The NPR Politics Podcast - Will Supreme Court Un-Forgive Student Debt? Seems Like It.

Episode Date: March 3, 2023

Democratic lawmakers and Republican activists both met for messaging conferences this week. The Supreme Court's conservative majority appears poised to strike down President Biden's order cancelling some student debt.This episode: congressional correspondent Susan Davis, congressional reporter Barbara Sprunt, political reporter Elena Moore, senior political editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro, and legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg.This episode was produced by Elena Moore and Casey Morell. It was edited by Eric McDaniel. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi. Research and fact-checking by Devin Speak.Unlock access to this and other bonus content by supporting The NPR Politics Podcast+. Sign up via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Giveaway: npr.org/politicsplusgiveaway Connect:Email the show at [e-mail] the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hello, this is Joey from Los Angeles, California, and I am currently bumping Barbara Sprunt up to the top of my list of best radio voices on the NPR Politics Podcast. Oh my god! Congratulations to Barbara on her meteoric rise to the top of a ranking that has basically zero stakes and exists only in my head. The stakes are so high! This podcast was recorded at... 2.07pm on Friday, March 3rd. Things may have changed by the time you hear it, but I'm sure Barbara is keeping it smooth and mellifluous out there for your listening pleasure. All right.

Here's the show. You know, frankly, Joey's got a good voice for radio, too. Now I know why our amazing producers don't let us hear the time stamps beforehand. Well, thank you so much, kind sir. Sue, take note. We've got to change our voices. We've got work to do, Domenico. Hey there.

It's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent. And our mellifluous colleague, Barbara Sprunt. What a word. Joins us today. Hey, Barbara.

Hi. Thanks for having me. And Barbara, you just got back from Baltimore, where House Democrats were meeting for their annual retreat. It's definitely a different vibe this year. They're in the minority. They don't control the agenda. And President Biden showed up with this message about how they can win back a majority in 24. If we did nothing, nothing, but implement what we've already passed and let the people know who did it for them, we win. So Barbara, how'd that message go over? You know, it was a message that was repeated by a lot of Democrats that I talked to there.

A lot of the leadership that talked to the press echoed the same thing. They seem to be in lockstep, the administration, the White House and House same thing. They seem to be in lockstep, the administration, the White House and House Democrats. There's the reality that in divided government, it's not like it's not likely that Democrats are going to pass major legislation on their own this year or next. And so they're sort of put back on the defense. They're just very happy that they feel they have a record so that that defense is in their minds pretty easy. They can go back to their districts, really tout all of the legislation that they've done. And there's a lot. There's the bipartisan infrastructure bill, more bipartisan on the Senate side than the House side. Legislation to help protect veterans, to boost the manufacturing

state side of semiconductor chips, big sweeping legislation for taxes and health care, climate. So they feel good about what they have to defend when they go back home. Dominico, I wonder what your take is on that from a strategic point. I think we'll be having this debate over the next two years. But is the first two years of the Biden administration enough to make an argument for four more years of the Biden administration? the House that Biden will hold them up as what Republicans stand for and also potentially point to things like the Supreme Court to say that that's what the future, you know, if you go back to Trump or back to any other Republican, that's what the future will look like. Being in the minority is not fun for either party, but it also in a lot of ways is pretty easy. You

don't have the responsibility of governing. And there's probably nothing more unifying in politics than having a common enemy, the common enemy being the majority party. I wonder what the vibe or what the mood is of the caucus and like, how did they find their purpose in a minority situation? Yeah, being in the minority might not be fun. But at this point, the vibes were almost better. I would say I covered this with our colleague Deirdre Walsh last year when they met in Philadelphia. And there was a lot of tension within the party at that time when they all got together. The centrist versus the progressive. Centrist versus progressive, exactly. And lots of questions about debating the price tag for

various pieces of legislation. Lots of questions about what's best strategy wise for Democrats. And now, as I talk to members, they said, those fights are behind us. We are looking forward. We are united both in opposition to what they call an extreme Republican MAGA agenda and also united around Biden and around their shared accomplishments. And so they actually, the spirits were very high when I was there this week. And it was in stark contrast to what we saw last year. You know, Domenico, it's interesting to me, because when you look at our polling data, there is not a huge ton of enthusiasm for Biden, even among self-identified Democrats. But within sort of the power structure of the party, he doesn't have many detractors, even among the

progressive faction who haven't always been thrilled with the president. Like he doesn't have much criticism coming from inside the tent right now. Yeah. And I think that there's just a lot of Democrats who are coming around to the idea that Biden is likely going to be the nominee in 2024. And the natural thing that happens is that the base of each party winds up coalescing around the person to say, look, our guy might not be perfect, but he's better than whatever they're putting forward. All right, Barbara, thanks so much for your reporting. Thanks for having me. And just outside DC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, aka CPAC, is meeting right now as Republicans are also focused on 2024

