SCOTUS kills Biden's student loan/debt relief plan...

In the past, no.

With the fake website case, absolutely.

Before someone needed to be affected by a law. No more. The mere idea is “controversy” now.

MOHELA nibbled at the edges and hinted. The non-event swallowed the whole load.

 

It's a bunch of bullshit. Made-up "doctrine" to allow the Republicans to invalidate executive policy they dislike. It is in actuality a power grab by the Republicans on SCOTUS. They've stripped power away from the Executive Branch and Congress and given it to themselves.

The insidious bullshit of this "doctrine" is that it wasn't being widely used or used in this way when Congress passed the laws Republican SCOTUS reviewed. So you have Republican SCOTUS fabricating a "doctrine" and then demanding specificity from Congress in laws passed decades ago before Congress could have known this specificity was supposedly required.

But it gets worse. Republican SCOTUS has never offered a precise definition of what constitutes a "major question." So even now, Congress isn't on notice with regard to the laws it passes where greater specificity is and isn't required. Basically, this entire "doctrine" is based entirely on the arbitrary whims of whichever "judges" are deciding the case and what they think a "major question" is. And since there's no clear limitation on what constitutes a "major question," it can be anything the judiciary wants it to be.

That puts the power in the hands of unelected "judges" to invalidate executive policies they dislike without any notice to Congress on how to comply with this "doctrine" until after the "judges" have struck down policies. If you don't see the problem with that, I don't know what more to tell you.

But I will continue on. The entire basis for this ridiculous "doctrine" as Barrett and Will claim is the idea that "Congress normally intends to make major decisions itself rather than leaving them to agencies." Except that isn't remotely true. Multiple accomplished legal scholars called out Barrett. Here's Blake Emerson, a scholar on admin law at UCLA Law pointing out that the legislative history of the Administrative Procedures Act shows that Congress contemplated delegating major questions to the Executive:


Here's Julian Davis Mortenson, a scholar from Michigan Law who wrote a groundbreaking article refuting the nondelegation doctrine (something the MQD is closely related to) having any historical basis, noting that it is false that Congress doesn't try to kick pass on the hardest policy questions to agencies:


Here's originalist scholar Evan Bernick criticizing her attempts to recast the MQD as a linguistic canon:


I recommend reading the entire threads from Mortenson and Bernick. They're hardly alone in criticizing Barrett's attempts to justify and recast the MQD. Here's a good article from Beau Baumann:
Let’s talk about that Barrett concurrence (on the “contextual major questions doctrine”), by Beau J. Baumann - Yale Journal on Regulation

And while this article predates Barrett's concurrence, it discusses how the MQD is a judicial power grab (in part III):
The New Judicial Power Grab by Josh Chafetz :: SSRN
(If you can't download the article there, you can google it, and it will pop up.)

The point these scholars basically make is that Barrett's justifications for the MQD all rely on her opinions on HOW our government SHOULD work, not how it actually works. So she is justifying ignoring the text of statutes because she doesn't like how Congress is doing its job. That's not Barrett's job. Her job is solely to determine if Congress authorized the Executive to do what it did. If Congress authorized it, her role is over. It falls to the people to punish Congress and the Executive if we're unhappy with how they're doing things.

Of course, that's presuming good faith. And I don't presume good faith. When Congress refused to fund Donald Trump's "wall," he declared a national emergency and then redirected billions in funding Congress had earmarked for other projects to the "wall" using statutory authority reserved for emergencies. Basically, he did the exact same thing Biden was trying to do with student debt. Republican SCOTUS allowed him to do it. Oddly enough, the "wall" didn't implicate the "major questions doctrine," which gives the game away.

This is all about politics and power. The Republicans in the judiciary get to decide what is a "major question" and overturn policies, regardless of what Congress authorized, on that basis. That's a whole lot of power to arbitrarily decide which executive policies stay and which go, and unelected partisans are the ones who get to wield it. If you think that's healthy and good for this country, I'd say you don't have a lot of regard for elections. If Democrats win, they should get to implement their policies, unless they violate the Constitution. The same is true for Republicans. (And no, the "major questions doctrine" is not a constitutional doctrine. It has no roots whatsoever in our Constitution. Indeed, I'd argue that it violates the Constitution.)

 

Since Marbury v. Madison, SCOTUS has had the power to declare laws passed by Congress unconstitutional. But there must be a case or controversy under Article III.

