On Friday, the US Supreme Court overturned President Joe Biden‘s student loan forgiveness program, citing Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s own statements as justification.
In a 6-3 decision, the court said the petitioner in Biden v. Nebraska had standing to bring the lawsuit under Article III, and then applied the so-called “major questions doctrine” to determine that student loans cannot be canceled under the 2003 HEROES Act, which Biden claimed gave the Education Secretary statutory authority to cancel $430 billion in student loans.
The court decided that Biden cannot use the HEROES Act to cancel $430 billion in student loans since Congress never intended the statute to be used in that manner.
“Congress did not unanimously pass the HEROES Act with such power in mind,” Chief Justice John Roberts explained.
Many believe Biden did it to get the deadbeats to vote Democrat for the rest of their lives miscalculating the anger from the millions of American workers who were going to have to pay for the deadbeats’ loans.
Roberts then used Pelosi’s own words when she said in 2021 that Biden could not cancel student loans on his own. This is priceless:
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNELAs then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi explained: “People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.”
SCOTUS cited Nancy Pelosi in their ruling against Biden’s Student Loan handout:
“People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of… pic.twitter.com/2aRywEkStB
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) June 30, 2023
One of the case’s fundamental questions, according to Roberts, is “not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it.” And that is why the Roberts Court may go down as a great representation of the institution of the Supreme Court. Understanding that politicians have to work within the rules and the framework of our laws and our Constitution will end up solving most of the problems we face in America today that were caused by power-hungry politicians who went outside the limitations of power found in our Constitutional system.
“The dissent is correct that this is a case about one branch of government arrogating to itself power belonging to another. But it is the Executive seizing the power of the Legislature,” he wrote. “Among Congress’s most important authorities is its control of the purse. … It would be odd to think that separation of powers concerns evaporate simply because the Government is providing monetary benefits rather than imposing obligations.”
This indicates that debt cancellation is not unconstitutional; if Congress wishes to sanction it, go ahead. However, the ruling makes it unquestionable that such widespread (and expensive) action requires approval from the part of the government to which the Constitution delegated control of the purse. And that is in the House.
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1 (emphasis added)
In contrast, in her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan accused the Supreme Court of “overreach” and contended that widespread debt cancellation under the HEROES Act is legitimate.
She claimed the petitioners lacked standing and chastised the majority for “applying the Court’s made-up major questions doctrine to jettison the Secretary’s loan forgiveness plan.”
“The result here is that the Court substitutes itself for Congress and the Executive Branch in making national policy about student-loan forgiveness,” she wrote. “Congress authorized the forgiveness plan (among many other actions); the Secretary put it in place; and the President would have been accountable for its success or failure.”
Surprisingly, Kagan also accused the Supreme Court of posing “a danger to a democratic order” since the majority disagreed with the government’s expansive interpretation of the HEROES Act.
“The policy judgments, under our separation of powers, are supposed to come from Congress and the President. But they don’t when the Court refuses to respect the full scope of the delegations that Congress makes to the Executive Branch,” she added. “When that happens, the Court becomes the arbiter—indeed, the maker—of national policy.”
It appears that the Roberts court is doing its best to bring this country, our government specifically, back to the constitutional fold. Prior courts were so out of control that they allowed liberals and liberal organizations and activist groups to control their agenda to make rulings that were unconstitutional. Now that we have a court reversing many of the bad prior rulings and destroying the Left’s stranglehold on our culture by shedding sunlight on woke progressive ideas, the Left is losing its mind. Prepare yourself for the coming violence.