and who will be their nominee. Our friend and colleague Elena Moore is there covering it for us. And she joins us now. Hey, Elena. Hey, guys. So, Elena, former President Trump is running again for the nomination. CPAC has generally been full of Trump loyalists, the loyal base. What's your sense of the vibe there, knowing that it's pretty early in the event? Yeah, well, if you didn't know anything about CPAC going in, it doesn't take very long to walk around to realize that it's a pretty heavily Trump-dominated event. There are people, you know, sprawled out all around these hallways, Republican activists, media personalities, politicians the like.

These activists have sometimes Make America Great Again apparel on. There's Trump 2024, things like that. I've seen signs for Trump. I've had a Don Jr. spotting. We've seen Steve Bannon, Trump's former aide in the White House. So there's definitely a pretty solid presence of the former president here. That's not to say he's not the only candidate that people here are talking about. I've talked to attendees who, you know, say hands down, Trump is my candidate, no question. And I've talked to people who are interested in seeing what the Republican primary field has to offer. You know, we still have a long way to go.

Domenico, it is notable to me sometimes at these events, not just about who's speaking, but who's not speaking. And there's some big names who decided not to attend CPAC this year. There are. There's a competing event with donors that the Club for Growth is sponsoring in Florida, which is a conservative group that's been focused on economics over the years, but is one of these groups that may fund another campaign that's not former President Trump's. And some of the potential 2024 candidates with some pretty big names chose to go to that instead. I'm talking about Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who seems to be at least a co-frontrunner with Trump if he decides to run, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, former Vice President Mike Pence. They're all going to that. Also notably

absent are the leaders of the Republican Party, ostensibly within Congress and at the national party level. We're talking about Ronna McDaniel, the RNC chairwoman, Republican National Committee chairwoman. She's not going to be speaking, nor is Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, or Kevin McCarthy, the new House speaker, which you would think would be a huge thing that people in the conservative movement would want to tout that they'd taken back the House. But Elena, some of the Republican presidential hopefuls are there. Already former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley spoke. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke. Let's start with Haley. What was her message to this room and how was it

received? Haley's speech was very much a campaign speech. You know, she stressed her experience as the former governor of South Carolina, as a former ambassador to the United Nations. You know, she hit on some pretty seems like popular talking points for conservatives these days. She talked about, you know, parent involvement in schools and she hit on like the quote unquote liberal media. She discussed, you know, the issue of transgender issues. And she talked specifically about some of her experience when she was in the Trump administration discussing foreign policy. So she really kind of laid out both a mix of her background and also, you know, the things you would hear from a presidential candidate that I guess isn't Donald Trump.

What about Pompeo? Pompeo, honestly, it felt similar in some ways. I'm curious for Domenico's take on it. Pompeo has this big background in Republican politics. He was also in the Trump administration. He served as the director of the CIA and then went on to serve as secretary of state, both under Trump. So he has experience with both working with Trump officials and in the Republican Party. He kind of did hint a little bit at, like I said, he hasn't officially

announced, but he had this one line in his speech where he kind of made a not so subtle jab that he might run for president. Over the last few years, I've heard some who claim to be conservative excuse hypocrisy by saying something like, well, we're we're electing a president, not a Sunday school teacher. That's true. But having taught Sunday school, maybe we could get both. You know, another thing I think is worth mentioning here about CPAC and the party, Domenico, is that election denialism still has a grip inside the Republican Party. Not only does the former president continue to maintain lies about the last election, but it is notable to me that CPAC chose Carrie Lake as their keynote speaker for this year's event. She, of course, lost the Arizona gubernatorial race and maintains that she won, although she did not. She herself has become an election denialist. And

I don't know what that tells you maybe about 2024, but this is not something that the party's ready to move past, it seems like. What does the Trump wing of the party value? And they value stuff that Trump has been pushing, including these election lies. And Carrie Lake, certainly somebody who has been able to promote that message. She's met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. She doesn't have a job currently. She may run for one of the offices that are open. And certainly Trump would like her to be somebody who is a face who's out there more. So you're going to see, I think it's interesting that you're seeing more Carrie Lake and less McCarthy's and McConnell's. And that gives you an idea of where the Trump party is headed. All right, Elena, thanks so much for

