Quite the reverse. Congress needs to vote on a spending bill that large. Biden is President, not King, and Congress cannot make him King.
If you hire a plumber to fix your toilet, and said "bill me whatever for it", and the plumber charges you a million bucks, I bet that wouldn't hold up in court, either. IANAL, but laws never lay things down precisely (it's impossible), and the entire purpose of the Judiciary is to provide reasonable interpretations of it.
“That may have been a good idea, or it may have been a bad idea. Either way, it was what Congress said” writes Justice Kagan, in dissent to this principle.
Congress should have sued biden. That's the problem here.
Instead, here we have a bank suing because of government spending? How does that work? How was the bank harmed by loan forgiveness away from the bank?
Congress can sue and if they feel like the president is misinterpreting the law it's their job to sue. Letting something like this get decided via an uninterested 3rd party is what's dangerous.
What's next, can military contractors sue if we cut military spending? Can insurance agencies sue if we pass universal healthcare? Can they sue now over medicaid?
What's happened here is you hired a plumber to fix your toilet. He did just that, but then when it came time for the bill he said "You know what, nm, I'm not going to charge you for that". However, karen next door got charged for her plumbing so obviously she took the plumber to court for not forgiving her plumbing bill.
How does that make sense? The plumbing company has the power to fire the plumber or sue him and recover the cost of that bill. But they chose not to because forgiving bills looks good.
Quite the reverse. Congress needs to vote on a spending bill that large. Biden is President, not King, and Congress cannot make him King.
If you hire a plumber to fix your toilet, and said "bill me whatever for it", and the plumber charges you a million bucks, I bet that wouldn't hold up in court, either. IANAL, but laws never lay things down precisely (it's impossible), and the entire purpose of the Judiciary is to provide reasonable interpretations of it.
“That may have been a good idea, or it may have been a bad idea. Either way, it was what Congress said” writes Justice Kagan, in dissent to this principle.