比特币的鞭子价格动作清除了渴望和短裤

伙计们，我希望你周末愉快。比特币在周日和周一的鞭打价格行动清除了渴望和短裤。但这是在有史以来高高之前的最后摇摆

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

人们仍在讨论美国最高法院关于拜登总统试图取消联邦学生贷款计划的裁决。

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使拜登的计划无效，将其与称为“主要问题”规则的行政法学说联系在一起。该学说说，国会必须明确授权任何主要的联邦计划或法规。

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

这些法官说，教育部没有国会明确授权执行这样一项盛大的学生贷款取消计划。

“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.

卡瓦诺法官写道：“我们对计划的优点或对政府是否在选择取消计划的非法行动的广泛问题上没有任何观点。”

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

“但是这里讨论的计划并不是对现有法规的少量调整。它们旨在提供大量的宏观经济救济。”

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.

拜登政府辩称，制定学生贷款计划的1990年立法使教育部长有权“妥协，修改或重组”学生贷款义务，以应对国家紧急情况。

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.

冠状病毒大流行于2020年初开始后，当时的总统特朗普宣布发生全国紧急情况。拜登后来使用该声明授权取消学生贷款。

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.”

但是大法官说，对1990年立法的解释不是“合理的阅读”。他们说，该法规授予总统的权力“不是次要，技术或琐碎”。

“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.

卡瓦诺（Kavanaugh）写道：“国会在一项庞大的法规的简短遗书中旨在授予总统对政府声称的学生贷款的宣传权的权威，这是不合理的。”

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·卡瓦诺（Elena Kavanaugh）表示，多数意见“在法规，行政国家或第三条中没有依据”。

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

卡瓦诺说：“国会明确授予秘书执行该计划的权力，法院无权干预。”

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

“多数人推翻了总统设计的计划，政府对毁灭性的大流行作出了实施。”

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.

这些法官还以8-1统治了一个单独的案件，该案件涉及一群针对政府根据2007年法律释放某些学生贷款的计划的学生。

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.

在这种情况下，大法官维持了政府的计划。他们说，学生们没有提起诉讼的立场，因为政府从未完成根据2007年法律进行出院的计划。

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

政府已经开始制定一项计划，根据1990年的立法进行释放，但后来取消了该计划。