151
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
151 points (74.1% liked)
Memes
45584 readers
1281 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean, the SC shut him down on eliminating debt. So they clearly don't believe he has the ability according to that act. It's not like he forgot to invoke a law or something. SC takes all laws into account.
Increasing the SC is a very dangerous move. What's going to happen? Just the SC increases every single time the majority changes and a new party comes into power?
So it's not that simple. It's an extremely naive take.
Are you familiar with the HEROES act from 2003? This is specifically what Biden and his legal team were relying upon for their recent attempt at student loan forgiveness. SC isn’t going to throw them a bone and try to broadly interpret other laws to support their case, that’s the attorney’s job which is supposed to be done at the time of filing. The 1965 law is different, and gives the executive absolute authority to cancel student loan debt. Which is why Biden didn’t invoke it.
In terms of restructuring the court, yes it is a dangerous precedent, but the strategy here is to legitimately threaten it and get them to all of the sudden see reason, instead of having to follow through. This has been done successfully a few times throughout history in times when the court has overreached.
This is actually quite simple - Biden can use his power and influence to materially improve the lives of the financially enslaved student populace, and he is choosing not to. He will side with corporations every time, as he has done throughout his entire political career. Have you been paying attention?
SC is required to take all law into account as broadly as possible to support. They're legally required to "throw a bone." They can't say something is unconstitutional just because the wrong argument was used at the time. You can argue they don't know about it or didn't refer to it, but at this point, there's legal precedent so it very likely will not work.
Edit: when has the threat to expand the court worked?
Edit: and Dems don't have majority to expand the court anymore anyway