If a single man can forgive $400 billion in loans with the stroke of a pen, why even have a congress?
The reality I was referring to was the reality of Congress having delegated this authority to the Executive Branch. Read the dissent if you haven't.
The delegation of authority happened in 2003. It was broad. The delegated authority had been exercised before.
The current Court is just hell-bent on dismantling the ability of the Executive Branch to regulate based on delegated authority.
It wasn't this broad.
> The delegated authority had been exercised before.
Never this broadly.
The reality is that this was a huge overstep by the administration. The majority is correct.
The reality is that this court is increasingly corrupt and going over their authority. And they should be reigned in.
Congress should get of its butt and do it the right way.
I would have enjoyed watching Scalia try to come up with a rationale for voting with this majority. He might have even voted with the minority.
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.
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.
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.