Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

New Delhi: The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Wednesday said it will hear on September 17 the appeal of US-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC against a judgment of the <keyword id="19916400" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="nclat" source="keywords">NCLAT</keyword>, which had stayed insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm BYJU's and approved its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the <keyword id="19901245" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="bcci" source="keywords">BCCI</keyword>. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by a battery of lawyers that the plea be heard urgently keeping in mind the subsequent developments in the case. The plea was mentioned by senior advocate NK Kaul, appearing for the ed-tech major, that the case needed to be heard at the earliest. The submission was supported by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the BCCI, and senior lawyer Abhishek Singhvi, also appearing for the ed-tech firm. Kaul said another plea in the case has also been filed and that is listed for hearing on September 17 and hence, the present plea be either heard on that day or the hearings in both the cases be advanced to this Friday. "We will hear both the pleas on September 17," the CJI said. Senior advocate Shayam Divan, appearing for the US-based creditor, said let the matters be heard together on September 17. Earlier on August 22, the bench had refused to pass an interim order to ensure that the committee of creditors (CoC) does not hold any meeting in pursuance of the insolvency proceedings against the embattled ed-tech firm. It had listed the plea for a final hearing on August 27. The bench had said the developments, which may take place in the meantime, can be negated if it finds there was no merit in the appeal of the US-based creditor against the judgment of appellate insolvency tribunal NCLAT. The plea was mentioned earlier also on August 20 by Byju's and the BCCI and the top court had then also refused to pass an interim order to restrain the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) from constituting a committee of creditors (CoC) in the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech firm. In a major setback to Byju's, the top court had on August 14 stayed the verdict of NCLAT, setting aside the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech major and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the Indian cricket board. The August 2 verdict of the NCLAT had come as a huge relief for Byju's as it had effectively put its founder Byju Raveendran back in control. The top court, however, had prima facie termed the NCLAT verdict as "unconscionable" and stayed its operation while issuing notices to Byju's and others on the appeal of the ed-tech firm's US-based creditor against the judgment of the insolvency appellate tribunal. The case stemmed from Byju's default on a Rs 158.9 crore payment related to a sponsorship deal with the BCCI. The top court had directed the BCCI to keep a sum of Rs 158 crore it had received from Byju's after a settlement in a separate escrow account till further orders. "Issue notice. Pending further orders there shall be a stay of the impugned order of August 2 of NCLAT. In the meantime, BCCI shall maintain the amount of Rs 158 crore, which shall be realised in pursuance of a settlement, in a separate escrow account until further orders," the bench had said. The NCLAT had approved the Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the BCCI and set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's. Byju's had entered into a "Team Sponsor Agreement" with the BCCI in 2019. Under the agreement, the ed-tech firm got exclusive rights to display its brand on the Indian cricket team's kit and some other benefits. Byju's had to pay a sponsorship fee. The company met its obligations till the middle of 2022 but defaulted on subsequent payments of Rs 158.9 crore. After insolvency proceedings were initiated, Byju's entered into a settlement with the BCCI. On July 16, the Bengaluru bench of the <keyword id="19902197" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="national-company-law-tribunal" source="keywords">National Company Law Tribunal</keyword> (NCLT) had admitted 'Think and Learn', Byju's parent company, to the insolvency resolution process on a plea filed by the BCCI over default in payment of outstanding dues of almost Rs 158.9 crore. While suspending the board of the ed-tech firm, the NCLT had appointed an interim resolution professional to run the operations of the company, suspended the company's board of directors, and brought it under moratorium by freezing its assets. The US-based lenders suspected that the settlement amount was being diverted from the credit they had extended to Byju's.

SC to hear plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's on Sept 17

In a major setback to Delhi's <keyword id="19935664" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aam-Aadmi-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Aam Aadmi Party" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Aam Aadmi Party">Aam Aadmi Party</keyword> government, the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday ruled that the law "expressly enables" the lieutenant governor to nominate <keyword id="22669982" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="aldermen" source="keywords">aldermen</keyword> to the <keyword id="19900879" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="mcd" source="keywords">MCD</keyword> and he is not bound by the advice of the council of ministers in the matter. A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala rejected the <keyword id="19925995" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-government" source="keywords">Delhi government</keyword>'s plea challenging the LG's power to nominate 10 aldermen in the <keyword id="19907640" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Municipal-Corporation-of-Delhi" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Municipal Corporation of Delhi" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Municipal Corporation of Delhi">Municipal Corporation of Delhi</keyword> without the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The apex court pronounced its verdict on the Delhi government's plea after reserving it for nearly 15 months. In its ruling impacting the fraught relationship between the LG's office and the AAP-led Delhi government, the bench said the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as amended in 1993 "expressly enables the LG to nominate persons having special knowledge to the corporation". It said the power expressed by the statute in the name of the LG, also seen in the context of other provisions, demonstrates the statutory scheme in which the powers and duties are distributed among authorities under the Act. "The context in which the power is located confirms that the LG is intended to act as per the mandate of the statute and not guided by the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The power to be exercised is the statutory duty of the LG and not the executive power of the state. This is how we analysed the constitutional provisions," Justice Narasimha said while pronouncing the verdict on behalf of the bench. The bench said the statutory power under provision 3(3)(b)(1) which deals with nomination of persons having special knowledge was vested with the LG for the first time by the 1993 amendment of the DMC Act of 1957. The bench said the DMC Act as amended in 1993 recognises five authorities exercising the state's power and duties under the Act -- these are the Central government, the government of NCT, administrator, corporation and the commissioner. It said the amendment Act of 1993 carries out several amendments to the original DMC Act of 1957 by which the power, duties were allocated to the authorities depending on the function they perform under the law. The bench said by way of the amendment the power of nomination of aldermen was given to LG under the provision just like the power of nomination of MLAs was given to the speaker of the House. On May 17 last year, the top court had said that giving the LG the power to nominate aldermen to the MCD will mean he can destabilise an elected civic body. The MCD has 250 elected and 10 nominated members. In December 2022, the Aam Aadmi Party defeated the <keyword id="19894848" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BJP" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BJP" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="BJP">BJP</keyword> in the civic elections, winning 134 wards and ending the saffron party's 15-year run at the helm of the MCD. The BJP won 104 seats and the Congress finished a distant third with nine. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi government, had contended during the hearing that no separate powers have been accorded to the state government to nominate people to the MCD. For the past 30 years, the practice of the LG nominating aldermen on the aid and advice of the city government has been followed, he said. Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for the LG's office, submitted that just because a practice has been followed for 30 years does not mean it is correct. The top court had observed that giving the LG the power to nominate aldermen will effectively mean that he can destabilise a democratically elected MCD because these aldermen get appointed to the standing committees and have voting power. Earlier, the top court had questioned the "source of power" of the LG under the Constitution and the law to nominate aldermen to the MCD without the aid and advice of the elected government. On May 12 last year, the top court observed that LG has to act on the "aid and advice" of the council of ministers of the Delhi government in nominating 10 aldermen to the MCD.

