it is topsy-turvy live news event kind of day. case in point, in a matter of about two minutes, we expect to hear from president biden. he will address the nation live on a number of topics, not the least of which is the abrupt stepback our country took today away from fairness and progress toward intolerance and discrimination. the conservative supreme court ruled 6-3 in favor of a colorado web designer, an evangelical named lori smith who refused to work on same sex weddings. the court said that the first amendment protected her from punishment. and it is a turning point decision that will flip the state of equal protections on its head and allow business owners to likewise evade punishment under similar laws in 29 states. and in the longer term, it could again signal a threat to the landmark decision of the 2015 case establishing the case of same sex couples to marry. and if you are wondering of the same sex couple, what they are doing, after being denied basic human decen
inside politics i am john king in washington. high stakes at the high court, 40 million americans have 40 million dollars on the line. whether biden plans to erase student debt is constitutional. how fox put profit ahead of politics and fairness and tipping off trump campaign about joe biden s advertising buys. nine-way brawl where crime concerns could see locked out of an april runoff. supreme court hearing arguments in a case that impacts millions of americans. case involves present biden s student debt relief program. it is massive and wipe out 430 billion dollars in federal loans, estimated 40 million people qualify, forgives 10,000 for borrows that make less than 125,000 and up to 20,000 who get pel grants. today nine justices hearing two cases, one is a challenge from six republican-led state who is want to block biden s executive actions they say administration exceeded constitutional authority here. second case two individual borrowers suing because they are not eli
u.k. earlier in the late queen s honor. 96 rounds fired. one for each year of her life. [gunshots] harris: queen elizabeth was the longest reigning british monarch, seven decades starting in 1952 when harry s. truman was president and she met with 13 additional presidents in her lifetime including with president biden just last june. the president and other lawmakers praising her. president biden: she was an incredibly gracious and decent woman. she made sure her reign was really not about herself, or her fame, or her feelings, or her personal wants or needs. she was a rock. a living embodiment at the core of the nation she so proudly led. we will never see a leader quite like her for as long as we live. harris: jonathan hunt is live in london. jonathan, maybe you can give us a peak into what the people on the ground want to hear from their new king and what he might say to them. yeah, it is the most consequential speech that the now king charles has ever made. an
very quickly, a challenge to an existing policy here to get to this conclusion today. was this expected from the conservative court? it was. the biden administration faced severe criticism, pushback from the conservative members of this court during argument. their arguments were exactly what was reflected in the opinion. you know, as a measure of fairness. why some people paid back student loans and now you re giving a free pass to others? also, the expanse of the heros act. it allows the secretary of education to act in emergency situations when it comes to student loans. the court here saying, you acted in too broad of a manner. the statute never intended for this. it is a $400 billion price tag, and the court said that is just too large for you to act on your own. the heros act goes back to the wake of 9/11, right? exactly. the argument is, you are stretching what that was intended to act with student loan forgiveness. they re saying it was a matter for congress, not the
are making the point that biden s justification for loan forgiveness, taking advantage of the heros act which dates back to 9/11, was stretching the original goal and intent of that law. do you from a legal standpoint, from a practical standpoint, do you buy that argument? so, jim, what you have to look at in anything is the plain text of what the law provides. the law that i read speaks to the secretary of education, has the right to waive or modify. waive or modify seems plain to me. in english, you can waive something or modify, amend it, right? right. waive it completely or amend it. the supreme court is saying, that s not what waive means. that s not what modify meant. it is in congress authority to do those things. you don t have the authority. congress implemented the legislation, giving the secretary of education the ability to do that. when the secretary does that, you say, well, you went too far. waive doesn t really mean waive. modify doesn t really mean modify. so