reporting. Thanks, guys. Happy Friday. Let's take a quick break. And when we get back, we'll talk about the Supreme Court case challenging Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. And we're back with NPR's Nina Totenberg. Hey, Nina. Hey there. So this week, the conservative majority Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging President Biden's executive order to forgive up to $400 billion in student loan debt. Recall that the president publicly struggled for months with whether or not he would use his power to try to forgive loans. Republicans are almost uniformly opposed to the idea of blanket student loan forgiveness. And even top members of the party, like then Speaker Nancy Pelosi, question Biden's legal authority to do so. The president said as recently as this week he believes he does have the legal authority to do just that. So, Nina,

what is the background for the legal justification for the president's action? Well, it's grounded in a post 9-11 law enacted by Congress, which says that for the president's action? Well, it's grounded in a post-9-11 law enacted by Congress, which says that when the president declares a national emergency, the Secretary of Education is authorized to waive or modify any statutory provision governing student loan programs. We certainly were in emergency with the pandemic, and the Biden administration invoked that statute to provide up to $20,000 in debt relief for federal student loan borrowers with limited incomes. So the heart of this case is whether Biden's plan goes beyond his executive power. Conservatives have granted broad latitude to the president's ability to take executive

action under prior presidents, including Trump. But where is it now? Well, the court's conservatives were, to say the least, extremely, extremely, extremely skeptical of the administration's argument. Here, for instance, is Chief Justice John Roberts. Recognize at least that this is a case that presents extraordinarily serious, important issues about the role of Congress and about the role that we should exercise in scrutinizing that. And the liberal justices, of course, said Congress has in fact done exactly what the chief justice said. And that authority was in that post 9-11 law passed by Congress. So, Nina, one of the things that comes up a lot in these Supreme Court cases, obviously, is the question of standing. And it seems to be one of the central issues here.

You know, you have to show that you're harmed in order to be eligible to bring a lawsuit. That has been a big issue here, right? Correct. Six Republican-dominated states are challenging the law. But it turns out that it's really hard to show that you've been harmed by a program that helps about 43 million student loan borrowers. The states were on pretty thin ice on that point during the oral arguments this week. But five of the court's six conservatives hate this program so much that they just may be willing to overlook the standing problem. Now, Chief Justice Roberts normally is a stickler on standing. You would think.

Yeah, but he seemed uninterested in it during the argument. He asked virtually no questions about it. That's so amazing considering how much of sticklers they are for statute and all of the rest of it. Yeah, and this statute is pretty broad. Nina, I wonder, I never want to be determinative about what the court would do, they are for statute and all of the rest of it. Yeah. And this statute is pretty broad. Nina, I wonder, I never want to be determinative about what the court would do, but it seems like the impression you got from listening to these arguments is that the conservatives in the court really are not a fan of what Joe Biden did. It was really fascinating to me because a lot of the points they were making

were really good policy questions. Like, isn't this unfair to the people who've already paid off their student loans? I mean, but that is exactly the question that you would think Congress resolved when it gave the president authority to modify or waive all kinds of things involving student loans. So I was really struck by their political opposition, their policy opposition to this program. You know, it's interesting about politics, because politically, it's pretty clear that President Biden also went ahead with this in the first place as a kind of a stretch way and run around how to deal with the problem of student loans, because it's been so difficult to really curb these exploding tuition

costs, the exploding rates of student loans that people are taking on. And this just so happened to be somewhat, you know, timed just before the midterms in 2022 to try to get young voters, call me a cynic, out to the polls. And he's going to have to try to carry that message forward. And it seems like he's going to have to paint a picture more broadly about, look, again, there you go again, as Ronald Reagan might say, about the Supreme Court and all of the things that they would do, you know, if you've got a Republican president who could appoint more Supreme Court justices as Trump got the chance to appoint three. Dominico, I wonder what you think about the politics of this because, you know, one, I think it's important to note that most Americans in this country do not have a college degree.

But also that this is a flashpoint among the bases of the parties. I think that this is as a concept. Liberals think it's about fairness, about economic and racial equity. And conservatives see it as a basic fairness agreement that, you know, they took on these loans willingly. They were not tricked into them. And that as a matter of economic fairness, because again, not free, the country still has to pay these loans. The costs of it just shift. And I don't know how animating you might see or what our polling might tell us about where the issue of student loans is compared to, say, other issues

like abortion or guns or other very divisive social issues the court has addressed. Yeah, I mean, I think that's the thing that the White House and the Biden 2024 campaign and Democrats more broadly have been trying to weigh. And I think where they've come down on is to realize who does it matter for and who it matters for are younger people who tend to be pretty strong Democratic base voters who aren't always in love with President Biden. And this is one area where he can call attention to a thing that is very important to people who are millennials or Gen Zers to be able to say, vote for me. I've got your interests in mind. So you've got to come out and vote because otherwise this big issue that you really care about is going to be ceded to conservatives who don't want to give you any help. All right, Nina Totenberg, thank you so much. Thank you.

