The assassination attempt Glay Travis and Buck Sexton. Dear God, where's the country
going? Day? At noon, I'm fifty five KRC. The talk station's
AATO five. You're at fifty five KRCD talk station. Brian temiswishing you a
very, very happy Friday. Eve. Please to welcome to the fifty five
KRC Morning Show. Fellow lawyer and more importantly, director of litigation at the
Buckeye Institute. You can find them a line at Buckeyeinstitute dot org. David
trying to give us an update on the Supreme Court taking a look at Biden's
Save Program. Welcome to the program, David. It's a real pleasure to
have you on today. Well, thanks for having me. Brian, it's
great, great to be here. It's a great day to be an American,
and so I'm glad to be with you this morning. I am happy
to have you, and I was kind of laughing about this whole idea that,
you know, it's important to emphasize it's President Biden's Save Program. This
isn't the Save Act or law that was implemented by Congress and signed a law
by the President. This is something he sort of pulled from his sphincter whole
cloth in the form of an executive order directing the Department of Education to waive
a student loans. Right, haven't we been down this road before? Didn't
the Supreme Court in Biden versus Nebraska decide six to three that he can't do
this? And so why are we even having this conversation, Dave Boy,
That's a great question. It's the Save Act, as he's calling it,
is another dictatorial action by Joe Biden. You know, it reminds me of
when President Obama said that I have a pen and a phone, and then
he issued edicts as though you were King George, and so Biden's doing the
same thing. Luckily, we're representative democracy and president. But Biden cannot do
that. We have three branches of government. Biden thinks he's the legislatures,
was the president, but fortunately have courts that say you cannot do that.
The Save Act is another illegal attempt to forgive student loans. It's basically a
five votes action. But the Buckchives who was filed one of the lawsuits successfully
challenging Biden's last loan forgiveness scheme, which you reference, and now Biden is
added again. At this time he's using a different statute than a new regulation
issued by the Department of Education to try and do that. Brian, one
of the interesting things about this to me is that the official name of the
plan is the Revised Pays You Earn Plan, or abbreviated the Repay Plan for
short, but so it means repay, not forgive. But then they renamed
it the Saving Valuable Education Plan because they realized that the name didn't really fit
what they were doing. They have a repayment plan, but it really became
alone forgiveness scheme. I'm laughing because we were joking earlier with one of my
other guests about the Inflation Reduction Act, which it had nothing to do.
It was the antithesis of what it was labeled, and it had everything to
do with a Green New Deal. So yeah, naming something in order to
dupe the public is a really common theme out of our federal government. But
okay, going back to Buiener Nebraska, and the predicate for that one was
actually a law that was on the books, the Heroes Act, which allowed
for the to modify provision of loan forgiveness in the event of war or other
military action or national emergency. And so the Supreme Court said, no,
no, no, this does not authorize you to just sort of unilaterally walk
away from the obligation of these people to pay. And it's the if Congress
wants to give an administration agency power to make decisions of vast economic and political
significance, it has to say so clearly. So you're not going to take
a law that says you can do it under this narrowly defined set of circumstances
and expand it just randomly to literally everyone. This is not a law again,
it's the save what do we call in this program, It's an administers
it's an executive action, right right, Well, it is a regulation issued
by the Department of Education. Interestingly, they did not go through the typical
path of going through the notice and comment procedure under the Administer Act. Thank
you, the Administary Procedure Act. So that's one of the problems why it
is illegal. There's other reasons as well, but yeah, so this one
is based on the Higher Education Act. They said, of the Higher Education
Act, they can do this, but Higher Education Act only authorized certain ways
that loans can be forgiven, and this is not one of them. So
it does provide for the Secretary of Education to extend out loan payments or reduce
payments. That it does not authorize loan forgiveness. There's a big difference.
So when Congress authorized this plan, shouldn't win. It passed the law,
it authorized loans, It did not authorize loan forgiveness. Right, well,
go ahead. No, the current status of this program, the forgiveness that's
going on, is it still in place or has there been a lower court
that stated because my understanding, the Denver Court of Appeals allowed the administration to
move forward with the program while litigation was pending as opposed to so it is
because I noted that the Board and by the Administration just yesterday told the High
Court that it should keep in place the order that allows this program to move
forward, in other words, not staying it, but letting the program implemented
move forward. No stay, because they argue the borrowers would stand to suffer
significant and irreparable harm and many would experience intense confusion. Well, I'm sorry,
irreparable harm. If you can be made whole with money, then there
will be there cannot be any irreparable harm. This isn't like knocking down a
historic building. This is whether or not you're going to pay money or not.