There was standing in 303 Creative (the web designer case). Liberals/progressives won't like me saying it, but there was standing. It's called preenforcement review. I, myself, have brought preenforcement challenges. It is based on the idea that a person should not have to choose between exercising their constitutional rights and violating the law. The State of Colorado stipulated to the facts before the trial court. And those facts, regardless of the fake submission, established standing for the web designer's company.

Biden v. Nebraska is a different case. Missouri had no standing. MOHELA refused to participate in the lawsuit. Missouri sued on the basis that financial harm to MOHELA would cause financial harm to Missouri. But there was no evidence of that. In fact, there was credible evidence that MOHELA would actually make more money because of Biden's loan forgiveness. So standing in the debt forgiveness case was a total farce. Kagan was so incensed that she accused the majority of violating the Constitution:

 

Good explanation. I guess after your clarification I can begrudgingly see the logic.

Fairly certain we could find 100 dodges on this standing issue though, right? Especially SCOTUS. They used to be (in)famous for avoiding monumental shifts by invoking standing.

 

The ugly truth of standing is that SCOTUS usually finds a way for standing to exist when it wants to decide a case. If it doesn't want to decide a case, it can use justiciability is an out. It's a Rorschach test in that regard. But I'd say they're correct to find standing in 303 Creative.

The web designer swore under the penalty of perjury that she wanted to create wedding sites, would refuse to create them for gay weddings, wanted to put a disclaimer on her site saying so, and was chilled from doing that by her fear of the consequences of violating Colorado law. And nobody disputes that Colorado would enforce the law against her. That's sufficient for standing.

 

Come on man.
How are you defending that crap

 

Basically this is how SCOTUS works these days. Justices figure out what they think should happen, based on ideology, partisanship, their view of what is reasonable, their preferred pet legal theory, or whatever then they apply a construct to justify it.

 

That's basically always how it has been to a degree. But in the past, it wasn't based so much on partisanship and political considerations.

 

The state of Michigan

In Michigan, Improper Pronoun Use Could Land You in Jail | Page 4 | Swamp Gas Forums

 

Not in any state. The First Amendment makes sure of that. If Michigan enacts that law, they'll find out what Ron DeSantis repeatedly has---the First Amendment doesn't play.

 

Because your worldview is incredibly limited.

 

Im not defending anything. I’m just pointing out that he made no mention of violence nor do I think he was suggesting the Supreme Court justices should be hurt or killed. That’s absurd. Packing the court on the other hand would be a sure fire way to destroy it and any vestige that remains of nonpartisanship.

 

How do you intend to “pack the Court” without a law?

 

What are you asking him? Under the Constitution, the number of Supreme Court Justices is not fixed, and Congress can change it by passing an act that is then signed by the President. Will require a majority in congress.

 

With a majority vote from congress. Just for the record I’m not advocating for this (yet) I’m just saying this would be a way to “destroy” the court that doesn’t have anything to do with violence.

 

Well, again, if it’s that easy, then pass a law that forgives the debt (preferably with a means to address the underlying issue) as the Court has invited you to do. I don’t understand the logic of “Oh, those evil Republicans will stop us from passing any law that addresses the problem, so why bother?” but “We’ll show those evil Republicans by passing a law to stack the Court in our favor!”

 

Well, I invite you to clarify your meaning. Because if you meant that you would “destroy the Court” through another executive decree, then you don’t have the authority. If you meant you would do so through some sort of legislative action, then you don’t have the numbers. But if you did mean through some sort of violence, then you really don’t have the numbers.

 

I wasnt a fan of debt relief either as ive stated, not because its not warranted, only because it's lower on my personal priority list of groups that need help. However, the supreme court is hyper partisan and out of control in my view as a voter and I am all set to vote for someone who will add liberal justices to make it partisan in my favor. The veil of impartiality is gone. The court ruined itself catering to extremists. Telling Biden what he can and cant do for an emergency is just another example.

 

I don’t believe the Supreme Court has ever been “non partisan”, and certainly not in my lifetime. This is the very reason I think the hearings done for considering new Justices is a sham. They all just ball face lie, telling congress what they think they want to hear or pretending they don’t know. Doesn’t matter if left or right, they all practice the art of deceit during the hearings.

 

I worked two full time jobs to go to UF part time from 97-99. Had a conversation a while back with my dad about why my little sisters didn't do the same thing. By the time they got to college, the cost of college attendance had doubled. They would have needed four full time jobs to cover everything.

When my dad went to college, he could work over the summer and make enough to pay for everything, including being able to buy a car.