this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
25 points (100.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7211 readers
540 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Are there any legal experts who could chime in to help me understand the why of this decision?

If these loans are held by the executive branch, why aren't they allowed to cancel their own loans? Is there really a federal law on the books against this?

[–] sleet01@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because these conservative judges are in the bag for the GOP and see an opportunity to hurt two groups of people they really hate:

  1. Democrats,
  2. Students.

Edit: IANAL, just really pissed off.

[–] lemmychatwitpeeps@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because executive action can be used only when it has been specifically authorized by Congress.

[–] Neuron@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It was authorized by congress, specifically the heroes act. It gave the executive branch the power to "waive or modify loans" in reponse to a national emergency, and cornavirus was declared one. The law passed by congress explicitly gives Biden the power to do this. It'd a terrible ruling by the court. Not to mention the suing parties have no standing to begin with, and the suit never should have even gone forward on that basis in the first place.

[–] lemmychatwitpeeps@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

There is no national emergency anymore. He should have acted when covid was still a thing, or when he had a democrat congress.

[–] chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah... but the FBI doesn't need to write to Congress every time it decides to make an arrest. Congress delegates broad powers to the executive branch and in this case my understanding is that there were relatively few carveouts limiting what could be done with these loans. What I'm asking about is what specifically did the court reference when they said that this action was an overstepping of the branch's authority?