We're going to take a quick break. And when we get back, it's time for Can't Let It Go. And we're back and it's time to end the show like we do every week with Can't Let It Go, the part of the show where we talk about the things from the week that we just can't stop talking about, politics or otherwise. Domenico, it's just me and you this week. Wow. What can't you let go of? Well, I can't let go of the NCAA for a few different reasons. One, I want to update people on my Can't Let It Go from last week, which was Antoine Davis, who we said was closing in on the all-time scoring record for men's Division I basketball. I am sorry to report that he came up

three points short last night for the leading three-point scorer of all time in NCAA history, three points short of Pistol Pete Maravich's record. I'm not sure that record's ever going to be broken because it's been 53 years now. So three points would have tied it, not surpassed it. It would have tied it, not surpassed it. He had a shot at the buzzer. I was actually listening to it on a smart speaker on the local Detroit Mercy basketball channel because I couldn't find it on any TV. So I was like, listen, I felt like I was in the rochers. You have like a satellite dish on your roof trying to find the coverage of this game. The rabbit ears going and everything. I was like, got to find out what's happening with

Antoine Davis. So I feel for him. His team lost last night. So it's the coverage of this game. The rabbit ears going and everything. It's like, got to find out what's happening with Antoine Davis. So I feel for him. His team lost last night, so it's the end of his career. But what a stellar career it's been. He passed a lot of Hall of Famers on the way, so nothing to be ashamed of there at all. The other thing is, I don't know if you know this, Sue, do you know who the new head of the NCAA is?

Yes, but my brain is blanking on me right now. It's Charlie Baker? Yes, former my brain is blanking on me right now. It's a former, Charlie Baker? Yes, former Massachusetts governor, Charlie Baker. I feel like we need a ding, ding, ding in there. Yeah, I should have won the trivia contest of the week. And one of the things that he's really tasked with is dealing with name, image, and likeness, you know, where these players are really getting paid a ton of money. Right, and can they make money off of it? Yeah. Yeah, it's just total Wild West right now. And NCAA had been wanting to just defer to Congress, and that's why they hired a politician to sort of deal with it. And Charlie Baker sort of threw it back at them this week and said, no, you know what, guys? This is something we're going to have to deal with because this is not a congressional priority.

So it's going to be really fascinating now to see how they deal with this issue and putting parameters and boundaries around it, considering how much money is flowing out there to top athletes. It's also March, March Madness. So 90% of the NCAA's revenue comes from this month's basketball tournament. Wow. You're going to run our brackets this year? I'm always involved somehow. I don't know if I'll run them, but we'll see.

Anyway, what can't you let go of? The thing I can't let go of this week them, but we'll see. Anyway, what can't you let go of? The thing I can't let go of this week is the Wall Street Journal did a story that allegedly, apparently, and I guess he spoke on the record so we can say it's a fact, that Attorney General Merrick Garland is apparently a radical Taylor Swift fan. Oh, I saw this, yeah. And on the one hand, it's very charming, as they say in the story, that he apparently listens to her all the time in his home, in his car, in his wood panel office suite. He has prominently displayed nearly all of her CDs in a curio cabinet. CDs, that's very cute. I can't let it go because on the one hand, I find it incredibly charming. And it's a way that he says he even gave an interview.

He granted an interview to talk about how much he loves Taylor Swift. That it was sparked by his daughters, who were Taylor Swift fans when they they were young and that they would listen to her music in the car. And it's become a source of family bonding. And I think that's great. I listen to a lot of music with my kids in the car, as I'm sure you do. I totally get that. On the other hand, there's a part of me that is like, is this the most groaniest? Apparently, he likes to work it into his legal arguments, into his testimony before Congress.

He tries to work in Taylor Swift lyrics. And I'm like, is his staff groaning at the dad level of jokes of Taylor Swift lyrics he's trying to work into things? It sounds like grandpa level of jokes at this point. Obviously, he's clearly sitting in a lavender haze rooting for the antihero. There you go. And for Mitch McConnell, clearly he's got some bad blood. Oh, see how easy it is? So easy.

I just made that up. Apparently, do you know what? Let me put you on a pop quiz. Do you know what his favorite Taylor Swift song is? Lover. No. Shake It Off. And the Wall Street Journal asked him why, and he said, that should be self-explanatory.

Because he didn't get to the Supreme Court, obviously. There you go. Because he must have bad blood. All right. That is a wrap for us today. Our executive producer is Mathoni Mottori. Our editor is Eric McDaniel. Our producers are Elena Moore and Casey Morrell. Research and fact-checking by our intern, Devin Speak. Thanks to Christian of Calamar and Lexi Schapittle. I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. And I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent. And thanks for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.