But what's good for the economy is good for the people. You know, trickle down and stuff. Totally works, trust me bro. Just give us a few billion more, this time it'll rain down gold on you. Absolutely sure!
These people are incapable of not being disingenuous. They're allergic to good faith. The hypocrisy has become so ingrained in these people that calling it out hasn't been an effective counter to them for years, if not decades. They simply do not care.
They care. They care about making sure that the benefits of socialism is exclusively for the elite and wealthy and totally denied to the average citizen.
After the 2008 sub-prime mortage crisis, Hedgefunds and Banks didn't stop with their predatory behaviour, they simply shifted it around. Student loans were a prime target for that. As well as commercial mortage backed securities (CMBS) rather than the mortage backed securities (MBS) from that bubble popping in 2008.
With COVID making work from home inevitable and CMBS becoming a huge risk factor as well as student loans possibly being forgiven, the financial elites have been rotating to survive another day until they can resume squeezing your pennies out of you again so they don't have to go under.
Just a piece of the shit pie that the US financial markets are. It's just a huge rackateering ring. I'd be immensely surprised if student loans were ever forgiven or university costs socialized again in the future. It's just too lucrative to fuck young people.
The prohibitive cost of higher education and the factual uselessness of high school diploma keep young warm bodies going into the military. This is important for the nation that spends the most on its military, globally, and secures its global hegemony in large part through said military (but also of course cultural 'coca-colonialism')
Capitalism has robbed us of more than we could ever even imagine. To the point where most people don't even realize they've been robbed. It's tragic.
We live in a society where amoral, faceless corporations are more valued than actual human life. And those corporations have so much power over people, and their cognition, that the majority have been tricked into consenting to this perverted system against all of their interests. And I would love for someone to explain to me why there should ever be a distinction between the people producing something, and the people/corporations that own the means of that production. Why should these be two different groups, and why in the FUCK would the class that doesn't do any actual goddamn work, make 300x more money? It's fucking disgusting.
But on the other hand, they said they were going to lower taxes. And also, trans people exist, so........
Capitalism has robbed us of more than we could ever even imagine. To the point where most people don't even realize they've been robbed. It's tragic.
Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it’s the reason our standard of living is higher than ever. Every time we try anything else, millions of people die. I’m not sure how many more people need to die for people like you to accept reality. We need to improve capitalism, not turn to authoritarianism.
Millions people starve under capitalism every year in a completely preventable fashion. Yes, other systems have been broken, but that doesn't mean capitalism is not
No, that argument is a complete lie. Technology is why we have a higher standard of living. Technological advancements have taken place in communist countries. They experience the same increases of quality of living as capitalist countries. This proves that argument false. Capitalism isn't responsible for technology. That's just wealthy people pushing a narrative to protect the system that consolidates wealth in their hands. Consolidated wealth at the top of the economic ladder is a well known and documented side effect of capitalism. That's why capitalism requires strong regulations, not free market dogma.
Formulate a response of substance or fuck off. You absolutely didn't disprove a single thing I said. Capitalism didn't raise the quality of living, technology did that. Capitalists steal everything thing they can, including credit for technological advances. They've been taking credit for work done by talented engineers and scientists for many generations.
They've been taking credit for work done by talented engineers and scientists for many generations.
Those engineers and scientists were also capitalists rofl. Pfizer? Capitalist. Apple? Capitalist. Ford? Capitalist. Hell the only non capitalist quality of life enhancements we've had come from our military.
I'll bet a million dollars your comment is based on a dogmatic belief in capitalism and has absolutely no evidence whatsoever backing it up. You're basically just making shit up as you go without looking at any data at all. With a rose tinted lense towards capitalism because that's what you were taught to never question.
I'm not gonna fall for the old sealioning "find me evidence to prove something obvious" ploy. If you ever want to educate yourself, please just google a list of inventions of the past few centuries. And then send me a million dollars.
Thanks for proving I was right. You don't have shit to back up your bullshit. Capitalism didn't invent anything, science did that. But you don't give a shit about being correct, you have capitalist dogma to spread, regardless of facts.
