In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority rejected President Biden’s plan to cancel more than $400 billion in student loan debt for millions of borrowers. It would have been one of the most expensive executive actions in U.S. history.
The American government is split into three branches. The legislative, the executive, and the judicial. The legislative makes the laws. Executive executes the laws. The judicial branch can repeal the laws or hear cases relating to law. The nine supreme Court justices are the judicial branch and are meant to decide if laws are invalid based on past history and intent. For example striking down slavery or Jim Crow laws. They sometimes stretch the definition to make it work which can be scheduled. For instance, roe versus Wade legalized abortion through a weird interpretation of the right to privacy. There was no actual law that allowed abortion. The supreme Court just enshrined it through their interpretation of previous laws. It’s a simple majority system so as long as 5 vote for a decision, it becomes the decision of the court
Executive is president and staff, legislative are the house and Senate.
All are elected. Executive nominates judges and Congress approves or dicks around and holds the seat hostage for a year+ because one party is gaming the system a certain way to the detriment of the country (less judges, longer court lines for everything including immigration which is one reason it’s such a clusterfuck). Supreme Court are just the nine most powerful judges of the ultimate court. Since we have multiple levels of judges for various reasons.
The executive branch includes the president (who is elected by the whole country) and their staff, as well as the various departments and agencies such as the FBI, USDA, NASA, etc, which are staffed by unelected government employees.
The legislative branch (Congress) consists of representatives elected by the people of each state.
The judicidal branch is the courts, and the Supreme Court is the highest court. Its 9 justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by a vote in Congress, and serve for life.
Basically, Biden presented a plan, but the Supreme Court argued that such a consistent debt relief plan needs congressional approval.
Thing is, the Supreme Court leans heavily towards the conservative side and the Congress is split, so there is basically no chance to make debt relief a reality.
Which is so fucked. The supreme court shouldn’t “lean” one way or another. They should interpret the laws and constitution and consider the merits of the letter vs the intent of the law, not give their own opinion on the matter.
I remember here in Canada, back in the days of Harper, just how many times conservative appointed judges struck down conservative laws because they were unconstitutional.
Whether they personally believe this or that shouldn’t even matter at all.
The supreme court shouldn’t “lean” one way or another.
Ideally, this is correct.
They should interpret the laws and constitution and consider the merits of the letter vs the intent of the law
This is where the door is opened for partisan politics. In the US at least, the further right you go, the more strict the constitution and laws are interpreted. The more progressive you are, the more you consider the intent and affects of the laws. Which is how you get folks hung up on terms like “Shall not infringe” or “shall make no law”.
In the US at least, the further right you go, the more strict the constitution and laws are interpreted
This is a myth conservatives want you to believe. In reality, they use the constitution and laws to protect but not bind themselves, while at the same time to bind but not protect others. In the state of Virginia today access to pornographic sites without ID verification was made illegal by Republicans. This example or any of the BS Desantis has pulled recently in Florida shows when aligned with their goals there is no hesitation to pass anti-constitutional measures.
In the case of student loans - public education helps the out group, so any justification (constitutional or otherwise) will be used to attack it.
It’s basically what you said, but put another way:
Strict interpretation allows the interpreter to ignore obvious context or intent in bad faith. It’s a way of shrugging off ambiguity in order to defend a status quo that they prefer.
I mean, the laws and constitution were written by a bunch of wig-sporting white guys who owned slaves, so I would say that the supreme court is doing a great job in keeping up with the “spirit of the law”.
Also most of their power is made up. Nowhere in the constitution does it say they have the power to reject laws and actions as unconstitutional. They just did it a long time ago and everyone went along with it.
deleted by creator
The American government is split into three branches. The legislative, the executive, and the judicial. The legislative makes the laws. Executive executes the laws. The judicial branch can repeal the laws or hear cases relating to law. The nine supreme Court justices are the judicial branch and are meant to decide if laws are invalid based on past history and intent. For example striking down slavery or Jim Crow laws. They sometimes stretch the definition to make it work which can be scheduled. For instance, roe versus Wade legalized abortion through a weird interpretation of the right to privacy. There was no actual law that allowed abortion. The supreme Court just enshrined it through their interpretation of previous laws. It’s a simple majority system so as long as 5 vote for a decision, it becomes the decision of the court
Does the executive include the elected government? Are they executive and legislative at the same time?
Who appoints the supreme court judges? Isn’t that also mixing judicial and another?
The judges are picked by the executive but confirmed by the legislative.
Executive is president and staff, legislative are the house and Senate. All are elected. Executive nominates judges and Congress approves or dicks around and holds the seat hostage for a year+ because one party is gaming the system a certain way to the detriment of the country (less judges, longer court lines for everything including immigration which is one reason it’s such a clusterfuck). Supreme Court are just the nine most powerful judges of the ultimate court. Since we have multiple levels of judges for various reasons.
The executive branch includes the president (who is elected by the whole country) and their staff, as well as the various departments and agencies such as the FBI, USDA, NASA, etc, which are staffed by unelected government employees.
The legislative branch (Congress) consists of representatives elected by the people of each state.
The judicidal branch is the courts, and the Supreme Court is the highest court. Its 9 justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by a vote in Congress, and serve for life.
Executive and legislative are both in the elected government (except the secretaries, staff, etc.).
The president appoints SC judges.
They aren’t even elected. They’re appointed. For life.
Peak Democracy.
Spacifically, they’re nominated by the President, and Congress votes to decide whether or not they’re the new member of the Supreme Court
Basically, Biden presented a plan, but the Supreme Court argued that such a consistent debt relief plan needs congressional approval. Thing is, the Supreme Court leans heavily towards the conservative side and the Congress is split, so there is basically no chance to make debt relief a reality.
Which is so fucked. The supreme court shouldn’t “lean” one way or another. They should interpret the laws and constitution and consider the merits of the letter vs the intent of the law, not give their own opinion on the matter.
I remember here in Canada, back in the days of Harper, just how many times conservative appointed judges struck down conservative laws because they were unconstitutional.
Whether they personally believe this or that shouldn’t even matter at all.
Ideally, this is correct.
This is where the door is opened for partisan politics. In the US at least, the further right you go, the more strict the constitution and laws are interpreted. The more progressive you are, the more you consider the intent and affects of the laws. Which is how you get folks hung up on terms like “Shall not infringe” or “shall make no law”.
This is a myth conservatives want you to believe. In reality, they use the constitution and laws to protect but not bind themselves, while at the same time to bind but not protect others. In the state of Virginia today access to pornographic sites without ID verification was made illegal by Republicans. This example or any of the BS Desantis has pulled recently in Florida shows when aligned with their goals there is no hesitation to pass anti-constitutional measures.
In the case of student loans - public education helps the out group, so any justification (constitutional or otherwise) will be used to attack it.
It’s basically what you said, but put another way:
Strict interpretation allows the interpreter to ignore obvious context or intent in bad faith. It’s a way of shrugging off ambiguity in order to defend a status quo that they prefer.
I mean, the laws and constitution were written by a bunch of wig-sporting white guys who owned slaves, so I would say that the supreme court is doing a great job in keeping up with the “spirit of the law”.
Also most of their power is made up. Nowhere in the constitution does it say they have the power to reject laws and actions as unconstitutional. They just did it a long time ago and everyone went along with it.