Acting unilaterally Thursday, Trump-appointed justice Amy Coney Barrett denied an appeal originating in Wisconsin to put a halt to Joe Biden’s executive order advancing $10-20 thousand worth of so-called “student-loan forgiveness.” Barrett allegedly did not consult with her colleagues and made the decision on her own, based on how justices are divided up in regions across the country to decide whether or not to take on appeals.
Barrett, who is responsible for emergency applications from Wisconsin, rejected the Brown County Taxpayers Association request to block the program just days after the Biden administration began accepting applications from borrowers to have as much as $20,000 in student debt canceled.’
The emergency application was filed Wednesday.
Barrett appeared to act on her own without referring the matter to the other justices. She did not provide an explanation for rejecting the emergency request, which is not uncommon.
Already, this clear vote-buying scheme from Democrats had prompted outrage among a large cross-section of America. Americans who joined the military, those who worked through college, those who paid off their college debts, and those who did not go to college at all all (rightfully) perceived this bailout as grossly unfair and a blatant redistribution of taxpayer money.
National Review noted that Barrett’s decision, though it did not come with an explanation, appears to have suggested the plaintiffs did not have proper standing to sue. In their argument, however, they made it clear that everyone will be impacted by this executive overreach, citing unambiguous figures that frivolous government spending inevitably leads to inflation, particularly as it spends a huge portion of GDP.
"*" indicates required fields
The applicants argued that Biden’s edict would be a gross abuse of the executive’s spending power and saddle Americans, including those who didn’t go to college, with future new tax liabilities. Through the program, Biden will unilaterally spend roughly 4 percent of the nation’s GDP, the plaintiffs noted.
“We are witnessing a gargantuan increase in the national debt accomplished by a complete disregard for limitations on the constitutional spending authority. Applicant and those similarly situated are being asked to assume perhaps over one trillion dollars in debt,” the filing read. “The issue is not simply that the government has acted unconstitutionally in a way that harms others but not the Applicant itself. To the contrary, because the unlawful step alleged here tramples the constitutional spending power, it harms Applicant’s members as taxpayers.”
On a forum at Lucianne, commenters on the National Review article nearly all condemned the abdication of Barrett to at least hear the arguments and put a stop to continued federal encroachment of rights and sanity.
When the Deep State selects the nominee this is what ya get. NOT surprised.
Tell us again what a great job Mitch McConnell did.
Once again a president grossly abuses his power and the only way to stop him is action by congress which is controlled by his own party. That is a clear flaw in the system. There needs to be a review of rules pertaining to standing. If it is unreasonable to consider impacted taxpayers to have standing (where would it end?) then there needs to be a better path for states to take action.
As soon as government took over the student loan program you knew where this was headed…..free education complements of the taxpayer.
Twitter likewise served as a forum for dissent. Several commenters again called out the unfairness and the essential slap-in-the-face act to an overwhelming majority of Americans:
I just don’t see how one man can decide to use $420B our our nation’s wealth to help college grads with loans. This is the most un progressive policy ever—75% of our citizens don’t have a college degree. Do we’re “helping” the most educated/successful among us? Crazy.
Wow, republicans are literally phenomenal at losing
Featured image: w:Wikipedia:CSPAN, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons