No. The majority is incorrect. This is a broad overstep of the court's authority. The individuals in question have zero standing and if it was such a broad overstep then the call should be on congress to sue the executive branch and pull back that authority. Not on the judicial branch to make up what they think congress's authority should be.
The reality is that this court is increasingly corrupt and going over their authority. And they should be reigned in.
To the majority argument, the authority was only so broad. The Postmaster General has broad authority to run the postal service, but that does not mean they can shut down every branch and convert it into a rave.
The department of education was given the authority to grant and alter loans for the purpose of issuing loans. Does that actually mean they have the authority to declare "psych" to Congress and do the opposite? Perhaps, but I lean with the majority here.
that's what the whole dispute was about! and the SC ruled that Congress had not granted the executive branch that authority. and let's be honest, it was always a bit of a stretch to believe that Biden could do it under that authority.
Congress should get of its butt and do it the right way.
> If a single man can forgive $400 billion in loans with the stroke of a pen, why even have a congress?
I think we can all agree that in the interest of governmental restraint, he should be required to use something heavier than a pen, like a big hammer or crowbar.
I don't want to be "that guy", but the United States isn't and was never meant to be a democracy. But that doesn't mean it's any sort of tyrany either. It's a system of checks and balances promoting deadlock.
You have a limited-time dictator, a room full of law nerds, and a Congress half of which is democratic, and half of which represents "the states".
The dictator can do whatever he wants - unless the law nerds or Congress disagree. Congress can do whatever it wants - if you can get both halves of it to agree - unless the dictator or the law nerds disagree - but 2/3 of Congress overwrites the dictator and 3/4 overwrites the law nerds. The law nerds can't do much by themselves and are mostly a reactive force, which are supposed to uphold laws written by others (and generally do so in practice, but of course, not always).
This is a system which promotes the government not doing much, and not changing much, under the philosophy that most change is bad change and no change is better than bad change - while still allowing some good change to flow through the system.
In a democracy, on the other hand, the populus generally always wants change, so that's what they get.
It's true that they aren't elected directly but they do have to selected and approved by our elected representatives. And can be impeached. So it's a bit disingenuous to describe it in this way (but then the tone of your comment makes it obvious that's what you were going for).
What is written on paper and what is being done are two totally different things, and we only live in reality. At least one of the justices is bought and paid for, getting gifts you aren't legally allowed to receive as a DMV employee, but because they like the outcome, millions are against any impeachment.
I am not a huge fan of Thomas and I think the gifts should have been reported before (although he was not required to do so). And perhaps he should resign as a result. However that's more of an exception AFAICT
I'm going out on a limb here and saying that these SCOTUS opinions are more transparent than, for example, the 5,000+ page bills passed by Congress that you know could have only been written by teams of lobbyists rather than actual representatives.
Neither are the words “the legislative power”, “the executive power” and “the judicial power”. We have clearly delineated the separation of powers and the Judiciary has ruled that for the Executive power to do what the Executive power wants to do they must first receive authorization from the legislative power. That is well within the scope of the judicial power per our own laws, the same laws which authorized these loans but notably did nothing to force anybody to sign on the dotted line to receive them.
If we want a policy change, it has to come from Congress and until there is a change, the existing policy is the status quo.