SC backs LG's right to nominate aldermen to MCD, setback for AAP govt

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday agreed to list for an early hearing the appeal of US-based creditor Glas Trust Company LLC against a judgment of the <keyword id="19916400" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="NCLAT" source="keywords">NCLAT</keyword>, which had stayed <keyword id="19965539" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="insolvency-proceedings" source="keywords">insolvency proceedings</keyword> against ed-tech firm <keyword id="19958178" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Byjus" source="keywords">BYJU's</keyword> and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the <keyword id="19901245" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BCCI" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BCCI" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="BCCI">BCCI</keyword>. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by senior advocate NK Kaul, appearing for the ed-tech major, that the case needed to be heard at the earliest. Kaul said, "The only funding was done by the promoters and today no one has brought any external borrowing. We have to show today how malafide the petition (of US firm) is." "I will get it listed as early as possible," the CJI, who was indisposed and in quarantine for the last few days, said. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the US-based creditor, said it also wanted an early hearing. Earlier on August 22, the bench had refused to pass an interim order to ensure that the committee of creditors (CoC) does not hold any meeting in pursuance of the insolvency proceedings against the embattled ed-tech firm. It had listed the plea for a final hearing on August 27. The bench had said the developments, which may take place in the meantime, can be negated if it finds there was no merit in the appeal of the US-based creditor against the judgment of appellate insolvency tribunal NCLAT. The plea was mentioned earlier also on August 20 by Byju's and the BCCI and the top court had then also refused to pass an interim order to restrain the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) from constituting a committee of creditors (CoC) in the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech firm. In a major setback to Byju's, the top court had on August 14 stayed the verdict of NCLAT, setting aside the insolvency proceedings against the ed-tech major and approving its Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the Indian cricket board. The August 2 verdict of the NCLAT had come as a huge relief for Byju's as it had effectively put its founder Byju Raveendran back in control. The top court, however, had prima facie termed the NCLAT verdict as "unconscionable" and stayed its operation while issuing notices to Byju's and others on the appeal of the ed-tech firm's US-based creditor against the judgment of the insolvency appellate tribunal. The case stemmed from Byju's default on a Rs 158.9 crore payment related to a sponsorship deal with the BCCI. The top court had directed the BCCI to keep a sum of Rs 158 crore it had received from Byju's after a settlement in a separate escrow account till further orders. "Issue notice. Pending further orders there shall be a stay of the impugned order of August 2 of NCLAT. In the meantime, BCCI shall maintain the amount of Rs 158 crore, which shall be realised in pursuance of a settlement, in a separate escrow account until further orders," the bench had said. The NCLAT had approved the Rs 158.9 crore dues settlement with the BCCI and set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's. Byju's had entered into a "Team Sponsor Agreement" with the BCCI in 2019. Under the agreement, the ed-tech firm got exclusive rights to display its brand on the Indian cricket team's kit and some other benefits. Byju's had to pay a sponsorship fee. The company met its obligations till the middle of 2022 but defaulted on subsequent payments of Rs 158.9 crore. After insolvency proceedings were initiated, Byju's entered into a settlement with the BCCI. On July 16, the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had admitted 'Think and Learn', Byju's parent company, to the insolvency resolution process on a plea filed by the BCCI over default in payment of outstanding dues of almost Rs 158.9 crore. While suspending the board of the ed-tech firm, the NCLT had appointed an interim resolution professional to run the operations of the company, suspended the company's board of directors, and brought it under moratorium by freezing its assets. The US-based lenders suspected that the settlement amount was being diverted from the credit they had extended to Byju's. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/india-beats-the-us-to-emerge-as-the-second-biggest-market-for-5g-smartphones/articleshow/113095322.cms">India beats the US to emerge as the second-biggest market for 5G smartphones</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/apple-iphone-16-to-launch-on-september-9-design-specs-and-everything-we-know-so-far/articleshow/113091114.cms">Apple iPhone 16 to launch on September 9 – design, specs and everything we know so far</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/webstories/shree-tirupati-balajee-agro-trading-ipo-price-band-to-risk-factors-all-you-need-to-know/slidelist/113082663.cms">Shree Tirupati Balajee Agro Trading IPO – Price band to risk factors, all you need to know</a>

