Recently, The Washington Post editorial board faced backlash for publishing an article supporting President Biden’s student loan handout.
In the article, the board argued that the Supreme Court should not strike it down, despite acknowledging it as an overreach. However, several conservative voices on Twitter criticized the Post’s motives and argued that Biden’s actions were illegal.
According to the board, the challengers lack standing, and the court should recognize the limits on its authority. In contrast, some prominent conservatives, including Republican 2020 presidential candidate Joe Walsh and conservative journalist Jeryl Bier, disagreed and condemned the Post’s argument.
Moreover, the board cautioned that striking down the handout could create a flood of lawsuits from people seeking favorable rulings on disputes in which they have no stake.
This controversy highlights a broader debate over the role of executive authority and the Supreme Court’s power. The board’s article underscores the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that executive actions are subject to judicial review. However, the critics argue that the board’s argument amounts to saying that Biden’s actions are illegal but should not be challenged.
Ultimately, it is the Supreme Court’s decision to decide whether the challengers have standing and whether Biden’s handout is constitutional.
This debate serves as a reminder that political disagreements can lead to conflicting interpretations of the law, and it is crucial to maintain a transparent and accountable government that upholds the constitution’s principles.