Democrat Nancy Pelosi herself said it clearly
"As then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi explained: ‘People think that
the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness.
He does not,’"

from
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice-roberts-uses-pelosis-words-against-biden-smackdown-student-loan-handout

Justice Roberts uses Pelosi's words against Biden in smackdown of
student loan handout
Roberts' opinion comes as the Supreme Court hands down several
high-profile cases going into the summer months
Houston KeeneBy Houston Keene | Fox News

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cited former House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in his majority opinion to help explain why
President Biden’s student loan handout was unconstitutional.

On Friday, Roberts released the Supreme Court’s opinion blocking Biden's
student loan forgiveness plan, one of the president's major campaign
promises.

In the opinion, Roberts cited then-Speaker Pelosi’s words saying the
president did not have the power to cancel federal student loan debt.

WHAT HAPPENS NOW THAT SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN BIDEN’S STUDENT LOAN
HANDOUT SCHEME

United States Supreme Court (front row L-R) Associate Justice Sonia
Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the
United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and
Associate Justice Elena Kagan, (back row L-R) Associate Justice Amy
Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett
Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pose for their
official portrait
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cited former House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in his majority opinion while explaining why
President Biden’s student loan handout was unconstitutional. (Alex
Wong/Getty Images)

"As then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi explained: ‘People think that
the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness.
He does not,’" Roberts quoted Pelosi’s July 28, 2021, press conference.
"‘He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That
has to be an act of Congress.’"

"Aside from reiterating its interpretation of the statute, the dissent
offers little to rebut our conclusion that ‘indicators from our previous
major questions cases are present’ here," Roberts wrote, citing Justice
Amy Coney Barrett’s concurring opinion.

Robert’s opinion comes as the Supreme Court hands down several
high-profile cases going into the summer months.

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a harsh rebuke of Associate
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in the case of a Christian web
designer who the court ruled was not obligated to design websites for
gay couples.

"It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the
same case," Gorsuch wrote in the 6-3 Supreme Court decision on Friday.
That decision said web designer Lorie Smith was not legally required to
design websites for gay marriages because doing so would violate her
free speech rights and Christian beliefs, despite a Colorado law that
bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.

GORSUCH BLASTS SOTOMAYOR’S DISSENT IN CHRISTIAN WEB DESIGNER RULING:
‘REIMAGINES’ FACTS FROM ‘TOP TO BOTTOM’

Gorsuch said Sotomayor’s dissent in the case "reimagines the facts" from
"top to bottom" and fails to answer the fundamental question: "Can a
State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon
her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?"

"In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that
it opens fire on its own position," Gorsuch wrote. "For instance: While
stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse ‘the full and equal
enjoyment of [its] services’ based on a customer’s protected status . .
.. the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services ‘to
the public’ does have a right ‘to decide what messages to include or not
to include . . .' But if that is true, what are we even debating?"

Gorsuch wrote that rather than address the key aspects of the case, the
dissent "spends much of its time adrift on a sea of hypotheticals about
photographers, stationers, and others, asking if they too provide
expressive services covered by the First Amendment."

Nancy-Pelosi-Chuck-Schumer-gas-prices-US-Capitol-Washington-DC
"As then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi explained: ‘People think that
the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness.
He does not,’" Roberts quoted Pelosi’s July 28, 2021, press conference.
"‘He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. ‘That
has to be an act of Congress.’" (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Friday's decision reversed a lower court ruling that sided against
Smith, who said the law infringed on her First Amendment rights by
forcing her to promote messages that violate her deeply held faith.

The high court's majority stated that "under Colorado’s logic, the
government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to
accept all commissions on that same topic — no matter the message — if
the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Sotomayor dissented from the majority, along with Justices Elena Kagan
and Ketanji Brown Jackson. They called the ruling "a new license to
discriminate" and said the "symbolic effect of the decision is to mark
gays and lesbians for second-class status."

"The unattractive lesson of the majority opinion is this: What’s mine is
mine, and what’s yours is yours. The lesson of the history of public
accommodations laws is altogether different. It is that in a free and
democratic society, there can be no social castes," Sotomayor said.

The case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, drew national attention as it
featured competing interests of the First Amendment right to free speech
and non-discrimination against LGBTQ people.

Fox News Digital’s Andrew Mark Miller contributed reporting.

Houston Keene is a politics writer for Fox News Digital. Story tips can
be sent to Houston.Keene@Fox.com and on Twitter: @HoustonKeene

Conversation11.3K Comments
998 Viewing
Discussions are moderated. For more details, click here.

View 32 new comments
Sort by

Best

EuropeanbecameAmerican
18 hours ago

So we have the Supreme Court ruling. Great. This ruling would not be
possible without 3 Trump's nominations. My point ? Thank Trump for
shaping today's Supreme Court first and then thank Supreme Court for
wise decisions.

budley502
5 hours ago

The dems should be happy because this will help sink the GOP.

truegritt532
4 hours ago

Another example 👆 of accusing republicans for something that Democrats
are doing.

aldor61
4 hours ago

Thank God Trump help put them on the Court, because if not for them, we
the American people would be paying these peoples loan which they
signed, not us.

dingleberry135
3 minutes ago

You should also be thanking Nancy Pelosi, since she gave them the idea
of what to say.

bestpresidentever300
20 hours ago

Thank you speaker Pelosi for your wisdom and helping scotus come to the
correct conclusion. And a big thank you to President trump for putting
3 great picks onto scotus. These rulings are great for America.

kn2477674
20 hours ago

I worked since the age of 14 and worked the entire time I was in
college. Another family member joined the Marines and Airforce reserves
and used the GI bill to pay for college. Responsible people figure it
out and pay their bills. I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's
mistakes.

freedomlives658
21 hours ago

Thank you Supreme Court for making a common sense ruling.
I did not go to college, chose to work a trade and I’ve done well for my
family.
It’s not my responsibility to pay for someone else’s college debt.

VoiceOfReason21025
6 hours ago

Let's see if all these rulings line up with American voters. Don't
scream voter fraud either. Republicans stuck in the 50s and 60s which I
guess what is meant by American great again.

slysnake
7 hours ago

I have a B. A. and an M. A. and it took me 10 years to pay off my
student loans, but I did it. You sign the loan contract, you make the
payments. Seems pretty simple to me.

rrjb
20 hours ago

All of the three dissenters DO NOT BELONG on the Supreme Court. During
the hearings Ketjani could not explain what a woman is and failed to
answer questions regarding several important historical court decisions
based on race and equality. She could not remember what the cases were,
on the other ha...See more

lastconservativeonearth947
5 hours ago

Those three are just quota hires anyway

babao
5 hours ago

The 3 dissenters are just political pawns. the need not read or
understand law. they just do what George Soros tells them to do.
Hence they do not even know what a woman is. That is pathetic in itself.