Robert Reich Rips U.S. Supreme Court For Crafting Own Laws

Tagging the Supreme Court (SC) as the least democratic in the three branches of the US federal government, former US labor secretary Robert Reich stressed that the high court also dispatched a “horrendous decision” last by expanding the parties who have standing to bring cases before the courts.

Photo Insert: Reich argued, the SC expanded the meaning of legal standing in ruling against Biden’s student loan condonation by insisting in Biden v. Nebraska that Missouri had standing to challenge the program.

In an opinion piece carried by Raw Story on July 3, 2023, Reich said SC Chief Justice and his Republican pals ruled for a website designer who insists on her religious liberty not to do business with couples in same-sex marriages.

It turns out the case was based on an imaginary guy who wanted a website for his marriage to another man.

Worse, Reich argued, the SC expanded the meaning of legal standing in ruling against Biden’s student loan condonation by insisting in Biden v. Nebraska that Missouri had standing to challenge the program.

Why? Because a quasi-independent state agency — the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA) — might suffer financial losses from the loan program.

Willy-nilly, the SC said “the plan harms MOHELA in the performance of its public function and so directly harms the State that created and controls MOHELA. Missouri thus has suffered an injury in fact sufficient to give it standing to challenge the Secretary’s plan.”

As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent, “In adjudicating Missouri’s claim, the majority reaches out to decide a matter it has no business deciding” — with a ruling that “blows through a constitutional guardrail intended to keep courts acting like courts.”

From now on, a state can challenge any action of the federal government merely by setting up a quasi-independent agency indirectly affected by it.

Bad enough that the court’s majority is now making up its own laws — disregarding the SC’s own precedents it disagrees with, deciding Congress hasn’t authorized certain actions it disagrees with, and finding practices it disagrees with to be unconstitutional.

Bad enough that three of the justices now in the majority were appointed by a man who lost the popular vote, who was impeached twice, and who promoted an insurrection against the US. And two others were appointed by a man who also lost the popular vote and led the nation into war in Iraq under false pretenses.

WEEKLY FEATURE : MVP Group Keeps Lights On During Pandemic