Fun fact, one of the major reasons the elite of the 13 colonies wanted to separate from the British Empire is that a lot of them would get huge loans from banks in London under the name of a fictitious company in a given colony, close up shop, move to a different colony and repeat.
It's why the original astroturfed riots were organized in Boston and well as why the Sons of Liberty were created. Because among other things, the Stamp act would have prevented the main method they used to execute the fraud.
See the book: Crucible of War by Fred Anderson. It starts dry but is absolutely worth it.
So that when they say "you take out a loan, you pay it back," you can point out to them that Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy (i.e. didn't pay back his loans) five times in his life.
You can’t argue with prostudent debt people. The answers and excuses keep changing and morphing. You might as well try to convince a theist out of God.
Disown them. I stopped all voluntary association outside of work with rightwingers.
My family and friends are a packaged deal. If you don’t like them then you don’t like me. My wife is an immigrant non-white non-christian. My sister-in-law is trans. My children are biracial. I have Muslim friends, Hindu friends, Jewish friends, Gay friends. I won’t associate with anyone who doesn’t support their right to exist and flourish. My parents (and the rest of my birth family) decided to not support the people I love so I decided to protect their grandchildren from them.
I simply cannot grasp how a judicial system that's entirely based on standing, suddenly decides that 6 random states that have 0 stake in this whole FEDERAL student loan thing have standing to sue over this forgiveness plan
Missouri proved they have standing via direct injury:
"At least Missouri has standing to challenge the Secretary’s program. Article III requires a plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact—a concrete and imminent harm to a legally protected interest, like property or money—that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by the lawsuit. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561. Here, as the Government concedes, the Secretary’s plan would cost MOHELA, a nonprofit government corporation created by Missouri to participate in the student loan market, an estimated $44 million a year in fees. MOHELA is, by law and function, an instrumentality of Missouri: Labeled an “instrumentality” by the State, it was created by the State, is supervised by the State, and serves a public function. The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself. The Court reached a similar conclusion 70 years ago in Arkansas v. Texas, 346 U. S. 368."
"The Court’s first overreach in this case is deciding it at all. Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must have standing to challenge a government action. And that requires a personal stake—an injury in fact. We do not al-low plaintiffs to bring suit just because they oppose a policy.
Neither do we allow plaintiffs to rely on injuries suffered by others. Those rules may sound technical, but they enforce “fundamental limits on federal judicial power.” Allen v.
Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750 (1984). They keep courts acting like courts. Or stated the other way around, they prevent courts from acting like this Court does today. The plaintiffs in this case are six States that have no personal stake in the Secretary’s loan forgiveness plan. They are classic ide-ological plaintiffs: They think the plan a very bad idea, but they are no worse off because the Secretary differs. In giv-ing those States a forum—in adjudicating their complaint— the Court forgets its proper role. The Court acts as though it is an arbiter of political and policy disputes, rather than of cases and controversies."
They claimed they had standing. All the liberal justices disagree. This was a partisan lawsuit from the beginning and conservative activist judges on the SCOTUS are legislating from the bench with this ruling and ignoring decades of standing precedent.
Except that MOHELA didn't sue and didn't want to sue in the first place. No business has a constitutional right to make a profit. If all debtors transferred their loans to a different company tomorrow, MOHELA would go bankrupt and they'd have just as much standing then, I.e. none at all. Furthermore, as I said, MOHELA didn't sue, the state of Missouri did. MOHELA doesn't pay a single cent to the state of Missouri, so exactly how is Missouri being injured here? The fact that MOHELA would make less money changes nothing to the "public function" Missouri is supposed to provide here. It can still continue to offer student loans. So I ask again, where is the injury? None of this gives Missouri the state any standing
Like 180 million women in America and they all have less rights than my dead body will and they have no standing meanwhile a corporation that didn’t want to go to court was forced to by parts of the government and they have standing for theoretical harm.
Meanwhile, last October, MOHELA admitted in a letter to Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) that its executives “were not involved with the decision of the Missouri Attorney General’s Office to file for the preliminary injunction in federal court.” The Missouri attorney general had to obtain documents from MOHELA through state sunshine law requests in order to use them in the lawsuit. As I wrote last month, if this is successful, “the Supreme Court would be allowing the plaintiffs to win their case thanks to an unwilling conspirator.”
