Three times Biden disregarded the ‘limits of presidential power’

Fresh off his humiliating performance at the presidential debate, President Joe Biden found the energy to deliver brief remarks to a nationally televised audience over the Supreme Court 's presidential immunity case.

In a four-minute address that resembled a campaign ad more than a formal statement, Biden, who took no questions, condemned the Supreme Court's decision. His comments echoed those of Justice Sonia Sotomayor , employing fear-inducing language such as "fundamentally changed" and other phrases suggesting a significant shift but also allowing for possible retreats, such as "for all practical purposes," "almost certainly," and "virtually no limits."

One thing Biden said stood out . "I know I will respect the limits of the presidential power, as I have for three and a half years," he said.

This statement is in stark contrast to his actions. In reality, the president has consistently pushed the boundaries of his power, particularly during the first two years of his presidency, when he frequently disregarded the separation of powers.

Rent moratorium

The first instance in which Biden ignored the limits of presidential power was when he allowed the COVID-era rent moratorium to remain in place. He won an initial 5-4 decision. Still, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned he only allowed it to continue to maintain an orderly transition and that any further relief would require "clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation)." The Biden administration ignored the warning and tried to extend the moratorium again. The Supreme Court struck it down.

Vaccine mandate

In another instance, the Biden administration attempted to force private companies to mandate employee vaccinations, arguing it had the authority to use Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations to enforce it. The Supreme Court disagreed, striking down the mandate and ruling the agency exceeded its authority. The court wrote, "Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly."

Student debt relief

Though academics, scholars, and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Biden did not have the authority to implement student debt relief unilaterally, the president chose to do it anyway. Once again, the Supreme Court told him "no," reminding him in yet another instance that he was not respecting the limits of presidential power. Chief Justice John Roberts rejected the administration's argument it had authority under the 2003 HEROES Act to implement the plan. Roberts wrote, "The question here is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it."

The court invoked the "major question" doctrine, which states that if Congress wants to give agencies the authority to make decisions of vast economic and political significance, it must say so clearly. Roberts said the HEROES Act didn't authorize debt relief at all.

Rather than go to Congress and ask lawmakers to draft legislation for debt relief, Biden attempted a backdoor to implement student debt forgiveness. The administration devised a new scheme it felt would insulate it from judicial review. Biden had the audacity to boast about it. He said, "The Supreme Court blocked me, but it did not stop me."

However, two federal judges in separate states, Kansas and Missouri, blocked the new Saving on a Valuable Education plan enacted by the Department of Education . States sued, arguing the administration once again overstepped its authority. While the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily lifted the Kansas judge's ban on the new repayment plan, the injunction is still in place in Missouri. The judges in both cases said the administration could not show Congress authorized the new plan.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The judges in the two cases, U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree in Kansas and U.S. District Judge John A. Ross in Missouri, were both appointed by President Barack Obama . So, any complaints team Biden might have about the judges' political motivations fall flat.

Pointing out how wrong former President Donald Trump is when it comes to restraints on executive power is not a valid way for Biden to excuse his lack of restraint, and it is a bald-faced lie for him to say he's respected the limits of presidential power during his term.

Andrea Ruth is a contributor to the Washington Examiner magazine.