Supreme Court agrees to list plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Supreme Court overturns Chevron doctrine, curtailing federal regulatory power.</li><li>Chevron doctrine gave federal agencies leeway to interpret ambiguous laws like the Clean Air Act.</li></ul>The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a decades-long legal precedent that has empowered the federal government to regulate the environment and other issues, unleashing a potential threat to President Joe Biden's climate policies.The court <a target="_blank" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf">overruled the Chevron doctrine</a>, one of the most important principles guiding federal regulation for the past 40 years. It held that when the laws that Congress writes are ambiguous, courts should defer to federal agencies' interpretation, as long as it's reasonable.Now, however, it could be harder for agencies to address a wide range of policy areas, including the environment, health, and labor and employment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the decision, joined by five conservative justices. The three liberal justices dissented.The ruling comes as President Joe Biden has raced to finalize a flurry of rules to combat climate change. Over the last year, the Environmental Protection Agency has set <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-ev-emissions-rule-labor-unions-auto-industry-2024-3">stricter limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars</a>, trucks, power plants, and oil and gas infrastructure. The agency for the first time put limits <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/epa-hazardous-forever-chemicals-drinking-water-limits-2024-4">on toxic "forever chemicals,"</a> also known as PFAS, in drinking water. All of those regulations are the targets of lawsuits from Republican-led states, the fossil-fuel industry, or other businesses.Legal analysts widely expected the Supreme Court's decision. The Chevron doctrine has long been a target of business groups and conservatives who argued it allows federal bureaucrats to overstep their authority on issues related not only to the environment but also to broad swaths of the economy, such as workplace safety, telecom, and finance.The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority is similarly skeptical of federal agencies' power, as past rulings have shown.On Thursday, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf">the court put a temporary hold</a> on the EPA's plan to reduce air pollution from power plants and pipelines that blow across state lines while a lawsuit plays out in a lower court. Last year, the Supreme Court significantly narrowed how many wetlands EPA can regulate to keep them clean. In 2022, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-limits-greenhouse-gas-regulations-west-virginia-v-epa-2022-6">the court limited the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions</a> from power plants, leading the Biden administration to issue another plan under the Clean Air Act that it hopes can withstand legal challenges.<h2 id="8531e43d-b476-4020-9d67-26599c42e9a5">How did this case end up at the Supreme Court?</h2>The plea to overturn the Chevron doctrine came to the court in two cases — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These cases involved commercial fishermen who opposed fees they had to pay to have federal observers aboard their vessels to prevent overfishing.The lawyers representing the commercial fisherman are from the Cause of Action Institute, a nonprofit group in the libertarian network built by Charles Koch, the petrochemicals billionaire who has advocated for deregulation.They argued the Chevron doctrine injures small businesses and individuals who have little power to influence federal agencies."Today's restoration of the separation of powers is a victory for small, family-run businesses like ours, whether they're involved in fishing, farming, or retail," Bill Bright, the fisherman and plaintiff in the Loper Bright case, said in a statement.Defenders of Chevron argued that a broad swath of health, safety, and environmental regulations protecting the public could be upended if the doctrine were overturned, causing chaos. The doctrine is cited in more than 15,000 court decisions. Chevron also recognizes that agencies are often staffed by people with technical and scientific expertise that judges don't have.<h2 id="2f5434dc-7742-4115-875e-055829b5d1f7">What did the Supreme Court justices say?</h2>Roberts, in his opinion, said Chevron defies the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires courts to decide whether a federal agency acted within its legal authority."Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron's presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do," Roberts said.He also argued that the decision to overturn Chevron doesn't call into question prior cases that relied on it. Courts that decided agency actions were lawful are still subject to "statutory stare decisis."In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan countered that abandoning Chevron will make it difficult for policymakers to issue regulations that keep air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest.Kagan added: "Congress knows that it does not — in fact cannot —write perfectly complete regulatory statutes. It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve, and gaps that some other actor will have to fill. And it would usually prefer that actor to be the responsible agency, not a court."Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from Loper Bright because she was involved in the case as a federal appeals court judge.<h2 id="8e1625cc-57cf-4b5d-8a05-6b593601c3d7">What could be the impact on climate policy?</h2>The reversal of Chevron doesn't change EPA's legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which was affirmed in a 2007 Supreme Court decision, legal experts say. Congress in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act also affirmed that power.But the Clean Air Act was written decades ago and left a lot of room for interpretation by EPA. The specific details of the agency's climate regulations may be more legally vulnerable now.At the same time, Biden's EPA hasn't relied on the Chevron doctrine to defend its climate rules because it's been preparing for this very decision from the Supreme Court, said David Doniger, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council who argued <a target="_blank" href="https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep467/usrep467837/usrep467837.pdf">the original Chevron case</a> on behalf of the group in 1984.Paul DeCamp, an attorney at the Washington, DC-based firm Epstein Becker Green, said the overturning of Chevron creates a lot of uncertainty."There is now a new path to challenging agency action because the heavy thumb on the scale toward agencies as a result of Chevron has been removed," he said.That doesn't mean that most regulations are invalid, he added. He predicted that most federal action would survive because agencies try to stay within their legal boundaries.

The Supreme Court discards Chevron doctrine, unleashing a threat to Biden's climate policies

Chennai, Tamil Nadu's ruling <keyword id="19897149" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="dmk" source="keywords">DMK</keyword>, a key constituent of the INDIA bloc, in its manifesto released on Wednesday promised to repeal the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 if the opposition alliance wins the <keyword id="19895394" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="lok-sabha" source="keywords">Lok Sabha</keyword> polls. Restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir and holding polls there, scrapping the New Education Policy 2020, slashing fuel prices, annulling Article 361 of the Constitution that provides protection to governors from legal action and appointment of Governors following consultation with Chief Ministers, were among the key promises made by the DMK. The recommendations of the M S Swaminathan committee will be adopted to ensure that MSP for agricultural products "is set at total production cost plus 50 per cent," the DMK said. Also, it announced that if voted to power, the INDIA bloc will withdraw the Agnipath scheme and reintroduce "permanent recruitment service" in the Indian Armed forces. "From now on, population census, including caste-wise census and census concerning people below the poverty line, will be conducted by the Union government once every five years simultaneously." The DMK will firmly insist on the removal of Article 356, which allows the dismissal of duly elected state governments and imposition of President's rule. The Congress party's ally in Tamil Nadu said that "new constraints" on States' borrowing capacity, imposed by the union government beyond the limits in each state's FRBM-equivalent Act will be eliminated. "A recommendation to share cess revenues with states will be made. It will be proposed that the Finance Commission increase the horizontal devolution of tax revenue (to all States together) from 42 per cent to 50 per cent." The Union government's financial contributions to states will be based on the income tax and GST collected in those states. Thus, financial contributions will be assured based on the taxes collected within each state. The finance provided to states will be permanently determined based on the 1971 population. A 33 per cent reservation for women in Parliament and legislative assemblies will be implemented immediately. "DMK will insist that the Union government enact a law providing menstrual leave to women, emphasizing the journey towards gender equality." Petrol and diesel prices "will be set at Rs 75, Rs 65 (per litre)" and cooking gas cylinders shall be made available at Rs 500 (per cylinder). "The introduction of the Uniform Civil Code will be strictly prevented" to preserve India's secular nature as stated in the Constitution's preamble. "The 2019 CAA law will be repealed, and all minorities will be treated equally without any discrimination. The recommendations of the Sachar Committee for the improvement of the lives of Muslims and other minority communities will be implemented." Facilitation will be provided for <keyword id="21027983" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="sri-lankan-tamil" source="keywords">Sri Lankan Tamil</keyword> refugees to get Indian citizenship. Assistance will be provided to those who wish to return to Sri Lanka. Also, the manifesto said efforts will be made to implement reservation for minorities at the all-India level, similar to Tamil Nadu. "The financial assistance previously provided to minority educational institutions has now been stopped. Action will be taken to resume this assistance." For "political" reasons, funding from foreign countries to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has currently been stopped. "The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act will be properly amended, and measures will be taken to ensure these financial aids continue to reach NGOs without any problems." The proposal of 'One Nation, One Election' will be abandoned, and for the allocation of Lok Sabha seats to states, the current practice, based on the 1971 census will continue. All "people-unfriendly" laws introduced by the BJP government over the last 10 years will be reviewed immediately by the INDIA alliance government. The "labour-hostile laws" introduced by the BJP government will be "reformed." Through the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF), the Union government will ensure a minimum pension of Rs 5,000 per month. The number of working days under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act will be increased from 100 to 150 days. "A wage of Rs 400 will be provided across states/ union territories nationwide." Disbanding the current NITI Aayog, set up by the BJP regime and establishing again the Planning Commission to draft plans based on the requests of state governments is another assurance the DMK has made. "Measures will be taken to reclaim Kachchatheevu to ensure India's security and to protect the welfare of the fishermen." A mandatory "cooling-off period" of 2 years will be introduced for retired judges and secretaries before they could join private companies or political parties, the manifesto said. Waiving loans and interests for farmers in nationalised and scheduled banks, waiver of educational loans for students, monthly entitlement of Rs 1,000 for all women in every state and formation of <keyword id="21027984" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="state-development-council" source="keywords">State Development Council</keyword> by including Chief Ministers were among the promises made by the DMK. Exemption for Tamil Nadu from the NEET exam and complete removal of toll booths on national highways, forms part of poll promises of the Dravidian party. Further, the DMK said amendments will be made to relevant laws to ensure that state governments, elected by the people, appoint Vice-Chancellors to state-run universities, rather than Governors. Stopping government's divestment from public sector enterprises, implementing the Sethusamudram project, law to ban online gambling, setting up a <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> branch in Chennai, providing statehood for <keyword id="19901639" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="puducherry" source="keywords">Puducherry</keyword>, equal funding for all state languages including Tamil, were among the host of other promises made by the DMK. Establishment of Tamil departments in varsities and stopping construction of <keyword id="19950851" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="mekedatu" source="keywords">Mekedatu</keyword> dam were also promised by the DMK. "The <keyword id="19996334" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="vishwakarma-scheme" source="keywords">Vishwakarma Scheme</keyword>, introduced by the BJP government to encourage caste-based occupations, will be restructured on the basis of social justice."

