The majority then announced, with an opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts, that it was overthrowing the student loan forgiveness program, granting a request from six Republican state attorneys general on behalf of a loan servicer, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, that did not want to be used as a plaintiff. Without MOHELA, the states did not have standing to bring the suit—they are not directly harmed.

Roberts and the majority weren’t going to be bothered by the fact that their plaintiff was an unwilling participant in this highly partisan scheme. “By law and function, MOHELA is an instrumentality of Missouri … The [debt forgiveness] plan will cut MOHELA’s revenues, impairing its efforts to aid Missouri college students,” Roberts wrote. “This acknowledged harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself.”

Never mind that in oral arguments the state admitted that MOHELA wasn’t aiding Missouri college students because it hadn’t paid into that fund in 15 years, and “said in its own financial documents that it doesn’t plan to make any payments in the future.”

  • @jordanlund
    link
    111 months ago

    I don’t think there’s any argument about it, but there is one key problem and that is, outside of impeachment, there is no provision in the Constitution to do it.

    Alito is absolutely right on that point, which means the only way to do it is through an amendment and we are simply too divided to get either an amemdment or a full convention passed.

    • ArotriosOP
      link
      fedilink
      111 months ago

      I have to disagree with you here - Alioto is lying. It’s on the very first line where the Constitution starts describing the Supreme Court.

      Article 3, Section 1 first line:

      The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish

      The court itself was established through an act of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and Congress has had the power to both set the number of judges and impeach them throughout the entire history of the United States. If Congress had the will to do so, they could repeal and replace the Judiciary Act and still be under their Constitutional mandate - and the Act has been amended and expanded on substantially by Congress since its inception.

      Alioto should be disbarred for even suggesting such a facetious legal theory.

      • @jordanlund
        link
        111 months ago

        The problem is in the phrasing. You bolded it too late.

        and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish

        The Supreme Court is ordained and established by the Constitution itself, NOT Congress.

        So what this phrase is talking about are the lower courts that Congress CAN ordain and establish.

        If Congress decided “You know, I think we need a 14th circuit court…” that’s something they COULD do.

        But as far as controlling the Supreme Court, they are limited to Confirming and Impeaching, and since Confirming only applies to new additions, and the issues we are having are with justices already Confirmed, that leaves Impeachment.

        And Impeachment is a dead end with a House run by Republicans and a Senate that needs 60 votes to do anything.