InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 45
Posts 7114
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/18/2020

Re: stockanalyze post# 758712

Saturday, 07/01/2023 3:38:16 PM

Saturday, July 01, 2023 3:38:16 PM

Post# of 796251
Still reading Elena's dissent (she's not a big fan of MQD wink !). But what seems clear is that the US Supreme Court is beginning to slowly reign in the awesome lording over of the American People by these expansively assertive federal government agencies.

From Elena's dissent: "It instead expresses the Court’s own
“concerns over the exercise of administrative power.” Ante,
at 19. Congress may have wanted the Secretary to have
wide discretion during emergencies to offer relief to stu-
dent-loan borrowers. Congress in fact drafted a statute say-
ing as much. And the Secretary acted under that statute in
a way that subjects the President he serves to political ac-
countability—the judgment of voters. But none of that is
enough. This Court objects to Congress’s permitting the
Secretary (and other agency officials) to answer so-called
major questions. Or at least it objects when the answers
given are not to the Court’s satisfaction. So the Court puts
its own heavyweight thumb on the scales. It insists that
“[h]owever broad” Congress’s delegation to the Secretary, it
(the Court) will not allow him to use that general authori-
zation to resolve important issues. The question, the ma-
jority helpfully tells us, is “who has the authority” to make
such significant calls. Ibid. The answer, as is now becom-
ing commonplace, is this Court. See, e.g., West Virginia,
597 U. S. ___; Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of
Health and Human Servs., 594 U. S. ___ (2021); see also
Sackett v. EPA, 598 U. S. ___ (2023) (using a similar judi-
cially manufactured tool to negate statutory text enabling
regulation)."