'Hell of a take': WaPo admits Biden 'overreached' on student loans but says Supreme Court shouldn't stop him

close

Video

Dave Rubin: Biden's student loan handouts set a 'very dangerous precedent'

'The Rubin Report' host Dave Rubin analyzes the battle between President Biden and the Supreme Court over student loans on 'America Reports.'

The Washington Post editorial board took heat Wednesday for insisting that, though President Biden "overreached" with his student loan handout, the Supreme Court "shouldn’t stop him."

The piece argued that although Biden’s handout — which is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court — is "expensive" and came about without "congressional approval," the high court should not rule against it because it’s challengers "lack standing" in their case.

Several prominent conservatives on Twitter claimed this was the Washington Post trying to prevent the court from doing its job to protect the Constitution.

LAST-MINUTE CHANGES TO BIDEN'S STUDENT LOAN HANDOUT MAKE IT HARDER TO CHALLENGE IN COURT: EXPERTS

President Biden delivers remarks regarding student loan debt forgiveness in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 24, 2022. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

In the editorial, titled, "Biden overreached on student loans. But the court shouldn’t stop him," the board began by claiming that Biden’s handout is "expensive and ill-targeted, and made worse by the fact that Mr. Biden failed to get congressional approval for the $400 billion initiative."

The board also noted that it has previously "criticized the Biden plan as a regressive and expensive mistake." Additionally, it claimed, "Mr. Biden’s student debt forgiveness scheme is far more expansive — and a questionable reading" of the "2003 Heroes Act," legislation by why which Congress stipulated "the executive branch could ‘waive or modify’ certain student loan provisions during an emergency to ensure borrowers are not made worse off."

However, it argued, "we also believe it would be an overreach for the justices to strike it down. 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."

Specifically, the board argued, "But the administration’s opponents, which include several states and two individuals, ‘lack standing’ — that is, a direct, concrete stake in the outcome — to challenge the law."

It added, "Standing is no mere procedural formality. It is a core judicial principle that courts may only consider cases in which a party is harmed and objects to it." The board cited U.S. solicitor general Elizabeth B. Prelogar, who said, "The judiciary doesn’t sit as a roving commission to rule on the legality of either Congress’s enactments or the executive’s implementation of those enactments."

The outlet concluded, "This means that some things — even egregious ones — that presidents or Congresses do are not challenged in court for some time, or ever."

MANCHIN: BIDEN $500B STUDENT LOAN HANDOUT ‘EXCESSIVE’

Randi Weingarten screamed about student loan debt outside the Supreme Court this week. (Twitter)

The board warned that if the court struck the handout on account of this challenge, the "countervailing danger is that an unconstrained court would invite waves of lawsuits from people seeking favorable rulings on disputes in which they have no stake." 

However, conservative readers weren’t necessarily convinced by the Post’s argument. 

Republican 2020 presidential candidate Joe Walsh bashed the Post, saying, "In other words, Biden did something that he did not have the legal authority to do, but the Supreme Court should just look the other way. What a crazy take. And wrong. And, if followed, would invite further overreach by future presidents."

Conservative journalist Jeryl Bier questioned the paper’s motives with its take, asking, "If the Post editorial board thinks Biden is seriously wrong but that the current plaintiffs don't have standing, why not encourage finding plaintiffs with standing to challenge & stop the Biden plan? The taxpayers are about to be out a boatload of money."

Washington Examiner commentary editor Conn Carroll provided his interpretation of the Board’s take, saying, "Wow. WaPo actually goes with ‘illegal but legal because a Democrat did it.’"

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Outkick.com’s Clay Travis tweeted, "It isn’t constitutional, but the Supreme Court shouldn’t apply the constitution is a hell of a take from @washingtonpost editorial board."

President Biden stops to speak to reporters as he walks to Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 24, 2023. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)