The Washington Post’s editorial board is facing criticism for admitting that President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness executive order is patently unconstitutional while then turning around and arguing that the order should still stand.
In an editorial published Wednesday, the board started by explaining that the president’s executive order is rooted in the 2003 Heroes Act.
The law “stipulated that the executive branch could ‘waive or modify’ certain student loan provisions during an emergency to ensure borrowers are not made worse off. ”
It’s the same law that former President Donald Trump used to pause student loan repayments during the height of the COVID pandemic.
To their credit, the Post’s editorial board then admitted that the way Biden is trying to use the 2003 Heroes Act is wrong and contrary to the law’s makeup.
“Mr. Biden’s student debt forgiveness scheme is far more expansive — and a questionable reading of the two-decade-old law. When lawmakers passed it in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, it is unlikely they were envisioning a future president issuing audacious, across-the-board student loan relief, as opposed to, say, pausing loan payments while soldiers are deployed in a foreign war or helping hurricane survivors rebuild,” they wrote.
“The straightforward reading of the law’s purpose is that it permits aid targeted at those who would struggle to repay their loans as a direct result of a serious emergency,” they added.
The problem is there is no real current emergency. The Post’s board evidently understands this.
However, the board then turned around and suddenly claimed that one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the president’s student debt forgiveness executive order, the state of Missouri (via AG Eric Schmitt) lacks standing.
Joe Biden has no authority to cancel nearly a trillion dollars of student loan debt. It’s a slap in the face to those who chose not to take on debt or worked hard and saved to pay off that debt. Why should the truck driver have to cover the unpaid bills of the tenured professor?
— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) February 28, 2023
Further, this would add to the deficit and saddle hard-working Americans with even more economic woes. I am proud to have originally led the effort in this case as Missouri’s AG & I’m confident Missouri and all states involved will win this legal battle before #SCOTUS
— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) February 28, 2023
They explained that the case partially revolves around MOHELA, which is short for Missouri’s Higher Education Loan Authority. It’s a loan-serving corporation reportedly created by the state of Missouri.
According to The Wall Street Journal, while MOHELA isn’t part of the lawsuit, the state of Missouri — one of the plaintiffs — is arguing “that it is harmed because the state receives some of Mohela’s revenues to fund its education programs.”
“If its revenues decline as a result of having fewer student loans to service, that would constitute harm to the state, the Missouri attorney general argues,” the Journal notes.
The problem, the Post’s board argued, is that MOHELA isn’t a state entity.
“Missouri sued on behalf of the loan-servicer, arguing that it was effectively a state entity. In fact, the state created MOHELA to be a financially independent operation, meaning any losses it incurred under the Biden plan would not impact the state. (MOHELA itself might have had a right to sue, but it declined to do so.),” they argued.
Based on this, the board argued that the Supreme Court should rule for Biden because Missouri (i.e., Schmitt) has no standing.
The board didn’t even acknowledge the other arguments in the case, writing instead that “[t]he other challengers’ arguments for their standing are even weaker.”
The public reacted to the Post’s own argument by basically saying no:
The utter contempt some people have for constitutional processes
— Bob (@Big_Bob_BOS) March 2, 2023
This perfectly sums up the left. Constitutional constraints don’t apply to our side.
— HomeyD (@HomeyDee) March 2, 2023
He did overreach & SCOTUS should absolutely stop his unconstitutional action.
— Paul Morelli (@PaulOPinion) March 3, 2023
This type of executive overreach should be afforded to all future presidents. This is exactly the way things should be done……….
Be careful what you wish for.
— NewbieDM (@newbiedm) March 2, 2023
If you’re okay with him forgiving student loans like this, then would you be okay with Trump building the wall the same way? Doing what you perceive to be the right thing the wrong way, it allows others to do the same with things you don’t like
— harry (@KindaDirtyHarry) March 3, 2023
That said, the Post’s editorial board did make one salient argument.
“Standing is no mere procedural formality. It is a core judicial principle that courts may only consider cases in which a party is harmed and objects to it,” they wrote.
“The countervailing danger is that an unconstrained court would invite waves of lawsuits from people seeking favorable rulings on disputes in which they have no stake, save for their ideological preferences, gumming up the courts and government and making the court resemble a body of nine unelected legislators,” they added.
The irony, of course, is that conservatives have been making this particular argument since forever …
This has been a conservative argument for as long as I’ve been paying attention to conservative arguments. https://t.co/z0ZTMUwdT9 pic.twitter.com/BpY2hkmfnf
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) March 2, 2023
DONATE TO AMERICAN WIRE
If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to American Wire News to help us fight them.
- ‘Woke’ Disney to lay off thousands, orders managers to compile list of employees to cut - March 19, 2023
- Dramatic upswing of FBI terror watchlist suspects being arrested at southern border - March 19, 2023
- NHL player cites Bible, faith in Jesus Crist to explain refusal to wear LGBTQ-themed jersey - March 19, 2023
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.