DMK vows to repeal CAA if INDIA bloc is voted to power

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Durbin on Sunday said <keyword id="12074000" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="clarence-thomas" source="Orion">Clarence Thomas</keyword> being impeached from the <keyword id="11893011" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> wasn't "realistic."</li><li>He said there was "a clear conflict of interest" regarding Jan. 6 and the activities of <keyword id="13232449" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="ginni-thomas" source="Orion">Ginni Thomas</keyword>.</li></ul>Sen. <keyword id="12004194" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="dick-durbin" source="Orion">Dick Durbin</keyword> in a Sunday interview said that calls by some Democratic lawmakers to impeach Associate Justice Clarence Thomas were unrealistic.During an interview on "Fox News Sunday," the Illinois Democrat — who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee — told anchor Mike Emanuel that the jurist should "show good judgment" and recuse himself from cases involving the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.But he stated that the removal of Thomas, who has sat on the bench since 1991, is very unlikely to happen."I don't think it's realistic," Durbin said. "I can tell you, there is, in my mind, a clear conflict of interest when it comes to Justice Thomas and issues related to the January 6 insurrection."He continued: "His wife is actively involved politically. Going so far as to give direct advice to the president's chief of staff during this crisis. I would think that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from any decisions that relate to the January 6 episode. Already he was the single vote earlier on a case related to that issue. I think it's a mistake."In January, Thomas was the sole dissenting justice when the court ruled that Trump couldn't prevent the release of documents requested by the House committee investigating the January 6 riot.Thomas for months has faced calls to <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/pascrell-ginni-clarence-thomas-resign-supreme-court-2020-election-2022-6">resign</a> or <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-trump-election-overturn-ginni-justice-clarence-thomas-resign-impeach-2022-3">recuse himself</a> from cases related to the Capitol riot due to the efforts of his wife Ginni, who had <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ginni-thomas-says-cant-wait-talk-jan-6-committee-2022-6">documented</a> conversations with allies of former President <keyword id="11914386" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="donald-trump" source="Orion">Donald Trump</keyword> in pushing to overturn President Joe Biden's 2020 electoral victory.But Durbin threw cold water on a congressional impeachment of the judge."As to whether he's going to be impeached, that is not realistic. But he should show good judgment," the lawmaker said.Thomas has also attracted a wave of criticism from many Democratic lawmakers as a part of the conservative bloc that last month struck down Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court decision that legalized abortion in the United States and established a constitutional right to the procedure.

Dick Durbin said calls to impeach Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas are 'not realistic'

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Democrats have increased calls to remove justices in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.</li><li>Justice <keyword id="12074000" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="clarence-thomas" source="Orion">Clarence Thomas</keyword> previously faced calls for <keyword id="11918305" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="impeachment" source="Orion">impeachment</keyword> in connection with January 6.</li></ul>The many controversies and polarizing opinions spilling out of the <keyword id="11893011" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> in recent months have drawn calls for an event not seen in more than two centuries of American history: the impeachment of a sitting justice.Even before Friday's decision eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion, Democrats including Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez had voiced support for impeaching Justice Clarence Thomas, the longest-tenured sitting member of the Supreme Court. At the time, the demands for his removal centered on the revelation of more than two dozen text messages Thomas' wife, <keyword id="13232449" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="ginni-thomas" source="Orion">Ginni Thomas</keyword>, exchanged with onetime White House chief of staff Mark Meadows as she sought to help former President Donald Trump overturn the 2020 election.And those calls intensified after Thomas joined with other justices in the Supreme Court's conservative bloc to overturn Roe v. Wade, the nearly 50-year-old decision that established a constitutional right to an abortion. Other justices are now facing similar calls for impeachment amid questions about whether they misled the Senate during their confirmation proceedings about their views on Roe."I believe lying under oath is an impeachable offense," Ocasio-Cortez said during a recent interview on NBC's Meet the Press, referring to Trump-appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.Indeed, eyebrows lifted on both sides of the aisle after the Kavanaugh and Gorsuch joined in the reversing Roe. Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who supported Gorsuch's and Kavanaugh's confirmations, said the decision was inconsistent with what the two justices said "in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting long-standing precedents that the country has relied upon."Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, said he "trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v Wade was settled legal precedent, and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans."In his controversial concurring opinion in the abortion case, Thomas argued the Court should <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/justice-thomas-said-the-court-should-reconsider-rulings-on-same-sex-marriage-2022-6">also "reconsider"</a> rulings that established rights to same-sex marriage, access to birth control and gay sex.Amid nationwide protests and anxiety over the potential rollback of those rights, a petition calling for Thomas' impeachment continued to pick up support. The petition, organized in March by the advocacy group <a href="https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/clarence-thomas-must-go">MoveOn</a>, had received more than 300,000 signatures.<div type="image" title="clarence thomas" height="3508" width="4858" msid="92500492" hostid="261" sizebytes="185420"></div><h2>How to impeach a Supreme Court justice</h2>The process of impeaching a Supreme Court justice is identical to the more well-tread procedure for removing a sitting president.First, the House must draft articles of impeachment. The House then needs only a majority, however slim, to impeach a Supreme Court justice or any other federal judge. But a two-thirds majority is required in the Senate to convict.Given the current political climate — Democrats have the thinnest majority possible, with a 50-50 Senate — it's almost certain that Thomas wouldn't be removed from his lifetime appointment. Republicans are enjoying a significant ideological majority on the Supreme Court, with six of nine justices.What would be grounds for impeaching Thomas?Given Ginni Thomas' texts, some Democrats have noted that in January, Clarence Thomas stood out as the only justice to dissent when the Supreme Court rejected Trump's bid to block the release of some presidential records to the House committee investigating the attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.Thomas had previously dissented in February 2021 when the Supreme Court turned away election challenges filed by Trump and his political allies. Thomas described the decision to not hear the cases as "baffling" and "inexplicable," saying in dissent that the Supreme Court should have taken the opportunity to provide states with guidance for elections.Some Democrats in 2019 had<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/15/us/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-trump-impeach.html"> clamored for the impeachment</a> of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, but no serious impeachment effort in Congress ever materialized.<div type="image" title="Justice Samuel Chase" height="4371" width="5829" msid="92500494" hostid="261" sizebytes="1089968"></div><h2>Federal judicial impeachments are rare</h2>Federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court, have lifetime appointment — their tenures typically ending with retirement or death.As a Brennan Center for Justice study noted in 2018, the impeachment of federal judges "is rare, and removal is rarer still." The<a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/impeachment-and-removal-judges-explainer"> study</a> found that the House had impeached only 15 judges since 1803 — an average of one every 14 years — and only eight of those proceedings resulted in convictions by the Senate.The history of impeaching a Supreme Court justice requires a more than 200-year reach back into American history.In 1804, Justice Samuel Chase went down in history as the first — and, so far, only — sitting member of the Supreme Court to be impeached when the House accused him of refusing to dismiss biased jurors and excluding or limiting defense witnesses in a pair of politically sensitive trials.An official Senate website describes Chase as a "staunch Federalist with a volcanic personality" who "showed no willingness to tone down his bitter partisan rhetoric after Jeffersonian Republicans gained control of Congress in 1801." Then-President Thomas Jefferson backed the impeachment effort.But in 1805, Chase survived the impeachment proceedings after his legal team — including "several of the nation's most eminent attorneys" — convinced enough senators that the justice's conduct did not warrant removal from the Supreme Court, according to the Senate website. Chase continued serving on the Supreme Court and died in 1811.In 2010, the Senate<a href="https://www.nola.com/news/crime_police/article_d3be8600-3567-5346-b3ea-f1135ae750ea.html"> voted</a> to convict Thomas Porteous, then a federal judge in New Orleans, after the House impeached him on allegations of bribery and making false statements. Other judges have resigned in the face of threatened impeachment and removal from their lifetime appointments.<div type="image" title="Ginni Thomas, Clarence Thomas" height="2989" width="3985" msid="92500497" hostid="261" sizebytes="585094"></div><h2>A text-message brouhaha</h2>Ginni Thomas' text messages were among the more than 2,000 that Meadows turned over to the special House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The messages show how eagerly Thomas promoted and pushed to guide Trump's strategy to overturn his 2020 electoral defeat.In some of the messages, Thomas elevated the conservative lawyer Sidney Powell, who has since faced sanctions over her lead role advancing Trump's baseless claims of election fraud."Sounds like Sidney and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down," Thomas wrote in a November 2020 text to Meadows."Suggestion: You need to buck up your team on the inside, Mark," Thomas wrote in another message. "The lower level insiders are scared, fearful or sending out signals of hopelessness vs an awareness of the existential threat to America right now. You can buck them up, strengthen their spirits."It is unclear whether the 29 messages — 21 sent by Thomas, eight by Meadows — reflected the extent of their communication.Justice Thomas faced calls for his retirement or resignation even before his wife's text messages with Meadows became public, as<a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/31/is-ginni-thomas-a-threat-to-the-supreme-court"> The New Yorker</a>,<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/magazine/clarence-thomas-ginni-thomas.html#commentsContainer"> The New York Times</a>, and other media outlets illuminated his wife's political activism.But the text correspondence brought a new tenor to the pressure on Thomas to step down from the Supreme Court.In March, Rep. <keyword id="11971082" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="ilhan-omar" source="Orion">Ilhan Omar</keyword>, a Minnesota Democrat, wrote in a<a href="https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1507178853650812928?s=20&amp;t=taq2gLl9jTVHIZMfI2gvGA"> Twitter</a> post that "Clarence Thomas should be impeached."Ocasio-Cortez threatened Thomas with impeachment if he refused to resign."Clarence Thomas should resign," the New York Democrat wrote on<a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1508789261730041859?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1508789261730041859%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fhouse%2F600145-ocasio-cortez-to-clarence-thomas-resign-or-face-impeachment"> Twitter</a>. "If not, his failure to disclose income from right-wing organizations, recuse himself from matters involving his wife, and his vote to block the Jan 6th commission from key information must be investigated and could serve as grounds for impeachment."Meanwhile, other lawmakers have called for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from cases related to January 6.Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the text message correspondence "raises a serious question about conflict of interest for Justice Thomas.""To think that he would consider a case where his wife is frequently contacting the chief of staff for the president and giving advice on matters that are going to be ultimately litigated by the court," Durbin<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-judiciary-chair-justice-clarence-thomas-recuse-jan/story?id=83727413"> told</a> reporters on Capitol Hill. "For the good of the court, I think he should recuse himself from those cases."Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, called on Thomas to recuse himself from cases involving the Capitol-riot investigation and 2024 election because his "conduct on the Supreme Court looks increasingly corrupt."President Joe Biden, however,<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-declines-call-clarence-thomas-recusal-january-6-related-cases-2022-3"> declined</a> to call for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from such cases. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said it would be up to Thomas to decide whether to recuse himself from cases involving the investigation into January 6, 2021.In an interview with<a href="https://freebeacon.com/courts/exclusive-ginni-thomas-sets-the-record-straight-on-january-6/"> The Washington Free Beacon</a>, Ginni Thomas said, "Clarence doesn't discuss his work with me, and I don't involve him in my work."But in a 2011 speech, Clarence Thomas appeared to link his service on the Supreme Court to his wife's political advocacy."We love being with each other because we love the same things. We believe in the same things ... We are focused on defending liberty. So I admire her and I love her for that because it keeps me going," Thomas said.An earlier version of this story was published on Friday, March 25, 2022.

Impeaching Clarence Thomas: How Democrats could remove conservative justices

<ul class="summary-list"><li><keyword id="11901426" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="abortion" source="Orion">Abortion</keyword> rights supporters and opponents have previously floated constitutional amendments.</li><li>Amending the US <keyword id="6363843" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="constitution" source="Orion">Constitution</keyword> for any reason is almost impossible in 2022.</li></ul>The <keyword id="11893011" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> has <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-abortion-decision-final-ruling-scotus-roe-v-wade-2022-6">struck down Roe v. Wade</a>, the 1973 decision that rules the US Constitution protected a woman's right to an abortion without significant government restrictions.So could the American body politic effectively override the Supreme Court by amending the Constitution?Almost impossible.Under the most favorable circumstances, amending the Constitution is one of the most difficult — and rare — acts in US <keyword id="11893346" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="politics" source="Orion">politics</keyword>.The nation has accomplished amending the Constitution just 27 times in the 233 years since the Constitution became the nation's supreme collection of laws. More than half of those amendments took place within the first 80 years after the Constitution's creation.The most recent amendment to the Constitution took place in 1992 — an entirely forgettable change more than 202 years in the making that prohibited Congress from increasing or decreasing its own pay until after an election. Of late, conservatives have clamored for a balanced budget amendment. Liberals have fought to overturn the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission campaign finance decision via <a href="https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/congressman-schiff-introduces-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united#:~:text=Today%2C%20Congressman%20Adam%20Schiff%20(D,ruled%20in%20Citizens%20United%20v.">constitutional amendment.</a> Neither of these, nor any other constitutional amendment proposal since the early 1990s, has gone anywhere.And now, in 2022, when congressional Republicans and Democrats find themselves bitterly divided and all-but-bereft of common ground, no matter the cause or concern, the notion of them agreeing on anything related to an issue so polarizing as abortion falls somewhere between fantasy and lunacy.A <a href="https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution">constitutional amendment proposal</a> supporting or limiting abortion rights would, like any amendment, require a two-thirds vote of both the US House and US Senate — a much greater threshold than Congress passing a <keyword id="11899820" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="law" source="Orion">law</keyword>, which Democrats are also expected to try in an all-but-futile attempt <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/democrat-call-to-codify-roe-unlikely-to-save-abortion-rights-2022-5">to codify Roe v. Wade</a> for the long term.If such a constitution amendment proposal somehow passed, three-fourths of state legislatures must then ratify it for the amendment to become law.From the 1970s through the early 2000s, abortion rights opponents — overwhelmingly Republicans — tried this route. They proposed a series of materially similar constitutional amendment proposals, which all sought to overturn Roe v. Wade. Often dubbed the "Human Life Amendment," none came close to passage out of either the House or Senate.Alternately, two-thirds of US states could request the nation conduct a constitutional convention — sometimes known as an Article V convention — for the purpose of amending the Constitution. Three-fourths of states would again have to ratify any amendments the convention proposed. There are also fundamental questions about how a constitutional convention might even work, with the Congressional Research Service <a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42589.pdf">noting</a> numerous unanswered questions. Such a convention has never occurred in US history.The likelihood of one occurring for the purposes of creating a constitutional right to abortion seems as remote today as ever, particularly given that Republicans control a notable majority of state legislative bodies, according to the <a href="https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/partisan-composition.aspx">latest count</a> by the National Conference of State Legislatures.Despite the odds, some <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-call-for-action-report-supreme-court-overturn-abortion-roe-2022-5">Democrats</a> almost certainly will advocate making the right to an abortion the Constitution's 28th amendment. If nothing else, the effort could motivate voters, help <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-political-fundraising-2022-6">raise campaign money</a>, and otherwise rile up the party's base ahead of the 2022 midterm elections where Democrats risk losing slim majorities in both the House and Senate.A preview of this arrived in the minutes after the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision Friday in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade."Can you chip in $15 so we can WIN these midterms and finally codify reproductive rights into law?" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote — one of <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-political-fundraising-2022-6">numerous Democratic fundraising messages</a> to quickly hit supporters' inboxes. "Our ONLY option is to marshal a response so historic — 100,000 gifts before midnight — that we DEFEAT every anti-choice Republican that made this happen, EXPAND our Majorities, and FINALLY codify our reproductive rights into law. So, can I expect to see your name on my "Pro-Choice Champion" list tomorrow morning?"But for now and the foreseeable future, every political sign points to any constitutional amendment effort ending up alongside <a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/MeasuresProposedToAmendTheConstitution.htm">nearly 12,000</a> other proposed constitutional amendments — in Congress' repository of historical footnotes.

Why a constitutional amendment protecting Roe v. Wade and enshrining abortion rights is next to impossible

New Delhi [India], November 24 (ANI): Hearing the Adani-Hindenburg matter, the <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday remarked that it is easy to make allegations against anyone and opined the petitioners to show some responsibility while levelling charges against any party. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the remarks when one of the petitioners raised questions over members of the expert committee. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, told the court about one of the members of the expert committee Somashekhar Sundaresan, noting that he has been a lawyer representing Adin various forums including in the SEBI Board. CJI DY Chandrachud raised an objection to the petitioner's submission and remarked that if one goes with the theory that a lawyer who appeared 17 years ago can now not be appointed to the committee and like this, no lawyer who has appeared for an accused should become a High Court judge. CJI DY Chandrachud remarked that he is not an in-house counsel he was a lawyer and he appeared in 2006 and this conflict arose 17 years later. There has to be some responsibility for the allegations being levelled, SC remarked. During the hearing, the court also remarked that it is easy to make allegations and one must be also very careful. "We are not giving a character certificate to anyone," SC noted. When the hearing commenced today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the top court that SEBI is not seeking an extension of further investigation matters relating to the Hindenburg report. Out of 24 cases in the Adani-Hindenburg matter, investigations in 22 cases are over For the remaining two cases, they need information from foreign regulators and others and they have been in consultation with them, SG Mehta informed the court. The court then said that it had intervened in the matter due to the extreme volatility of the stock market and sought to know what is SEBI planning to do for such kind of volatility and planning to protect investors in cases like short selling. SG Tushar Mehta took the court through the recommendations of the Expert Committee which SEBI has agreed with in principle. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, told the SC that there were many factual revelations in the Hindenburg report. He raised doubts about SEBI's role in the matter and says a lot of information was available to it in 2014. Bhushan informed the SC about a letter written in 2014 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence regarding substantial money siphoned to Mauritius. SG Mehta questioned Bhushan over this and said that DRI concluded the proceedings in 2017. The court remarked that to advocate Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, it is easy to make allegations and one must be also very careful. SG Tushar Mehta urged the top court to stop these kinds of allegations. The court remarked that SEBI, a statutory body looks into stock market frauds. SG Tushar Mehta said that there is a growing tendency to plant stories outside India to influence decisions within India. After hearing the matter in length, the court reserved the order on various aspects related to the issue. Earlier, the <keyword id="6355630" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="securities-and-exchange-board-of-india" source="Orion">Securities and Exchange Board of India</keyword> (SEBI) filed a status report before the Supreme Court apprising it that out of 24 investigations arising out of the Hindenburg report, 22 are final in nature and 2 are interim in nature. The investigation was carried out in compliance with the directions of the top court's order dated March 2, 2023, SEBI has investigated 24 matters. In the mid of May, the top court gave three months more time to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to conduct a probe into the Hindenburg report SEBI was granted time till 14th August 2023 to conduct the probe. On March 2, the <keyword id="6356229" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="apex-court" source="Orion">apex court</keyword> directed the capital market regulator SEBI to investigate any violations of securities law by the <keyword id="6367820" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="adani-group" source="Orion">Adani Group</keyword> in the wake of the Hindenburg report, which led to a massive wipeout of more than USD140 billion of the Adani Group's market value. Supreme Court, on March 2, set up an expert committee on the issue arising from the <keyword id="9916845" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="hindenburg-research" source="Orion">Hindenburg Research</keyword> report on Adani Group companies. The committee will consist of six members, headed by former apex court judge Justice AM Sapre. The top court had then asked SEBI to file a status report within two months. The apex court was then hearing petitions pertaining to the Hindenburg report, including the constitution of a committee relating to regulatory mechanisms to protect investors' interests. The January 24 Hindenburg report alleged stock manipulation and fraud by the conglomerate. The Adani Group has attacked Hindenburg as "an unethical short seller", stating that the report by the New York-based entity was "nothing but a lie". A short-seller in the securities market books gains from the subsequent reduction in the prices of shares. (ANI)

Adani-Hindenburg case: Easy to make allegations, can't take unsubstantiated ones, remarks SC

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Rep. Bill Pascrell on Thursday called on <keyword id="12074000" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="clarence-thomas" source="Orion">Clarence Thomas</keyword> to step down from the <keyword id="11893011" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword>.</li><li>"Clarence Thomas cannot possibly be seen as a neutral actor but instead as a corrupt jurist," he said in a statement.</li></ul>Rep. Bill Pascrell on Thursday called on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to step down in the wake of additional reports detailing his wife's push to overturn the <keyword id="12175515" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="2020-presidential-election" source="Orion">2020 presidential election</keyword>.Pascrell — a veteran New Jersey congressman who has served in the House since 1997 — pointed to a recent <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/06/15/ginni-thomas-john-eastman-emails/">Washington Post report</a>, where sources in the Jan 6 House investigation said that <keyword id="13232449" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="ginni-thomas" source="Orion">Ginni Thomas</keyword> communicated with attorney <keyword id="12145977" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="john-eastman" source="Orion">John Eastman</keyword>.Previously unreported emails between Eastman and Ginni Thomas revealed her more substantial involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, according to the report."Over the last few years, we have become numb to bad acts by powerful actors, but Clarence and Ginni Thomas have participated in one of the worst breaches of trust ever seen in our court system," the congressman said in a statement.He continued: "Clarence Thomas cannot possibly be seen as a neutral actor but instead as a corrupt jurist who has poisoned the High Court. Clarence Thomas should have dignity and final respect for our democracy and resign."In March, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-trump-election-overturn-ginni-justice-clarence-thomas-resign-impeach-2022-3">more than two dozen Democratic lawmakers</a> called on Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from cases concerning the January 6 riot, where they raised concerns about a conflict of interest.Democrats have pointed to Clarence Thomas' decision not to recuse himself from a Supreme Court order <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-denies-trump-request-to-seal-january-6-records-2022-1">handed down in January</a> in which the court turned down former President Donald Trump's request to block White House records from the January 6 panel as part of its sweeping investigation.The conservative jurist was the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-only-justice-dissent-in-trump-january-6-bid-2022-3">only</a> dissenter, and he did not offer a reason for his decision.The January 6 panel on Thursday said that it would seek an interview with Ginni Thomas. She later <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/january-6-committee-will-subpoena-ginni-thomas-says-chair-thompson-2022-6">told</a> the Daily Caller that she looked forward to speaking with the committee."I can't wait to clear up misconceptions," she told the conservative news site, without pointing to any specific report. "I look forward to talking to them."The January 6 panel already has a record of messages that Thomas exchanged with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in the aftermath of the 2020 contest between now-President Joe Biden and Trump, where she pushed for the then-president not to concede the race."It takes time for the army who is gathering for his back," she <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/january-6-committee-texts-between-mark-meadows-ginni-thomas-reports-2022-3">wrote</a> in a text message to Meadows on November 6, 2020.

House Democrat calls for Clarence Thomas to step down over his wife's push to overturn the 2020 election results

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Supreme Court struck down Biden's student-loan forgiveness on Friday.</li><li>But the justices did not say the president cannot attempt relief using a different route.</li></ul><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-blocked-supreme-court-strikes-down-debt-cancellation-2023-5">President Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan is dead</a>. But it's not necessarily the end of the road.On Friday, the Supreme Court decided in a 6-3 ruling that <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/student-loan-forgiveness-blocked-supreme-court-strikes-down-debt-cancellation-2023-5">Biden's plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt cannot move forward</a>. This was a major decision after months of limbo for millions of student-loan borrowers. Since November, the relief had been on pause due to two conservative-backed lawsuits that blocked the president's plan. Friday's ruling came in two separate decisions. One of the cases, US Department of Education v. Brown, was filed on behalf of two student-loan borrowers who sued because they did not qualify for the full $20,000 amount of relief. The Supreme Court ruled that those borrowers did not have standing to sue, and dismissed the case.The second ruling concerned Biden v. Nebraska, which was the result of six Republican-led states suing under the argument that debt relief would hurt their states' tax revenues, and the revenue of student-loan company MOHELA. The majority ruled that <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-student-loan-forgiveness-struck-down-mohela-biden-debt-relief-2023-6">the states had standing to involve MOHELA in their case,</a> and the law Biden used to cancel student debt demonstrated an overreach of authority. That decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, struck down the president's plan.While this decision is a major blow to many borrowers who have been waiting for months to learn their fate, it's important to note that the ruling only strikes down Biden's plan as it pertains to using the HEROES Act of 2003. It doesn't prohibit the president from attempting debt relief using another law."This fight is not over," Biden said in a statement following the decision."I believe that the Court's decision to strike down our student debt relief plan is wrong," he added. "But I will stop at nothing to find other ways to deliver relief to hard-working middle-class families. My Administration will continue to work to bring the promise of higher education to every American."<h2>The Higher Education Act of 1965</h2>Hours after the Supreme Court ruling, Biden shed more light on how the fight will continue; he announced his Education Department is beginning the process of using <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-cancel-student-debt-use-higher-education-act-heroes-2022-11">the Higher Education Act of 1965</a>. The Supreme Court majority took issue with Biden's usage of the HEROES Act of 2003, which allows the Education Secretary to waive or modify student-loan balances in connection with a national emergency, like COVID-19. The Higher Education Act would not require a national emergency to get relief to millions of borrowers."Today, I am urging the Biden Administration to implement a Plan B immediately to cancel student debt for tens of millions of Americans who are struggling to pay the rent, put food on the table, and pay for the basic necessities of life," Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-slams-supreme-court-struck-down-student-loan-relief-2023-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said in a Friday statement</a>. "Despite this legally unsound Supreme Court decision, the President has the clear authority under the Higher Education Act of 1965 to cancel student debt. He must use this authority immediately."Other Democratic lawmakers have previously joined Sanders <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-cancel-student-debt-use-higher-education-act-heroes-2022-11">in pushing for the Higher Education Act</a>— but Biden has yet to comment on if he will go that route.In September 2020, the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School <a href="https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Ltr%20to%20Warren%20re%20admin%20debt%20cancellation.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote a memo</a> for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren outlining why the Act gives the Education Secretary authority to cancel student debt broadly."The Secretary has the Secretary has the authority to modify a loan to zero, and exercises this authority even in the absence of any implementing regulations," the memo read.Warren is continuing to push for an alternate route. "This fight isn't over," she said in a Friday statement. "The President has additional legal tools to cancel student debt — and he should use them. This Supreme Court needs to follow the law, not make policy decisions."<a href="https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1674849854344790025" target="_blank" rel="noopener"></a><h2>What's next for borrowers</h2>While Biden has vowed to push for additional relief for borrowers, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/when-do-student-loan-payments-resume-biden-supreme-court-relief-2023-6">payments are still scheduled to resume this fall</a>. The Education Department recently confirmed that interest will resume on student loans in September, and <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/when-do-student-loan-payments-resume-biden-supreme-court-relief-2023-6">borrowers will start repayment October</a> — regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court decision.However, Biden also announced on Friday that the Education Department will be implementing a 12 -month "on-ramp" to repayment from October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2024 to ensure "financially vulnerable borrowers who miss monthly payments during this period are not considered delinquent, reported to credit bureaus, placed in default, or referred to debt collection agencies." The department also finalized its new income-driven repayment plan that borrowers can enroll in prior to the payment resumption.Although many Democratic lawmakers have urged Biden to not restart payments until borrowers get his broad debt relief, the president <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/does-debt-ceiling-deal-ban-student-debt-relief-payment-pause-2023-5">codified the end of the student-loan payment pause</a> in the debt-ceiling bill he recently signed into law due to requests from Republican lawmakers who have opposed debt relief. "Mr. President, good riddance to your illegal, economically disastrous taxpayer-funded bailout for the wealthy," top Republican on the House education committee Virginia Foxx said in a Friday statement. "I had hoped you would have greater respect for taxpayers and the Constitution, but I am pleased the Court stepped in to hold you accountable."Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley told Insider in a Friday interview that the most important thing Biden and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona can ensure right now is "swift action" to get borrowers relief."There's a reverberating impact from the draconian actions of this super legislature, which is not elected, that is continuing to operate, I think, in the absence of justice," Pressley said. "And so I'm going to continue to to organize, to advocate, and to push on behalf of these borrowers because I know just how consequential this is. And I'm calling on President Biden and Secretary Cardona to act swiftly, decisively, to act aggressively to deliver relief, meaningful relief, to the borrowers that delivered this White House."Do you have a story to share about student debt? What's your reaction to the Supreme Court decision? Reach out to this reporter at asheffey@insider.com.

You Searched For "farm laws committee supreme court" and got 11 results

SC to hear plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's on Sept 17

PTI

SC backs LG's right to nominate aldermen to MCD, setback for AAP govt

PTI

Supreme Court agrees to list plea related to insolvency proceedings against ed-tech firm Byju's

PTI

The Supreme Court discards Chevron doctrine, unleashing a threat to Biden's climate policies

Catherine Boudreau

DMK vows to repeal CAA if INDIA bloc is voted to power

PTI

Dick Durbin said calls to impeach Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas are 'not realistic'

John L. Dorman

Impeaching Clarence Thomas: How Democrats could remove conservative justices

C. Ryan Barber

Why a constitutional amendment protecting Roe v. Wade and enshrining abortion rights is next to impossible

Dave Levinthal

Adani-Hindenburg case: Easy to make allegations, can't take unsubstantiated ones, remarks SC

ANI

House Democrat calls for Clarence Thomas to step down over his wife's push to overturn the 2020 election results

John L. Dorman

The Supreme Court ruled Biden used the wrong law to cancel student debt. He's trying again with a different one.

Ayelet Sheffey

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides