Posted on 02/28/2023 10:40:28 AM PST by marcusmaximus
Conservative Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared skeptical about the legality of President Joe Biden's student loan debt relief plan, although questions remain as to whether the challengers have legal standing to sue.
-snip-
The justices could decide the case based on a legal argument made by the challengers that the Supreme Court has recently embraced called the “major questions doctrine.” Under that theory, federal agencies cannot initiate sweeping new policies that have a significant economic impact without having express authorization from Congress.
The conservative majority cited the major questions doctrine last year in blocking Biden’s Covid vaccination or test requirement for larger businesses and curbing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to limit carbon emissions from power plants.
A key threshold question is whether any of the challengers have legal standing to sue in the first place. Many observers think that if the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, finds that the challengers had standing to sue, it will almost certainly then conclude that Biden’s plan is unlawful.
-snip-
Of the six conservative justices, only Justice Amy Coney Barrett repeatedly probed whether challengers had legal standing. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, two justices the Biden administration may have been targeting as potential votes against standing, focused their questions on the major questions doctrine. That could indicate they believe the challengers have standing.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
I look forward to the stupidest person on the court writing why responsible tax payers should bail out students’ debts. We all thought Sotomayor was stupid. KJB doesn’t even know if she is a woman or not.
“Under that theory, federal agencies cannot initiate sweeping new policies that have a significant economic impact without having express authorization from Congress.”
Gee, what a crazy, novel theory... to let the legislature do the legislating.
How about they ask Kingsfield about “Contract Law”?
“The Paper Chase”.
“Mr Hart, can you explain under what conditions a contract can be nullified by an outside party not involved in the original contract?”
I paid all of my college tuition when I signed up for the classes. Will Xao Bi-Dung ask Hunter to reimburse this big guy?
“Of the six conservative justices, only Justice Amy Coney Barrett repeatedly probed whether challengers had legal standing.”
A legit question. In cases before the court, plaintiffs have to prove they will suffer real and direct damage. Even liberal legal experts admit Student Load Forgiveness is probably not Constitutional.
The question is, will the states bringing suit suffer real financial damage as a result of Biden forgiving student loans. The main argument states are using is that they have debt collection programs for government loans that will lose revenue if the loans are forgiven. It’s a pretty weak argument, but looks like it will be enough to get a decision on the case from the court.
I paid my way as well while working a full time and part time (sometimes 2) when I was in college.
Do I get my money back?
I started with three jobs and then two after a year at the University of Florida College of Electrical Engineering.
I guess we’ll find out in May or June.
Will the RATs play the blackmail cards again on Roberts and Kavanaugh to get the ruling they want? Barrett seems to be on board.
What you mean only three jobs, you lazy lima bean!
I was coasting!
I’m getting 404s when I go to https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2022 to look at the transcripts.
If this increases the debt and I have to pay taxes to pay the debt or its carrying cost am I damaged?
Was in the appellate system as a lawyer for 30+ years, saw it happen at oral argument all the time. Sometimes they were leaning that way, sometimes not.
Unfortunately, I don't think the court would accept something that indirect as a 'damage' for the purpose of Article III standing, though they should!
This is true. They don't always telegraph the way they are leaning with their questions. I still like reading through oral arguments anyway. You can learn a lot about the way they look at the law through the arguments. Unfortunately, I don't always have time to read through for a 200-300 page document.
Yep. Life gets easier when we accept that reality.
So who WOULD have “standing”? Congress?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.