- The court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the scheme was unlawful
- The plan would have eradicated $10,000 in debt for borrowers earning less than $125,000 and up to $20,000 for those with Pell Grants
Republicans are celebrating the Supreme Court’s overturning of President Biden’s student loan plan as a ‘victory’ for taxpayers while Democrats are deeming the high court ‘corrupt.’
The court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the scheme was unlawful.
The plan would have eradicated $10,000 in debt for borrowers earning less than $125,000 and up to $20,000 for those with Pell Grants. Estimates pegged the cost at over $400 billion.
It was challenged by six Republican states and two borrowers who argued Biden should have sought approval from Congress for a plan using substantial taxpayer funds.
‘Today’s Supreme Court ruling overturning President Biden’s illegal student loan scheme is a victory for common sense,’ said South Carolina Republican and presidential candidate Sen. Tim Scott. ‘You take out a loan, you pay it back. This decision frees taxpayers from shouldering debt they never signed up for.’
The 6-3 conservative majority court’s ruling came one day after they decided to undo affirmative action at universities.
‘The Supreme Court in the last two days has made very clear who they think deserves to go to college,’ Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., wrote on Twitter.
Freshman Sen. Eric Schmitt, who as attorney general in Missouri led the legal fight against the student loan plan, said of it: ‘This was fundamentally unfair, unlawful and a cynical election ploy by Joe Biden. Working folks who paid off their loans or took another path shouldn’t have to pay for the unpaid loans of the tenured college professor.’
Senate GOP Whip John Thune suggested in a statement Biden knew student loan forgiveness would never hold up in court.
‘President Biden put forward an unserious scheme to force 87 percent of Americans who do not have student loan debt to bear the costs of the 13 percent of Americans who do.
‘Anyone frustrated by today’s decision should direct their complaints to the White House, where they knew this executive order would likely be struck down by the courts but did nothing whatsoever to meaningfully address exorbitant costs in higher education.’
‘Tennesseans should not be forced to pay for coastal elites to get their PhD in gender studies,’ said Sen. Marsha Blackburn.
Millions of Americans haven’t had to repay their loans for three-and-a-half years because of a COVID pandemic freeze. Borrowers will have to restart their payments in October, and interest will start recurring in September.
’43 million Americans,’ said Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. ‘That’s how many people the rightwing partisan justices on the Supreme Court just condemned to years—sometimes a lifetime—of debt thanks to their own corruption.’
In its ruling the court cited words from then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi in July 2021: ‘People think that the president of the united states has the power of debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. It has to be an act of Congress.’
‘I agree with her for once!’ said House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
‘The 87% of Americans without student loans are no longer forced to pay for the 13% who do,’ he said.
For months, Biden’s student loan blueprint has been at the center of a legal tussle with six Republican-controlled US states and two borrowers.
Iowa, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina said he had no legal authority to go ahead with the plan without the sign-off from Congress first.
Biden used the post-9/11 HEROES Act as justification for the program. It stipulates the Department of Education can waive student debt during a national emergency.
The COVID national emergency in the eyes of the government came to an end in May.
Supreme Court Trolls Nancy Pelosi in Decision Striking Down Biden’s $400 Billion Student Loan Scheme – Conservatives Respond with Glee (VIDEO)
As Cristina Laila previously reported, Biden canceled over $400 billion in student loans which turns out to be up to $10,000 in student debt for borrowers who earn $125,000 a year or less and up to $20,000 for recipients of Pell Grants.
Six Republican state attorneys general sued Joe Biden and argued the student loan bailout violates the separation of powers. Separately, two borrowers who did not qualify for Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan sued to stop the program.
The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals in November extended a block on Joe Biden’s student loan bailout plan. The DOJ then asked the Supreme Court to lift the 8th Circuit Court’s block, which they refused to do.
Yes, Roberts and the majority cited the former House Speaker as a reason why they decided to strike down the student loan program. Slackers looking for someone to blame should just look toward San Francisco (which Pelosi lives).
Wonder how Pelosi feels about being part of the reason why Biden’s student loan bailout scheme was nuked?
Conservatives responded by laughing at the disgraced former Speaker.
‘Difficult To Read’: Neil Gorsuch Ruthlessly Mocks Sotomayor’s Dissent In Free Speech Case
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch blasted his colleague Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent of his majority opinion that ruled in favor of a Christian web designer’s right to not design websites for same-sex weddings.
Sotomayor claimed in her dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, that the court’s Friday opinion had for the “first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” according to the text for the case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Gorsuch mocked Sotomayor for her long-winded dissent that “reimagines the facts” in his majority opinion.
“In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position,” Gorsuch wrote. “For instance: While stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse ‘the full and equal enjoyment of [its] services” based on a customer’s protected status,’ the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services “to the public” does have a right ‘to decide what messages to include or not to include.’ But if that is true, what are we even debating? Instead of addressing the parties’ stipulations about the case actually before us, the dissent spends much of its time adrift on a sea of hypotheticals about photographers, stationers, and others, asking if they too provide expressive services covered by the First Amendment.”
The case involved plaintiff Lorie Smith, who sued Colorado in 2016 for its laws that would require her to create a website for a same-sex wedding, arguing it violated her religious beliefs and right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
Gorsuch leveled Sotomayor’s claims that the majority’s opinion takes away immense strides made by the gay community, according to the text. He noted that “there is much to applaud” on that issue, but stressed that the dissent’s concerns do not answer “the question we face today: Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?”
“When the dissent finally gets around to that question— more than halfway into its opinion—it reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom,” Gorsuch argued. “The dissent claims that Colorado wishes to regulate Ms. Smith’s ‘conduct,’ not her speech … The dissent chides us for deciding a pre-enforcement challenge … The dissent suggests (over and over again) that any burden on speech here is ‘incidental.’ All despite the Tenth Circuit’s finding that Colorado intends to force Ms. Smith to convey a message she does not believe with the ‘very purpose’ of ‘[e]liminating . . . ideas’ that differ from its own.’”
Gorsuch also pointed out that his colleagues’ claims that his ruling had created a right for “the first time in history” to refuse service to a “protected class” was false since Smith is still required by law to work with anyone “regardless of sexual orientation,” according to the text. He further explained that the dissent would have required the “Court do something truly novel” by allowing the government to force an individual to “speak contrary to her beliefs on a significant issue of personal conviction.”