After previously telling its readers why President Joe Biden’s student-loan bailout is a “regressive” and “expensive” mistake, The Washington Post is back with a new hot take on why the Supreme Court should uphold it as constitutional anyway.
On Wednesday, the Post’s editorial board argued that the high court, which heard oral arguments against Biden’s student-loan scheme on Tuesday, should refrain from striking down the unlawful policy because doing so would be an act of judicial overreach.
“There are limits that restrict when and how the court can exercise its authority — and this is one of the instances in which it should recognize those limits,” the WaPo editors proclaimed. Funny how the Post didn’t apply its sudden appetite for limiting judicial supremacism to the court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which reversed the judicial activism displayed in Roe v. Wade.
Under Biden’s proposal, borrowers making up to $125,000 a year would have $10,000 worth of their student loans “forgiven,” while Pell Grant recipients would have $20,000 waived. When leftists advocate for “student-loan forgiveness,” what they really mean is they want the government to transfer the loan repayment responsibility from the individual who signed for them to American taxpayers.
While the Post’s editorial board went on to claim that those contesting Biden’s policy “lack standing,” or the ability to sue, and that a refusal by SCOTUS to dismiss legal challenges to the scheme would make “the court resemble a body of nine unelected legislators,” the
