比特幣的鞭子價格動作清除了渴望和短褲

伙計們，我希望你周末愉快。比特幣在周日和周一的鞭打價格行動清除了渴望和短褲。但這是在有史以來高高之前的最後搖擺

People are still discussing the finality of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on President Biden’s attempt to cancel federal student loan programs.

人們仍在討論美國最高法院關於拜登總統試圖取消聯邦學生貸款計劃的裁決。

The court ruled 6-3 to invalidate Biden’s plan, tying it to an administrative law doctrine known as the “major questions” rule. That doctrine says Congress must clearly authorize any major federal programs or regulations.

法院裁定6-3使拜登的計劃無效，將其與稱為“主要問題”規則的行政法學說聯繫在一起。該學說說，國會必須明確授權任何主要的聯邦計劃或法規。

The justices said the Education Department didn’t have clear authorization from Congress to carry out such a sweeping student loan cancellation program.

這些法官說，教育部沒有國會明確授權執行這樣一項盛大的學生貸款取消計劃。

“We do not express any view on the merits of the programs or on the broad question of whether the administration acted unlawfully in selecting the programs to cancel,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.

卡瓦諾法官寫道：“我們對計劃的優點或對政府是否在選擇取消計劃的非法行動的廣泛問題上沒有任何觀點。”

“But the programs at issue here are not minor adjustments to existing regulations. They are designed to provide substantial macroeconomic relief.”

“但是這裡討論的計劃並不是對現有法規的少量調整。它們旨在提供大量的宏觀經濟救濟。”

The Biden administration argued that the 1990 legislation that created the student loan program gave the Education Secretary the authority to “compromise, modify, or restructure” student loan obligations in response to a national emergency.

拜登政府辯稱，制定學生貸款計劃的1990年立法使教育部長有權“妥協，修改或重組”學生貸款義務，以應對國家緊急情況。

After the coronavirus pandemic began in early 2020, then-President Trump declared a national emergency. Biden later used that declaration to authorize broad student loan cancellation.

冠狀病毒大流行於2020年初開始後，當時的總統特朗普宣布發生全國緊急情況。拜登後來使用該聲明授權取消學生貸款。

But the justices said that interpretation of the 1990 legislation was not “a reasonable reading.” They said the statute’s grant of authority to the president was “not minor, technical, or trivial.”

但是大法官說，對1990年立法的解釋不是“合理的閱讀”。他們說，該法規授予總統的權力“不是次要，技術或瑣碎”。

“It is not plausible that Congress, in a brief codicil to a sprawling statute, intended to grant the president the sweeping authority over student loans that the administration claims,” Kavanaugh wrote.

卡瓦諾（Kavanaugh）寫道：“國會在一項龐大的法規的簡短遺書中旨在授予總統對政府聲稱的學生貸款的宣傳權的權威，這是不合理的。”

Justice Elena Kavanaugh, in a dissenting opinion, said the majority opinion had “no basis in the statute, the administrative state, or Article III.”

法官埃琳娜·卡瓦諾（Elena Kavanaugh）表示，多數意見“在法規，行政國家或第三條中沒有依據”。

“Congress plainly granted the Secretary the authority to carry out the plan, and the court had no authority to intervene,” Kavanaugh said.

卡瓦諾說：“國會明確授予秘書執行該計劃的權力，法院無權干預。”

“The majority overturns a program that the president devised and the administration implemented in response to a devastating pandemic.”

“多數人推翻了總統設計的計劃，政府對毀滅性的大流行作出了實施。”

The justices also ruled 8-1 on a separate case that involved a group of students who sued the administration over its plan to discharge some student loans in accordance with a 2007 law.

這些法官還以8-1統治了一個單獨的案件，該案件涉及一群針對政府根據2007年法律釋放某些學生貸款的計劃的學生。

In that case, the justices upheld the administration’s plan. They said the students had no standing to sue because the administration never completed its plan to carry out discharges under the 2007 law.

在這種情況下，大法官維持了政府的計劃。他們說，學生們沒有提起訴訟的立場，因為政府從未完成根據2007年法律進行出院的計劃。

The administration had begun developing a plan to carry out discharges under the 1990 legislation, but that plan was later canceled.

政府已經開始製定一項計劃，根據1990年的立法進行釋放，但後來取消了該計劃。