This past week, the United States Supreme Court issued its final rulings for the session before entering summer recess.
Fortunately, the court fulfilled its obligation as a check on the other branches of governments and as a defender of individual right.
In the case of Biden v. Nebraska, the court struck down President Joe Biden’s cynical and illegal attempt to bend and distort the law to waive away hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debts.
The Biden administration tried to argue the HEROES Act of 2003, passed to provide some relief to Americans impacted by the wars of the time, gave the secretary of education the authority to terminate the student loans.
“It does not,” ruled the Supreme Court in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts. “We hold today that the Act allows the Secretary to ‘waive or modify’ existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, not to rewrite that statute from the ground up.”
Related Articles
A T-Bird’s take on the state of globalism right now
America is still super exceptional this Fourth
Understanding the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision
California taxpayers pony up for transit systems they’ll never use
I’m a tattoo artist, and I support the Supreme Court’s ruling protecting artistic freedom
As prominent Democratic figures like Rep. Nancy Pelosi said long before the president’s sloppy power grab, terminating student debt requires an explicit act of Congress, not deliberate misreading of existing law.
Here, the court rightly denied executive overreach. We hope they continue to do so.
In another high-profile case, that of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the court rejected the racist and discriminatory policy of affirmative action at institutions of higher learning.
“Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin,” the court ruled. “This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
Here, the court wisely rejects the practice of reducing people to their skin color in order to advantage or disadvantage others. This bizarre practice, advocated by so-called “progressives,” seeks to correct injustices by perpetuating injustice. The practice should never be tolerated in a society built upon the premise that all of us are created equal and entitled to equal protection under the law.