2023-07-02 00:14:26
In their dissenting opinions to decisions they oppose, justices of the United States Supreme Court often rely on an interpretation of the Constitution or a particular law that diverges from the opinion expressed by the majority. On Friday, Judge Elena Kagan went much further, accusing Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts of outright violating the Constitution by invalidating Joe Biden’s plan to eliminate some of the debts of nearly 43 million American students. .
Justice Roberts relied on a doctrine invented by conservative jurists – the “major issues” doctrine – to dismantle the administrative state. This doctrine requires explicit authorization from Congress before regulators can take meaningful action on matters of great importance and impact on society. It was invoked last year in another 6-3 decision to limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
It is a doctrine that has no constitutional basis and allows conservative Supreme Court justices to rise above elected officials who make laws or enforce them. All this very often for the benefit of the donors of the Republican Party and the priorities of their allies in the United States Congress.
In the case of Joe Biden’s student debt plan, Justice Roberts rejected the administration’s argument that the HEROES Act allowed the president to deliver large-scale debt relief. But he did not base this rejection on the text of this law whose full name is Higher Education Relief Opportunities For Students. He did so on the basis of the doctrine of “major questions”, which has the advantage of allowing a handful of judges to substitute themselves for the president elected by tens of millions of voters to determine what is good or bad for American society.
Judge Kagan did not hide her indignation. I quote a passage from his dissent reported by the columnist of New York Times Jamelle Bouie :
“From cover to cover, today’s opinion deviates from the requirements of judicial restraint. At the request of a party that has suffered no prejudice, the majority decides a contested public policy issue that belongs to the politically responsible branches and the people they represent. This is a major problem not only for governance, but also for democracy. Congress is of course a democratic institution; it responds, albeit imperfectly, to the preferences of American voters. And agency officials, though not elected themselves, serve a president with the broadest political constituency. But this Court? It is, by design, as detached as possible from the body politic. That’s why the Court is supposed to stick to its mission: to adjudicate only cases and controversies, and refrain from setting the nation’s policy on matters such as student loan relief.
“The Court exercises an authority that it does not have. It violates the Constitution,” Judge Kagan concluded.
As one can guess John Roberts did not appreciate the tone and content of Judge Kagan’s dissent and made it known in his own opinion.
“It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary,” the Chief Justice writes in his opinion. “It is important that the public is not misled either. Such a misperception would be detrimental to this institution and to our country. »
According to polls, a majority of the American public has already concluded that John Roberts’ Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds. And the loss of credibility of its judges probably has more to do with its conservative majority than with its three progressive judges who denounce it.
(Photo Getty Images)
I like this :
I like loading…
Categories: Education, United States, Justice•Tags: Elena Kagan, Jamelle Bouie, Joe Biden, John Roberts•
#Supreme #Court #accused #violating #Constitution