questions because the way they crafted this deafination of this web designer s speech, she s making up a spoke website that would in describing the union between these same-sex couples be a tacit endorsement of same-sex marriage. i think that is really kind of splitting hairs, one would argue. and there are all kinds of things that same-sex couples or let s say call it interracial couples. if you re an interracial couple and someone s religious beliefs don t align with interracial marriage, could that person discriminate against an interracial couple? i think it raises those are questions that do not close the door to more litigation. in fact, i think this opens the flood gates here. the groups that bring these cases in some ways that s what they re going for. they want to reopen these questions in public life so that the court, a very conservative court can relitigate them. the lawyer of the website designer was on earlier talking
basically step in and try to erase billions of dollars of debt. he needs congressional authority to do that, and that is where the supreme court agreed. the court has shown enormous deference to congress, right? oftentimes in its decisions it says that should be a congressional responsibility or it s a state legislature responsibility. we saw that for instance on the dobbs case. in this case, though, i heard other folks interpret the law, the heroes act the decision was based on was as congress wrote the law and gave the president this authority. how do you understand how the court defines congress role here and does it stand up? that s what justice kagen wrote. she said the court is in here and it s ignoring what the court has said. but this conservative court at times has been very skeptical of administrative agencies. they say, look, separation of powers. they are not accountable to the people, and they believe this
constitute a modification or a waiver, which is allowed ined the heroes act. this is wholesale change which just can t there s no good argument to be made under the heroes act that this is legal. well, let me ask you part of the debate there is question of whether maybe not, you know, maybe before the court but as part of this broad debate on student loan forgiveness there is a question about whether shised the be forgiven, and there have been many republicans who say, look, this was a pay out to the constituency that democrats were doing, and there was opposition as you know within your party because of that. i mean knowing that this will animate potentially democrats, are you prepared for the political blowback of what this will bring? i m prepared to do what s right under the law, and whatever political blowback
to boris, and she said that s a reprehensible view of someone objecting, but that s not the point here. she may think that s a reprehensible view, but if you just super impose that upon this ruling, if someone were to say that is my religious belief, and this is a form of speech, i don t see how the court does not respect that under the way this ruling is written. such an interesting point. abby philip, thank you so much. and much more on today s supreme court decision of course ahead with you on the lead the to the top of the hour. and for our viewers stay with us, president biden is going to be speaking any moment. obviously a very busy day with these court decisions. he s going to be addressing the cameras from the white house on all of this. this is cnn news central.
politically for republicans. over the next tickiedory so there s been a massive slift in support for gay marriage. you can see why republicans would be more reluctant to weigh in on that case. and in the meanwhile democrats are devastated and furious what transpired nis week. democrats now urging biden to come up a plan b for student loan forgiveness. they veulse also been renewing their calls for reform and pack the supreme court. and chuck schumer has been particularly outspoken. he put out a statement saying the gay rights ruling was both bigoted and hateful and he put a broader statement expressing concern about the direction of the court. i want to read you part of that statement because it is pretty scathing. he wrote the fanatical maga right has captured the supreme court. this maga captured supreme court feels free to accept lavish gifts and vacations from their powerful big moneyed friends all while they refuse to help everyday americans. so we ll see how democrats try