The Spending Clause pretty clearly says that Congress, not the President, gets to spend the government's money. Forgiving a debt for previously paid money is not exactly the same as spending new money, but it seems pretty close.
Contrast that with, for example, abortion. Was Roe a "legitimate legal finding" to you? Show me where in the Constitution it says there's a right to that?
There's definitely Supreme Court decisions where conservatives act on a partisan basis rather than based on legal reasoning. Gonzales v. Raich, the homegrown cannabis case, is a good example. But it's quite bizarre to criticize conservative judges for being "partisan" when liberals don't even try to hide the fact that they read the Constitution according to "how they want it to be."
And congress delegated their power over spending related to student loan debt to the executive branch via the heroes act. Much like congress many narrowly defined aspects of their power to the executive in general or to specific offices of the executive.
Declaring that congress can’t delegate their power is a new legal theory that is currently being used by one side which is why it’s being called partisan
Congress can allocate a block of money and give the President the executive function of deciding the details of how to spend it, but it didn’t do that here.
Then you should tell Justice Gorsuch (joined by Alito, and Thomas) that he was wasting his time when he raised the nondelegation doctrine in his concurrence in striking down the OSHA vaccine mandate. [0]
I don't know why this was flagged, but I vouched it. I don't agree with it (at least not the thrust of it; I do think the courts are on pretty firm footing shooting down Biden's student debt relief), but it's in line with the thread, which is on topic for the story.
It was never decided that “money is speech”; that’s just the kind of oversimplification that people use to rile you up. What was decided was that _spending_ money _can_ be speech. For example, if you spend money on a hot dog then that probably wasn’t an act of speech covered by the first amendment, but if you spend it on a television commercial then it probably was.
Legal reasoning moves from strict reading to reading of intent fluidly. It's not very different from this "seems pretty close" in one case vs exact text in the other.
This is a popular fringe argument that is flimsy enough to be practically disqualifying. Judicial review was established in the time of the framers, smack in the middle of the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, and is discussed in the Federalist Papers. It's as solid a component of the American system as anything else is.
... aligning with the Anti-Federalists more or less confirms that you're operating in an alternative universe, doesn't it? Not that they're wrong, but they're the opponents of the Constitution.
I’m not talking about abortion. I’m talking about a mode of legal interpretation of which the abortion precedent is the clearest example. That’s clearly on topic in a thread about legal interpretation.
Contrast that with, for example, abortion. Was Roe a "legitimate legal finding" to you? Show me where in the Constitution it says there's a right to that?
There's definitely Supreme Court decisions where conservatives act on a partisan basis rather than based on legal reasoning. Gonzales v. Raich, the homegrown cannabis case, is a good example. But it's quite bizarre to criticize conservative judges for being "partisan" when liberals don't even try to hide the fact that they read the Constitution according to "how they want it to be."