Biden administration asks Stupreme Court (sic) to revive his student-loan-payoff bribe after lower court blocked it

If you're a hard-working American who either couldn't afford college or paid your own way, you may have heard about a thinly-disguised *bribe* from the Democrats to students who borrowed money to go to college.

It's a bribe of up to $20,000 to each student borrower.  The stated rationale is that it's just too mean to the li'l darlings to expect 'em to pay back those loans for degrees like "gender studies."  So instead the Democrats will "forgive" those students' loans.

"Forgive" sounds SOooo great, doesn't it?  Unfortunately what it really means is that every taxpayer's tax dollars will be used to pay off the loans--meaning that if you paid yours off, or worked your way through college without borrowing money, you'll pay up to $20,000 in "forgiveness" on the loan of the Harvard-gender-studies majors.

Are Democrats great or what, eh?

Last Friday the biden regime filed a 40-page motion with the Supreme Court wailing that a lower-court ruling blocking the regime's loan-forgiveness program (i.e. bribe) “leaves millions of economically vulnerable borrowers in limbo.”

"In limbo," ya say?  If that's really your arguement it seems beyond question that you Democrats put 'em there by promising something you totally lack the authority to do, eh?

Oh wait, I forgot:  We're "in an emergency" now.  And back in 2003 congress passed a bill called the "Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003" that allows the federal government to "make changes to student-loan programs to respond to national emergencies."

Wait...biden flunkies keep telling us the economy is booming and jobs are going un-filled.  So what's the so-called "emergency," eh?

Simple: the "emergency" was that it looked like the Dems were gonna lose a historic number of seats in the elections earlier this month.  So they trotted out the bribe, and the college-age crowd voted overwhelmingly for the party that promised 'em up to $20,000 apiece!  Makes sense.

So on Friday the regime asked the Supreme Court to allow the $400 billion bribe to go forward "while challenges to it continue in the lower courts."  This is beyond ludicrous, since if it pays a few thousand snowflakes $20,000 the courts will NEVER cut it off at that point, even if it's clearly unconstitutional.

Let's review:  When students borrowed money, presumably they didn't expect taxpayers to repay their loans.  So NOT allowing this program to go into effect doesn't put them in a worse situation than they would have been in before the Dems made their offer.  No one is imposing an extra hardship on the borrowers--as the regime well knows.

So six states sued in federal court in Missouri to block the bribe. In what's become an all too common ploy, the federal judge in that case ruled that states don't have "standing" to sue the federal government for acts claimed to be unconstitutional--or for anything, for that matter.

Apparently states are only allowed to sue the federal government to block conservative presidents from de-funding so-called "sanctuary cities," or ending a Dem president's program to allow children of illegal aliens to remain in the U.S.

But last week a three-judge panel at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the regime not to proceed until the case could be fully heard in court.  Then as we've come to expect, the regime promptly appealed to the Supreme Court.

The regime's 40-page filing argued (again) that NO U.S. state has "legal standing" to challenge this program--and thus to challenge ANY federal program.  It claimed that “the entire purpose of the [2003] Act" was to authorize the regime to grant student-loan relief to at-risk borrowers because of a national emergency.  So all that remained was to...wait for it...declare that a national emergency still existed.

The regime also claimed the 8th Circuit should not have issued an order blocking the bribe program nationwider.  At most, it claimed the 8th Circuit only had the authority to block the program for states in that circuit.  When critics noted that a notorious federal judge in Hawaii had repeatedly issued rulings blocking Trump orders nationwide, government attorneys just smiled like Cheshire cats.

Any bets on how the SC rules on this?

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/biden-administration-asks-justices-to-revive-student-debt-relief-plan-after-lower-court-blocked-it/