re: Robert’s insist that tariffs are a tax on the American people, and a tax needs to come

quote:

---

How so?

---

quote:

---

There is no text within the statute reflecting your words above.

---

quote:

---

His admin made that argument at oral arguments. There is no text within the statute reflecting your words above.

And arguments at oral arguments aren't worth anything.

---

quote:

---

The SAVE plan that introduced workarounds that was also struck down by the federal courts.

Except that allowed him to run with it through the end of his term before it made its way through the courts.

And also using the Higher Education Act of 1965.

---

quote:

---

No shite t

---

quote:

---

there's nothing in the statute because Roberts wiped Obama's arse like you would a minority struggling in school and gave him a curve from an F to an A+. You do understand the statute was codified AFTER Scotus' ruling on ACA and not before?

---

quote:

---

You are so completely full of shite.

---

quote:

---

You are just throwing spaghetti at a wall to see what sticks and try to maneuver out of this.

---

quote:

---

because Roberts wiped Obama's arse like you would a minority struggling in school and gave him a curve from an F to an A+.

---

quote:

---

canceling roughly $430 billion in debt for 43 million borrowers

---

quote:

---

It's not about constitutionality. It's just that he's exceeding the legislative authority granted by Congress in violation of the Major Question Doctrine, primarily. Just like Biden's SL scheme via the HEROES Act.

---

quote:

---

But I do not understand the exploration of the "is it a tax?" issue.

---

quote:

---

CV19 was the basis for suspension of debt payments.
Dementia-in-chief only got slapped down when he attempted to cancel the debt altogether, and when he did so with CV19 no longer a (emergency) facto

---

quote:

---

This Court has never drawn the line the Secretary suggests—and for good reason. Among Congress’s most important authorities is its control of the purse. U. S. Const., Art. I, §9, cl. 7; see also Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U. S. 414, 427 (1990) (the Appropriations Clause is “a most useful and salutary check upon profusion and extravagance” (internal quotation marks omitted)). It would be odd to think that separation of powers concerns evaporate simply because the Government is providing monetary benefits rather than imposing obligations. As we observed in West Virginia, experience shows that major questions cases “have arisen from all corners of the administrative state,” and administrative action resulting in the conferral of benefits is no exception to that rule. 597 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 17). In King v. Burwell, 576 U. S. 473 (2015), we declined to defer to the Internal Revenue Service’s interpretation of a healthcare statute, explaining that the provision at issue affected “billions of dollars of spending each year and . . . the price of health insurance for millions of people.” Id., at 485. Because the interpretation of the provision was “a question of deep ‘economic and political significance’ that is central to [the] statutory scheme,” we said, we would not assume that Congress entrusted that task to an agency without a clear statement to that effect. Ibid. (quoting Utility Air, 573 U. S., at 324). That the statute at issue involved government benefits made no difference in King, and it makes no difference here.

All this leads us to conclude that “[t]he basic and consequential tradeoffs” inherent in a mass debt cancellation program “are ones that Congress would likely have intended for itself.” West Virginia, 597 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26). In such circumstances, we have required the Secretary to “point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ ” to justify the challenged program. Id., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 19, 28) (quoting Utility Air, 573 U. S., at 324). And as we have already shown, the HEROES Act provides no authorization for the Secretary’s plan even when examined using the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation—let alone “clear congressional authorization” for such a program.9

It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary. Today, we have concluded that an instrumentality created by Missouri, governed by Missouri, and answerable to Missouri is indeed part of Missouri; that the words “waive or modify” do not mean “completely rewrite”; and that our precedent—old and new—requires that Congress speak clearly before a Department Secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy. We have employed the traditional tools of judicial decisionmaking in doing so. Reasonable minds may disagree with our analysis—in fact, at least three do. See post, p. ___ (Kagan, J., dissenting). We do not mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement. It is important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country.

---

quote:

---

Where in there is the temporary argument you're making?

---