In courts have concluded, you know, time after time after time,
that if money can solve the problem, then you won't be suffering a reparable
harm. The obligation to repay the loans pre existed, the forgiveness of them
maybe back in the exact same place they were if this thing was shot down,
right, You've got it exactly right. I mean, every one of
these bar wars signed a promissory note that they would repay it. Just as
when you sign your mortgage, or you sign or you sign a loan to
buy a car. That's a legal obligation. It's an obligation which only the
Congress can forgive. And so to go back to the status of the case,
and then I want to circle back to quot on this issue. But
the status of the case is the district court saw that there was irrevable harm
to the States because they were suing, and so stayed the issued a preliminary
injunction stopping the program from going forward. The Court of Appeals granted a stay,
granted the federal government stay of that preliminary in junction. So they can
go forward with it. Now. This is now before the Supreme Court,
and the States are asking the United States Supreme Court on an emergency basis to
be in state that preliminary injunction. They're asking specifically Justicecore such to do this
on this emergency motion. And you can either choose to take astionary can refer
to the full Court. So we're expecting that the Court will act on this
fairly quickly and put the state put the injunction back in place. Exactly.
Yeah, that's the outcome I would expect under the current circumstances. So Okay,
So that's a sort of a sub issue beneath the broader topic of your
A. Meeks brief and the general ruling on whether or not this is constitutional,
generally speaking to the program itself, whether it's constitutional in any way,
shape or form. Right. So, there's three reasons why it's the illity
goal. One, it does not satisfy the Administrative Procedure Act. Second,
these loans are a counselor CI will owe to the United States Department of Treasury.
Joe Biden does not have the authority to forgive that. That only Congress
can. It's right there in the Constitution. It's our first property. Yeah,
the power of the purse, the property clause, Article four, Session
three clause to Biden ignored that the second constitutional claim or issue is that there's
the appropriations clause Article one, Section nine of the Constitution. Congress must appropriate
money to be spent to be spent. Nobody else can do that the power
of the purse. And Congress did appropriate funds for student loans, but for
loans, not forgiving those loans. It's something completely different. Just like pell
grants are grants, that's getting money away. That's not a loan. Bees
are loans. One is free money, the other is not. Biden can't
just convert one to the other. You know, honestly, it is such
an obvious effort to buy votes. If there's everything on top of its head,
and I just look out of the landscape, and I know most people
didn't get a college education. You know, this is a minority of adults
in America, and that the guy that's out there doing roofing work or went
to the trade school and as an electrician who didn't bother going down the four
year college bath is saying I got to pay taxes for these folks to forgive
their loans and their obligations. I mean, I don't know. It seems
like a stupid thing to do generally speaking as a political matter, but then
again, legally speaking, it is way out of bounds and certainly unconstitutional simply
based on the fact that it's a congressional authority that's required under the power of
the purse. So how long is it going to be? So they're going
to deal with the injunction component on a short order basis, how quickly will
the Alaska versus us to part of education case? So we're talking about now
decided by the Supreme Court. Do you have any guests to uh to satisfy
my curiosity in that regard? Well, my guess as to this right now,
this emergency order that's before the Supreme Court, I would expect that to
be resolved with, you know, within a few weeks, if not sooner.
So that's my hope. And then after that, of course, we
go to go back to the trial court to actually address all of the issues.
Actually it's now on appeal. The substance of the issues aren't appealed before
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that already ruled on the initial injunction and excuse
me, staying the injunction. So two different issues. But so so the
case is going to continue to move forward in the lower courts. That will
take some time well, going through the legal challenges that the uh them binding
administration is facing. And again my guests today, they've tried and the director
of Litigation of the Bucket Institute, uh the where and when Biden implements this
program and says he's going to stay all these loan obligations and forgive them.
