BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Jon, I am pleased that the White House is invoking the Higher Education Act. As you know, Justice Roberts explicitly said in the opinion that the opinion has no bearing on the Higher Education Act.
I do hope that the White House will make sure that the interest doesn't accrue starting in September. I know the president has said he isn't going to refer students to the credit agency. I also believe under the Higher Education Act, he can stop the interest accrual.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I have, Jon. I mean, you have all of these students who have relied on a promise that they are going to have their student loans forgiven. I had to take out $150,000 of student loans. There were times in my life where I had to have a forbearance. I'm fortunate now and been able to pay them off, but this is a real hardship.
And when people are out there are saying that they are relying on this, we should at least pause it until that is forgiven, especially when we have Supreme Court who in my view has usurped the authority of Congress.
Look, the Congress passed the Heroes Act. If you believe Congress gave the president too much authority under the Heroes Act, then the solution is Congress can repeal the Heroes Act.
But Justice Roberts and his court shouldn't be overturning the will of Congress justice because they think Congress gave too much power to the president.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Speaker Pelosi took that position before the President asked for a legal analysis on the Heroes Act. When you look at the analysis of the Heroes Act, it says specifically, that the President and the Secretary have the authority to cancel or amend or to waive or amend the student loans. They were as an analysis done, that the Secretary has that authority has to over a certain amount get the approval of the Attorney General. And the speaker said after she looked at that legal analysis, it was clear to her that under the Heroes Act, the administration did have that authority.
Now, we can have an argument that the Heroes Act passed in 2003. In the wake shortly after 9/11 was way too broad in giving that kind of authority to the President and the Secretary. I don't believe it was the case. That's a legitimate argument. The place to make that argument is in the United States Congress is not for unelected justices to override what Congress has passed. And that is what this Court is doing. It's very dangerous. They are basically reinterpreting congressional statute to fit their ideological preconceptions.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
God no. I mean, let's just review the facts here. You had President Trump appoint a U.S. Attorney in Delaware. And President Biden had the ability to fire that U.S. attorney if he wanted as is customary, that new president comes in they remove all the U.S. attorneys. President Biden didn't fire the U.S. Attorney, he had his past opponents appointee have total power over making a decision on Hunter Biden.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
But Weiss is not saying that. Isn't this the source Weiss? I mean, if Weiss was saying that I would have a concern. If Weiss was out there saying, I didn't have total authority, there was interference. But Weiss -- Weiss is the key person and he's not saying that and --
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
-- there were charges that were pursued.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Thank you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT