The Washington Post editorial board faced criticism after publishing an article arguing that while President Biden’s student loan handout may have been an overreach, the Supreme Court should not strike it down.
The board claimed that the challengers lacked standing and that the court should recognize the limits on its authority. Several conservative voices on Twitter criticized the article, questioning the Post’s motives and arguing that Biden’s actions were illegal.
The Washington Post editorial board believes that while Biden’s student loan handout was an overreach, the Supreme Court should not strike it down because the challengers lack standing.
Several prominent conservatives, including Republican 2020 presidential candidate Joe Walsh and conservative journalist Jeryl Bier, criticized the article and argued that Biden’s actions were illegal.
The board warned that striking down the handout could lead to waves of lawsuits from people seeking favorable rulings on disputes in which they have no stake.
The Washington Post editorial board’s article has sparked a debate over the limits of executive authority and the role of the Supreme Court.
While the board acknowledges that Biden’s handout may have been an overreach, it argues that the court should not intervene because the challengers lack standing.
However, critics have argued that the board’s argument amounts to saying that Biden’s actions are illegal but should not be challenged. This debate underscores the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that executive actions are subject to judicial review.
Ultimately, it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the challengers have standing and whether Biden’s handout is constitutional.