You're viewing a single thread.
I think in addition to the other points on this page, the thing that keeps coming to me is because I think deep down inside, Biden knows where the fault is.
The Supreme Court's primary role is to decipher existing laws, existing precedent, and figure out how it should be interpreted in a different era. Yes, I know due to how politicalized everything is, sometimes questionable outcomes come from the Supreme Court. But at the core, their job is to interpret existing law and precedent.
Congress' role is to actually pass new laws for a new era. It can be argued, they've done a terrible job at that because they're busy trying to appease their base. Because they're so divided, very little acts, with any substance, are being passed at the federal level.
Expanding the court might result in the outcome you want today, it may not result in the outcome you want tomorrow.
But expanding the court also continues to give Congress a way out of making tricky compromises and laws, so they can continue fundraising on outrage, and yet do very little about things by blaming the other side.
This is the sort of thoughtful comment that is making Lemmy so valuable. Thank you.
It sucks to type that because I’m all for helping young adults get higher education. But I do agree with the court, it can’t be at the expense of executive orders because then we’ll be on a crazy hamster wheel with every president. Congress needs to do their dang job and create a college bill that everyone dislikes and likes.
The debt relief was absolutely within the Executive branch's delegated authority to do. The law Congress wrote and passed was very clear, and in very plain language.
The case before the Court was absolutely ludicrous. A state has standing to sue the federal government because some private company within that state could potentially suffer a financial loss? Even when that company wanted no part of, and did not file suit in the first place?
If I loan my sister who makes decent money $50, and then she applies for Medicaid and is denied, with this Court's decision, I would have standing to sue the State because she would suffer a potential financial loss in having to pay healthcare premiums.
Further, if the State did approve her for Medicaid, the insurance company could sue the State because they might suffer a financial loss in having my sister no longer need to pay them those same premiums.
It's absolutely wrong on even the most basic level.
undefined> Expanding the court might result in the outcome you want today, it may not result in the outcome you want tomorrow.
Excellent insight. Look at the impact a 6-3 conservative majority can do. Imagine if events shake out to where you now have an 9-2 balance in either direction.