Mr. Biden Should Win At The Supremes. There Is No Doubt Congress Delegated This Spending Authority To His Branch, Specifically.

In a non-Tangerine infected federal judiciary, these cases would have been dismissed at the trial courts' level, almost immediately -- within a few weeks.

That the Supremes will (again!) have to explain that speculative "what if. . .?" types of claimed harms. . . revolving around decisions to spend money clearly appropriated by Congress (under Tangerine, no less!) is not a way to gain standing to bring a suit, as a non-recipient of these funds. . . is all fairly comical.

But here we are, at the Supremes. . . again. The decision is likely in early January -- that Mr. Biden may do what he has proposed. And the three or four lower courts' silly, lawless and plainly-irrational rulings will be tossed into the ashbins, of judicial (partisan) history.

Here is Mr. Biden's moving paper set -- to have the Supremes declare that Congress meant what it said (again!) -- these US government arguments are flawless; and a bit, from the same:

. . .Article III empowers the federal courts to decide only “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2, Cl. 1. An Article III case or controversy exists only if the plaintiff has standing -- that is, only if the plaintiff has suffered a concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent injury, the injury was likely caused by the defendant, and the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2203 (2021). Respondents cannot satisfy those requirements. The plan confers benefits on third parties, but it does not require respondents to do anything, forbid them from doing anything, or harm them in any other way. . . .

The HEROES Act provides that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law,” the Secretary may respond to a “national emergency” by waiving or modifying “any statutory or regulatory provision” governing federal student loans “as the Secretary deems necessary” to “ensure” that loan recipients who are “affected individuals” are not “placed in a worse position financially” because of the emergency. 20 U.S.C. 1098bb(a)(1) and (2). The Secretary’s action falls within that specific grant of authority. . . .

I lament that we collectively are spending taxpayer funds on educating third-rate former law students (many of them from "Christian" law schools), who are all now federal judges, for life -- about how our Constitution's schema works. . . in real life. That would be in no small part. . . in opposition to the way "Christian" universities teach that "the God-clause" in the First Amendment embodied a positive religion, as opposed to the absence of one.

[At right, is a highly-abridged timeline of my personal ancestors' migrations -- in no small part, to escape state enforced religions -- beginning as early as 1000 AD. Certainly, the Potato Famine contributed, into what became my father's line. . . but since the Crusades, what became my mother's line was. . . wandering northward, into what became central Europe. . . to avoid state ordered confiscation, torture and murder.]

Much of this wasted effort stems from these jokers believing that because most of the founders followed Christian traditions. . . that there is a preference for their views.

It cannot be said often enough: the founders intended precisely. . . the opposite. Geez.

नमस्ते