The internal documents from MOHELA reinforce this. They were obtained through those same state sunshine laws by the Student Borrower Protection Center.
The only reason activist judge gets thrown around a lot is because the fascists have been screaming it for several decades while they stack the courts with activist judges. There screams have also caused the other side to fill courts with moderates so they’re not seen as stacking the courts.
I think they threw most of them out for standing, but of course they just needed one. The most bs was the other case they decided where a person pre sued the state since she couldn't even start a wedding service without the ability to discriminate due to their religious beliefs.
As others have noted with this court, standing is used when convenient.
It's corruption. This isn't a fluke, it's that the "justice" system revolves around what's best for the already powerful elites. It happened because the powerful wanted it to happen, the court just exists to provide the theater to control and placate the masses.
What is also interesting to me is the Supreme Court has rejected pretty much all forms of standing for establishment clause violations.
You could be a religious Muslim rightfully upset that your local government is making public statements about Jesus being lord and you would have no standing since they wiped out offended observer standing.
I'm against student loan forgiveness, but I agree. All evidence seems to say that the plaintiffs had no standing. The case should have been thrown out.
Although I'm happy with the result, the means are not worth the ends. This is a corrupt faction of judges ignoring and applying law where it suits their broader agenda.
5 bucks says it is either a half remembered article from an economist who works for the student loan people wailing about theoretical inflation or they knew someone with a degree that doesn’t pay well and want to punish them for trying.
A lot of it is the “fuck you, got mine” mentality too… which goes along with the “they’re just assholes”. Graduated with no debt because they have well off parents but down play the role that possibly could have had. Obviously people who need a loan to get through college nowadays are just lazy right?
Or “you could have just gone to a cheaper college, this one’s $10,000/year tuition” ignoring that just because you’re in college doesn’t mean you don’t also need to pay rent and buy other necessities… $10,000 is a lot of money for a young adult. That’s half their yearly post-tax income if they could work full time hours at $15/hour.
Let me preface this by saying I’m open to being wrong and that I don’t expect others to share these views. I still owe on my student loans and am not excited to continue paying them. Also, I’m listing several reasons here, so even if someone pokes holes in one or two, I’d encourage to see if there are still one or two solid reasons to be opposed to the specific method of student loan payoffs that was ruled unconstitutional.
From the beginning, the Biden administration knew this wasn’t a constitutional way of paying off loans. Their hope was that no one would have standing to bring a suit. In general, I’m not in favor of doing unconstitutional things in the hope we can get away with it. That’s a door I don’t want the Republicans to have access to either.
This program was initially proposed as COVID relief but does nothing to help those most impacted by COVID. It DOES however, help a huge class of potential voters. From the start this hasn’t been about helping people, it’s been about gaining votes.
Paying off existing student loans is an expensive measure that does nothing to address what got us here in the first place. We are paying too much for degrees that don’t provide the benefits and opportunities they once did, and that’s not going to change if we cancel existing debt. All it does is out us right back here in 5-10 years.
There’s a right way to go about this stuff. Congress should be the ones doing this, not the president. Unfortunately we have a congress that would much rather assign their work out to other people to take care of and that’s part of what has gotten us in the mess we’re in in the first place. I prefer a weak Office of the President, as we don’t always have who we want in that office. Sometimes this means things move slower than we’d like, but I’d rather that than letting whoever is president at the time take huge sweeping actions unchecked by Congress and the Judicial Branch.
Now, just to piss off anyone who wasn’t already upset with me, I think Trump is a crook and I hope he goes to jail for a long time.
Anyway, I’m not trying to start a fight, just give some reasons why I personally am happy with this SC decision.
I’m also against loan forgiveness and agree with all your points. Especially number 3. I want to add emphasis that I think forgiveness in this way will actually make the problem worse.
Yes, it would be a huge help to those who had debts forgiven. However if forgiven once, more people will be likely to go to price-gouging colleges, sign up for the huge student loans, and think there is some chance it will be forgiven later. Colleges will continue to raise tuition because people keep paying it.
We need to address the tuition cost problem. Colleges are out of control. Until we fix that, anything else will encourage them to keep going. Another way of looking at $500bn of loans forgiven… That’s $500bn in the colleges pockets that they get to keep after tripling their tuition.
I think college is a great thing and important to be accessible. We need to make it cheap enough that students can afford it and not come out of it with $80k+ in loans (I as did).
Not true. The executive branch has the power to not collect a tax or debt. Don’t like it? Then vote for a law change. Good luck with that since this has been the case since before the US even started. In fact what is now the UK waived the land tax on the colonies. It says a lot that to even get standing they had to legally force a corporation to claim damages.
Even if true who cares? Governments serve the population ideally. Would you rather they didn’t give people what they want so things are “fair”? Plus I seriously doubt you were protesting when the banks were bailed out, or the airlines, or the farms, or the banks, or the “small” business owners, or the insurance companies, or the car makers.
When a patient is bleading out you don’t give them a lecture on the importance of safety. You stop the bleeding. ER doctors are not useless because they don’t address root causes.
Again. Congress authorizes the collection of taxes and debt they do not collect. Giving permission is not the same as an order to perform.
You know I used to be a test engineer which means I was lied to about 30% of my day by PMs who wanted to push things out. A trick I figured out pretty early. When someone is telling me the truth they only need one reason. When they know that they are wrong they give me multiple weak arguments.
None of what you said is accurate or good arguments.
You’re wrong in this instance, but a lot of people who have votes to gain have been saying this, so I understand why you think that.
The people saying that the President is allowed to wipe out student loans broadly are based on a misreading of the Higher Education Act of 1965 at 20 USC 1082(a)(6) . uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title31/…
The mentioned part of that act provides the provides the president (via the Secretary of Education) with the authority to:
“…modify, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.”
But that quote is taken out of the broader context of the act. The preamble to that section limits the authority to operating within the scope of the statute.
It means that Congress can authorize a loan forgiveness program, (see Public Service Loan Forgiveness, Teacher Loan Forgiveness or the Total and Permanent Disability Discharge), which then means the U.S. Secretary of Education can forgive student loans as authorized under the terms of those programs.
Without authorization by Congress of a specific loan forgiveness program, the President does not have the authority to forgive student loan debt. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that all the way back in 2001 in Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc. when they put limits on what exactly Congress can delegate to the executive branch.
Also, the part of the Act referred to in the preamble is Part B of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which applies only to loans made under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program.
There is similar language in Part E for the Federal Perkins Loan program. There is no similar language for Part D for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program.
I was protesting when the banks were bailed out. I was also protesting the business “loans” being forgiven. Attacking someone’s argument by building a strawman of who you want the others reading this to believe they are is a logical fallacy.
My point is exactly this. We’re treating a ruptured appendix with Advil.
First off, this isn’t a tax going uncollected. The president can’t say 'This thing I want to do is going to now be considered a tax so I can now not collect it." At this point, it’s clear you’re not engaging in good faith, as you’re falling straight back to using character attacks rather than arguments, so have a nice day.
Doesn't address the root problem, in fact it makes the root problem worse. It's just a one time payout to a lucky group of millenials who happen to qualify at the moment.
Also, it primarily benefits wealthier people who got college degrees. That money would do a lot more good going to poorer people.
I think kbin and lemmy are still a little slow federating with each other. Your post here just hit my notifications even though it says you posted 15 hours ago.
I am really getting tired of many of these cases where they are based on theoretical harm. It’s like my mother-in-law arguing about 5 things that haven’t happened yet. Possible. Probable. Reality.
Biden suspected this would happen, hence why he was previously doing student loan forgiveness in smaller increments. But people kept pushing him to do the entire thing and claiming that he was actively against students because he wasn't. No, he knew this happening was a high possibility.
And this case sets much bigger precedents than the specific subject, precedents in two areas.
The specific claim that the Secretary was "transforming" the law rather than tweaking things is asinine, especially since the HEROES Act was incredibly vague in the first place. So this sets precedent that any usage of a law outside of explicitly what it says (difficult to even determine when a bill is so vague) gives leverage to reverse any executive action in enacting the law. Which will just allow massive conservative obstructionism even more on everything.
The entire case having standing as it is. Why do 6 states have standing to sue on something done in regards to federal loans? The idea that states can sue on any federal issue now is concerning to the extreme.
I'd say 70% if I had to guess (not a real stat) as someone watching outside of the US.
Dems, although not being neonazi bigots still have a lot of scum inside. For example undermining recent Right to Repair. Getting bought out by tech companies, especially ISPs locally. And let's not forget about them siding with railroad companies during strike.
It's all relative. Y'all need to understand that. Compared to YOUR worldview, sure, moderate democrats are conservatives. Compared to centrists? No, they're not.
Your political views are abnormal. Compared to most.
Every House Democrat and all Senate Democrats except Joe Manchin voted to give the striking railroad unions the sick days they were striking for.
Not sure what you mean by undermining right to repair, the Biden administration issued an executive order directing the FTC to punish companies that restrict the ability of independent shops to repair electronics.
The HEROES Act ... does not allow the Secretary to rewrite that statute to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal.
The authority to “modify” statutes and regulations allows the Secretary to make modest adjustments and additions to existing provisions, not transform them.
This is the exact wishy washy stuff that would let one supreme court uphold and another strike down. You can modify it, but not that much! Stuck down! Lol out legal system is a joke.
Especially since the language of the HEROES act explicitly states that they can waive or modify. According to the majority forgiveness is clearly not equal to waiving, since you know, they're different words and it's impossible for different words to have the same meaning. If congress wanted to give the secretary the power to forgive, they should've written forgive instead of waive in the act /s
They have discussed alternative routs towards executive student loan forgiveness. I think he's probably too milquetoast to pursue it though, so don't hold your breath. Though, he is significantly less milquetoast that I originally thought so maybe I am wrong.
To be fair, while this would cancel a lot of debt (up to $10,000) for most people, it actually does nothing to cut the cost of college for future students.
I say this as someone who has about $5,000 in student debt left and a wife who has over $20,000. It would have been fantastic for us, but in the end it doesn’t do a single thing to help reduce the cost of education.
To be fair, while this would cancel a lot of debt (up to $10,000) for most people, it actually does nothing to cut the cost of college for future students.
I say this as someone who has about $5,000 in student debt left and a wife who has over $20,000. It would have been fantastic for us, but in the end it doesn’t do a single thing to help reduce the cost of education.
To be fair, while this would cancel a lot of debt (up to $10,000) for most people, it actually does nothing to cut the cost of college for future students.
I say this as someone who has about $5,000 in student debt left and a wife who has over $20,000. It would have been fantastic for us, but in the end it doesn’t do a single thing to help reduce the cost of education.
You are quoting two different "America"'s there, for one. SCOTUS isn't even an elected body, so I'd hardly consider them "America" outside of their power to dictate our state of affairs.
This plan required an act of Congress, the president acted unilaterally and illegally in instituting the plan. The president isn't a dictator, he must go through congress for quite a number of things.
The amount of mental gymnastics this court has used to strike down years of precedent is insane. Can anyone actually still look at their rulings anymore and genuinely say that they aren't just making rulings based on their personal beliefs and bias? Tomorrow it will be illegal to own gold fish if they decided that was in the bible.
Oh honey, Kavanaugh literally made a ruling about a week ago that contradicts this one. But yeah. You're actually right. They didn't use mental gymnastics. They were too lazy for even that. They're just saying no and contradicting themselves with almost zero justification as to why.
Yea, but that's the thing. You're saying that doesn't mean it's true. And if you can read, you'll understand why they came to two separate decisions in two separate cases that have totally different underlying facts.
But, you know... You seem to either be ABLE to read and choose not to, or you are just saying shit to say shit without having read anything.
"States can't sue the government just over 'indirect' harm from a federal policy" is literally applicable to both. Are you unable to extrapolate that information outside of the context of a single case? Does precedent mean absolutely nothing to you? because it sure doesn't to the supreme court anymore.
He isn't going to be put in jail or anything no. He attempted to use a power he does not have. If the president wants this program to become a thing, an act of congress is required.
Strange though how the previous president doing the exact same thing but with ppp loans for businesses was all fine and dandy. Yes, yes, totally not a political judgement at all, nothing to see here
Hopefully congress figures something out because having the entire working class occupied with paying exorbitant interest on rediculous loans is about to fuck our economy up big time.
Sure, but we shouldn't forget the context here. Why didn't they go through congress? Because republicans will shoot it down immediately.
I think this is important to explicitly spell this out everytime when someone says that they don't understand how PPP loans where no problem but student loans forgiveness is unable to pass: The problem are the conservative and republicans. They will rather forgive loans for companies than for their citizens!
Except this wasn't enacted by the president but by the Secretary of Education under the Biden administration and the power was given to them by congress as part of the HEROES act.
If the supreme court wasn't corrupt, they might have still struck this down but not under the cases that reached the supreme court. The fact that they found the original cases to have standing is actually insane and it's likely to open a can of worms because they were basically:
"it's not fair for only certain groups to benefit from government programs."
Do you know how many things are going to be challenged now? And, for it not to create chaos, these new challenges will have to go to the supreme court again where they will have to do mental gymnastics to backpedal on why their decision applies here but not on whatever weird future cases. Jesus what a circus.
The extent of the power of the HEROES act is debatable and thus why this has reached the supreme court. If you read it, the HEROES act was very vague the begin with, as these things often out in our messed up legal system. Like I said. They could argue against or for the HEROES ability to grant this power and they could easily argue it either way because that's how our legal system works. But, that they did it with these cases is still insane because the sanding for these cases is wacko.
The standing wasnt wacko. You're just not informed about the facts of the case. Missouri stood to lose about 44mil/yr or somewhere around there. That's legitimate standing, regardless of your politics.
Check my comment on one of the other threads, Missouri didn't stand to lose anything. MOHELA doesn't pay anything to the state, so even if there was some constitutional right to profit for companies, MOHELA would be the injured party, not the state of Missouri
If MOHELA would have been damaged (and they would have), then Missouri would necessarily be damaged as well. I don't need to look at your other comment to know it's wrong.
If that's what the cases were actually about, I would support you. But the entity that has standing for that argument is MOHELA and they didn't want to be a part of it. The cases that were presented had nothing to do with what Missouri had to lose financially.
The state of Missouri, one of the plaintiffs, is claiming that MOHELA will lose revenue as a result of debt cancellation, and therefore would be unable to repay money into a Missouri state fund that funds in-state schools. It was revealed that MOHELA hasn’t made a contribution to that fund in 15 years; MOHELA has also said in its own financial documents that it doesn’t plan to make any payments in the future. Furthermore, an analysis from the Roosevelt Institute and the Debt Collective shows that MOHELA stands to gain revenue if debt cancellation goes forward, because it received additional servicing rights and its liability on certain accounts would be extinguished.
They don't need standing because they're the supreme court. They literally just ruled on a theoretical case which was bananas in another decision. If you can actually show me their standing that isn't total bullshit, please direct me to it.
This court case doesn't actually impact me. I don't live in the US anymore.
At least Missouri has standing to challenge the Secretary’s pro- gram. Article III requires a plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact—a concrete and imminent harm to a legally protected interest, like property or money—that is fairly traceable to the challenged con- duct and likely to be redressed by the lawsuit. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561. Here, as the Government concedes, the Secretary’s plan would cost MOHELA, a nonprofit government cor- poration created by Missouri to participate in the student loan market, an estimated $44 million a year in fees. MOHELA is, by law and func- tion, an instrumentality of Missouri: Labeled an “instrumentality” by the State, it was created by the State, is supervised by the State, and serves a public function. The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself. The Court reached a similar conclusion 70 years ago in Arkansas v. Texas, 346 U. S. 368. The Secretary emphasizes that, as a public corporation, MOHELA has a legal personality separate from the State. But such an instru- mentality—created and supervised by the State to serve a public func- tion—remains “(for many purposes at least) part of the Government itself.” Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 513 U. S. 374, 397. The Secretary also contends that because MOHELA can sue on its own behalf, it—not Missouri—must be the one to sue. But where a State has been harmed in carrying out its responsibilities, the fact that it chose to exercise its authority through a public corporation it created and controls does not bar the State from suing to remedy that harm itself. See Arkansas, 346 U. S. 368. With Article III satisfied, the Court need not consider the States’ other standing arguments.
You can just read it yourself. It's all explained for you. You just don't like it.
Yeah. I read it. And it's total bullshit. If you scroll up just a couple of comments ago, you'll see why. MOHELA themselves say they will lose money from this court ruling and never planned to pay into the Missouri government program the Missouri government is referring to and they haven't for years. Additionally, Kavanaugh just ruled that "states can't sue the government just over 'indirect' harm from a federal policy." I literally already sent you a link to that. And yet, here he rules directly the opposite. So, maybe you could read first before sending the same bullshit that's already been shut down in this very thread.
But, because there's no real way to check the supreme court, they can say whatever they want and it's law.
Yea, i remember you saying that, and i remember tlling you you're conflating two things that shouldn't be.
Then you doubled down on your ignorance about "indirect" harm, which leads me to believe you DIDN'T read the ruling in this case that i even pasted for you, so you didn't have to do ANY work but reading... Which again, you chose not to do.
LET ME HELP YOU FURTHER:
At least Missouri has standing to challenge the Secretary’s pro- gram. Article III requires a plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact—a concrete and imminent harm to a legally protected interest, like property or money—that is fairly traceable to the challenged con- duct and likely to be redressed by the lawsuit. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561. Here, as the Government concedes, the Secretary’s plan would cost MOHELA, a nonprofit government cor- poration created by Missouri to participate in the student loan market, an estimated $44 million a year in fees.
MOHELA is, by law and func- tion, an instrumentality of Missouri: Labeled an “instrumentality” by the State, it was created by the State, is supervised by the State, and serves a public function. The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself. The Court reached a similar conclusion 70 years ago in Arkansas v. Texas, 346 U. S. 368.
The Secretary emphasizes that, as a public corporation, MOHELA has a legal personality separate from the State. But such an instru- mentality—created and supervised by the State to serve a public func- tion—remains “(for many purposes at least) part of the Government itself.” Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 513 U. S. 374, 397. The Secretary also contends that because MOHELA can sue on its own behalf, it—not Missouri—must be the one to sue. But where a State has been harmed in carrying out its responsibilities, the fact that it chose to exercise its authority through a public corporation it created and controls does not bar the State from suing to remedy that harm itself. See Arkansas, 346 U. S. 368. With Article III satisfied, the Court need not consider the States’ other standing arguments.
Can you read? I bolded the important part that explains the DIRECT harm.
And yes, i agree. Our education system IS failing us. You're exhibit A.
The decision is ridiculously ambiguous. The law is garbage, but the ruling is basically "well yeah, you can technically change loans, but not that much!" Congress should immediately repeal the law if it can just be used by the judicial to only implement what THEY want.
Well, for one, forgiving student loans wouldn't "reduce the cost of education."
It would increase it. It's just a windfall for universities and loan holders. It did nothing to curtail costs, or address the way student loans are handed out, and their nondischargeable status.
We'd be right back here in 10 years, regardless, because "forgiveness" doesn't do anything to address the underlying problems of student loans, which will continue to be handed out, guaranteed by the gvt, and nondischargeable.
Honestly the public has no business financing private tuition debt. If it was cancelling only state tuition debt or enhancing the funding for those programs, I’d be ok. Otherwise, as a mostly liberal individual, this doesn’t bother me.
Student loan forgiveness doesn’t go far enough. We need to overhaul the higher education system to rein in the cost of tuition. I mean, regardless of where you stand on student loan forgiveness, can we at least all agree that a bachelor’s degree costing anywhere near six figures is absurd?
Now that student borrowers aren't getting a "free ride", I want PPP loan recipients to be required to pay back the full amount, plus say, 9% interest, retroactively. Why should my tax dollars pay for your free business loan?
Add comment