears case on limits of state courts to intervene in Congressional map drawingThe Republican-controlled state legislature in North Carolina is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule its state court’s decision to toss the maps it deemed unfair, and replace them with a temporary map.
Source: AKNewsNow - 🏆 460. / 53 Read more »

Opinion | This is the most mischaracterized Supreme Court case in recent memoryOpinion by Jason Willick: The case will not, no matter which side wins, grant state legislatures “the power to overturn presidential elections.” After oral arguments, it appears that Moore v. Harper may produce a fairly technical and limited legal outcome. Incredibly naive. Of course GOP won't say they plan to use this to simply decree election winners. There will always be some pretext of discovered 'fraud'. But if the GOP prevails in this case, state legislatures will essentially have unchecked power to ensure their team wins. Nothing new from the dems! It’s their way or it’s election interference when all along it has been the dems creating the election interference in the first place! Wake up people! We all note that you didn't have the balls to write this before oral argument.
Source: washingtonpost - 🏆 95. / 72 Read more »

Supreme Court justices skeptical of unchecked state power over federal electionsSupreme Court justices cast a skeptical eye Wednesday on claims that state legislatures rule in making decisions about federal elections, worrying that it would upend the usual checks and balances. It's a lot better than election control from one centralized location (DHSgov). In Article III, Section 2, the Constitution unequivocally gives the U.S. Supreme Court power over state courts. no quote no thing to support this claim of skepticism?
Source: WashTimes - 🏆 235. / 63 Read more »