Someone runs into court and says, no, no, no, no,
no, he can't do this for all these reasons, and the court issues
a preliminary injunction. That's what happened. The preliminary injunction in and of itself
means the lower court judge has decided that on its face, it looks like
the people challenging it will prevail on the merits. There is a likelihood of
success on the legal merits. They haven't gotten to them yet, that's the
part we're talking about. It'll go back and they'll revisit them. But because
they stand to win, we're not going to allow this act or this program
to move forward, because then we'd have to unring the bell after they win
at court, so it stops all activity from moving forward. If the Supreme
Court puts the injunction back in place, it too is saying there's a likelihood
of success on the merits. In other words, Biden can't do this legally.
Right, That's exactly right. And I think it's important to remember.
You know, the government, federal government is saying, well, it's going
to create a feel out. This if you don't let us go forward,
is going to create confusion and problems in chaos. The real chaos results from
the fact that if you if you don't stop it. These are loans which
the government is obligated to collect. So imagine that you get this letter from
the government that says your loans are forgiven, and then great, my loans
are forgiven us. I can go spend this money. Then you have to
get Then the court says, no, no, no, that was illegal.
You can't do that to the government. Then the government has to send
out a letter saying, oh, we said that one hundred thousand dollars loan
you had was forgiven. We were wrong. You have to pass now they
are legally the government is legally obligated to collect this. So the real chaos
is if the court does not stop this from going forward. And can I
just mention also the cost of this now unfare this is well one of the
reasons that violates the administrative procedure because they didn't take into consideration and didn't disclose.
They said it was going to cost one hundred and fifty six billion dollars,
but really it's probably going to cost four hundred and fifty six billion dollars,
so three times as much as they sat it's going to cost. And
so think about this as a practical matter, if you look through the math
of the the comp somewhat complicated math formula, if someone has one hundred thousand
dollars of debt and they pay as little as under this program, the so
called repay program, they pay as little as one hundred and eight dollars a
month for ten years, then it's forgiven. That mean direct is forgiven.
That would mean eighty seven thousand dollars of that one hundred thousand dollars debt is
forgiven. Would that be nice if your mortgage paan could be forgiven that don't
Dave, don't give them any ideas they're going to start trying to buy votes
by telling people that mortgages are going to be forgiven. Dave try A director
of litigation the Buckeye Institute. Find them online at bookmarket Buckyinstitute dot org.
Thanks for fighting the good fight on behalf of the American people, Dave,
and I look forward to having you back on the program real soon and best
of look luck in the litigation. Brian, Thank you so much. Have
a great date, my pleasure, my friend coming up in eight twenty if
you have Kcity Talks station coming up, and I hurt media aviation expert Jay
Latt Ratloff and strongly suggesting that you just simply call USA installation older home maybe
before mid seventies. You don't have any insulation in your house. USA's premium
film, the highest star value foam on the market. It's going to be
a huge benefit to you in terms of comfortence and energy savings, so much
so that yes, our federal government is going to give you twelve hundred dollars
and an energy tax credit when you're doing your taxes next year for doing what
is right at any time, which is making your life more comfortable and saving
you money. Period end of story. On that one. Right, they're
going to do your exterior walls. You pay for that part. They're going
to insulate your attic for free. That is assuming you need the insulation,
and a free inspection will determine that you could have a newer home and they
can inspect it and say no, no, your insulation is fine. Well,
I'll give you peace of mind knowing that it wouldn't help. But like
in my daughter's case, are twelve, that's about three four decades old,
not doing the job. So the foam win in the exterior walls. Thanks
to mom and Dad for that one little housewarming gift. They're gonna they are
enjoying comfort, much improved and energy savings. Do the same and take advantage
of that energy tax credit next year three eight one three six two six five
one three three eight one Foam online. Learn more at the website USA insulation
dot net. The Democrats are not hiding their panic, recording Biden's pathetic performance
as the Dems panic spreads a total debaggle and we are in danger. Desperate
times, call for desperate measures, and campaign chaos ensues if we don't win
this election. Discountry is done, but people have to stand up and say
enough. It's giving us a whole lot to talk about data field. We're
gonna take it out of what they try to do to try fifty five KRC
VIS Talk station. You have idea for an