Chief Justice Roberts Takes Ultimate Shot at Joe Biden
Uses Nancy Pelosi’s Words Against Him
BECKER NEWS
Chief Justice John Roberts cited former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in his stinging majority opinion against President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan.
Roberts released the Supreme Court’s opinion on Friday saying that Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan was unconstitutional, thereby depriving Biden of one of his significant campaign pledges.
In the opinion, Roberts used Pelosi’s words to illustrate that the President lacked the authority to cancel federal student loan debt.
“As then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi clarified: ‘People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not,’” Roberts quoted Pelosi. “‘He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.’”
Pelosi made the statement at her July 28, 2021, press conference:
“People think that the president of the United States has the power for [student loan] debt forgiveness. He does not.” — Nancy Pelosi (July 2021)pic.twitter.com/0iz8uQeKXG
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 30, 2023
Roberts added, “Aside from reiterating its interpretation of the statute, the dissent offers little to rebut our conclusion that ‘indicators from our previous major questions cases are present’ here,” referring to Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurring opinion.
Meanwhile, President Biden has already announced a plan to go around the Supreme Court ruling. On Friday, he declared his intention to implement a separate student debt-relief initiative under the Higher Education Act of 1965.
“Today’s decision has closed one path. Now we’re going to pursue another,” Biden said from the White House. “We will use every tool at our disposal to get you the student debt relief you need and reach your dreams.”
Nina Turner, a self-described educator and activist, responded to Roberts’ citation of Pelosi as “unacceptable.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi was cited in the student debt ruling. Unacceptable. pic.twitter.com/JNqWSMDTeP
— Nina Turner (@ninaturner) June 30, 2023
Let’s just say that the radical left is not taking the Supreme Court ruling well. And throwing in a Pelosi citation is the cherry on top of the wedding cake.
The Court is dealing with several high-profile cases as summer approaches. In a separate case upholding the free speech rights of a Christian web designer, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch harshly criticized Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent.
“It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case,” Gorsuch wrote in the 6-3 Supreme Court decision on Friday. That decision said web designer Lorie Smith was not legally required to design websites for gay marriages because doing so would violate her free speech rights and Christian beliefs, despite a Colorado law that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Gorsuch added that Sotomayor’s dissent “reimagines the facts” from “top to bottom” and does not respond to the fundamental question: “Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?”
“In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position,” Gorsuch wrote. “For instance: While stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse ‘the full and equal enjoyment of [its] services’ based on a customer’s protected status . . . the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services ‘to the public’ does have a right ‘to decide what messages to include or not to include . . .’ But if that is true, what are we even debating?”
The dissenting justices, Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, labeled the ruling as a “blank check for discrimination,” expressing concern about its potential to implicitly assign gays and lesbians to an inferior status.
Sotomayor asserted, “The unsettling takeaway from the majority’s opinion is this: What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is yours. Yet, the history of public accommodations laws tells a different story. In a free and democratic society, social stratification has no place.”
The case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, captured the nation’s attention because it presented a clash between the First Amendment right to free speech and the principle of non-discrimination towards LGBTQ people.
*********
(TLB) published this article from Becker News as compiled and written by Kyle Becker
Header featured image (edited) credit: Roberts/Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images/Biden Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Emphasis added by (TLB)
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply