Suchergebnisse

Katja Diefenbach, Jule Govrin, Ruth Sonderegger und Pablo Valdivia haben für den 27. Juni im Rahmen von diffrakt eine Veranstaltung zu feministischen Perspektiven auf Schulden, Austerität und autoritären Neoliberalismus organisiert. Anschließend an einen Vortrag von Lucí Cavallero und Verónica Gago, in dem diese auf Basis konkreter Erfahrungen und Praktiken aus Lateinamerika und anderen Teilen der […]

On Friday, June 30, the Supreme Court ended its session with a serious blow to the progressive agenda after its decisions striking down race-conscious college admissions and narrowing protections for LGBTQ consumers the day before. In its final case, Biden v. Nebraska, the Court further thwarted the Biden campaign, which is counting on the help of young voters to get reelected for a second term, as it struck down the Biden administration's plan to wipe out more than $400 billion in student debt. The decision in Biden v. Nebraska joins a series of recent Supreme Court decisions aimed at curbing the executive branch's power to regulate certain issues and to limit the so-called administrative state. In this battle against the administrative state, the major question doctrine, according to which it cannot be assumed that the administration has been authorized to regulate a "major question" with far-reaching economic and political consequences without "clear congressional authorization," has become one of the central tools.