Biden Pushes Illegal Plan That He Might Get Away With 

( In a recent editorial, the Washington Post admits that Joe Biden has “overreached” by characterizing his decision to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt as a regressive and costly error based on his interpretation of the 20-year-old HEROES Act. 

However, the editorial argues that “the court shouldn’t stop him.” 

The editorial states that it’s not the president’s unlawful abrogation of his power to spend public cash that is dangerous, but it’s the possible solution to this imbalance by the Supreme Court. 

It’s possible that the Supreme Court’s justices may disagree with President Joe Biden and cast doubt on his authority to cancel federal student loans, but the Supreme Court must first determine the validity of the cases that are blocking President Biden’s proposal to cut student debt. 

If they rule that the plaintiff doesn’t have standing, they can’t determine whether or not the remedy was an abuse of authority. 

The Supreme Court was not persuaded that states run by Republicans had the jurisdiction to include MOHELA in their fight over student loans. 

But if the court finds that a necessary legal requirement is not met, all of it will be for nothing. 

The Biden administration’s August announcement of a proposal to cancel student loans was justified by the Heroes Act of 2003. 

Because of the national emergency caused by the September 11th terrorist attacks, that statute permits the U.S. secretary of education to “waive or modify” student loan programs. Critics of the president’s proposal argue that it goes far beyond the parameters of the Heroes Act to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in student loans for tens of millions of People. 

For his part, Justice Clarence Thomas, who initiated the court’s scrutiny of the Biden administration, seemed to share this opinion. 

There are 43 million people in the United States, and we’re talking about half a trillion bucks, Thomas added. What does if it doesn’t satisfy the standard definition of “altering”? 

According to Biden’s attorney Elizabeth Prelogar, the Biden administration’s policy ensures that borrowers don’t suffer financially due to their loans during a crisis, which is the provision’s core objective. 

Analysts believe the Supreme Court might go either way at this stage.