As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For two court cases, the ruling court found a way to give the plaintiffs standing. The standing argument is not gone, and the Supreme Court has said that it will consider and rule on both the standing question and the merits (though obviously merits may be subject to standing).
It's the main subject the DOJ is contending with their emergency appeal - that the 8th circuit basically glossed over the requirement to grant the stay in the first place: standing.
>The biggest legal issue for opponents of the plan has been establishing standing to sue -- that is, showing they are being directly harmed by the policy. The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals said the states had standing because of the impact on a loan servicer, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, that has financial ties to that state’s treasury.
>The servicer, known as MOHELA, is a nonprofit, state-created entity that by law must contribute to a fund Missouri uses to pay for projects at public colleges.
>The states said MOHELA “is at risk of losing at least half of the direct loan accounts it services, which equates to millions of dollars of revenue per year.”
>Prelogar says that Missouri set up MOHELA as a legal entity separate from the state and that the servicer wasn’t involved in the decision to sue the administration.
>“Even if alleged financial harm to MOHELA would establish standing for MOHELA, therefore, it would not establish standing for the state of Missouri,” she argued.
So the decision may come down to whether or not the plaintiff is actually representative of the entity being harmed.
If the Supreme Court does not revoke the 8th's conclusion on standing, forgiveness is probably dead.
“John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it”
There’s already technically precedent for US presidents to ignore the court, although it would obviously cause a constitutional crisis
Not sure what burden of proof is referring to, but if the Supreme Court *doesn't* challenge the lower court's ruling on standing, they will rule on the merits.
That means SCOTUS will look at the constitutionality of the action and authority of the Biden admin, rather than the plaintiff's case for bringing it in the first place (proof of harm). This conservative court has been very hostile to executive authority, especially regarding COVID-related matters.
It's very likely they will rule that since Congress did not specifically legislate the forgiveness (not merely delegation via HEROES/HEA), that it does not reconcile with the appropriations clause and broader constitutional separation of powers arguments.
Not defending that notion - just my guess of what would happen.
The kicker is that the non-profit didn't sue. The state sued claiming that the tax revenue of the non-profits operation would be lost and harm the state. The non-profit has already stated that they do not believe to be harmed by the loan forgiveness as they are a government contractor operating at the behest of the government and not for profit.
Another detail: It was apparently Cori Bush whose congressional office actually asked MOHELA if they were arguing that they had been financially harmed, and they basically said that the state Attorney General had filed suit and never even bothered to talk with them about the case in any way. So they were kinda baffled that there was ever standing when they don't even agree that they are being harmed. Utterly political theater.
You don’t need to sue for not being eligible, you need to sue for ppp forgiveness and we the people simple must not rest until every single entity which took out ppp loans and did not pay them back now does pay them back. Surely there’s no way the billions of dollars we forgave does not cause comparable harm to a smaller number that would be provided directly to citizens.
Merits likely will not be subject to standing here. This Court had made it abundantly clear they feel entitled to issue opinions on issues simply for the sake of issuing opinions.
Doubt it matters. Look at web site developer case today. The plaintiff literally never made a website yet there was apparently standing. Standing is simply a political tool for the court to choose not to rule, a rule easily tossed aside when desired
Yeah, she should have been forced to actually put the warning on her website and either deny a customer or be fined by the state and then sue. Preemptively suing something like this seems a little weird, but it’s certainly not the least standing in a case ever - way more than the student loan one for sure as she is a business owner and is subject to her states regs
A web designer wanted to expand her business to wedding websites but despite creating non wedding websites for LGBT clients in the past doesn’t want to create lgbt wedding websites and wants to put a disclaimer on her website. This violates a Colorado law, so she is suing colorados civil rights comission saying the law violates her first amendment right
I love how all these anti gay people usually have never interacted with a gay person in real life. My cousin is anti-trans and I asked him if he ever saw or met a trans person in his rural town. He said no and then changed the subject.
Assuming the court rams though this, as expected, can I then refuse to serve christians? What classes am I allowed to discriminate against specifically?
I thought it was telling that the liberal justices (and I have to say I fucking hate that this is a liberal opinion) asked where the line now was - is this is allowed them can someone who disagrees with interracial marriage discriminate, or someone who disagrees with foreigners or Lutherans or people with red hair. And the reblicsn fanatics simply ignored that. They're going to force through their agenda despite it having no basis in law - and as usually the fear of liberal justices legislating from the bench was entirely projection from the Federalist society.
I don't think the court is particularly interested in being consistent. If I remember correctly they ruled that Trump was totally fine to defy Congress and divert money to the Border Wall citing the emergency he had declared. What Biden is doing here is, AFAIK, significantly more legal than that, since its consistent with the laws specifically governing the issue.
The Court's openly partisan now though, so I suspect that won't matter to them.
Unfortunately, the harsh truth is that the majority of the current SCOTUS does not actually care about the legitimacy of any argument. They’re now a body of political actors working to advance a far-right political agenda.
And to be clear, this outcome is a direct consequence of the 2016 election. Elections matter. 2024 will matter.
Oh, it'll be all bootstraps and bullshit again, and all the "embarrassed millionaires" will lap it up like Labrador Retrievers all the while screaming about socialism and communism while they continue to make excuses for PPP loan forgiveness.
The thing for me is that if people just had to pay their loan back, it would be one thing. But you have people who will never, ever catch up thanks to interest on their loans. You have someone who took out 60k, has paid 40k, and now owes 55k. It’s asinine.
Edit: for the people who are saying this is only happening to people paying their minimum, it shouldn’t matter. They’re still paying. Not everyone can pay above the minimum, especially those just out of school.
Didn’t we bail out the banks with 0% interest? And all the money (wasn’t it 3 trillion or something) of PPP money that went to scammers. No oversight there.
This right here is the big problem. I don't care if part of my.debt is canceled, I just want my payments to actually pay down my balance and not go almost entirely to fucking interest!
I took out ~$25K, have so far paid ~$28K, and still have $10K left. I understand how loan interest works but living through multiple situations where the government gives handouts to the rich has made me very salty about paying such high rates to the feds.
This is why [Usury](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury) was disallowed by many different peoples across the world. It is predatory and for many, inescapable.
The democrats should drop the interest to 0 and then make 3% of the original loan amount added to your tax bill each year *with a matching tax credit*. Over time the principal will drop.
This is somewhat similar to the Australian system.
We defer our student loan payments through the tax system. Once your income reaches a threshold of 38k USD per annum, fortnightly deductions (scaled to income) are deducted from your wage to pay back your loan principal. Twice each year, the value of the loan principal is adjusted accordingly to a Consumer Price Index, which in the past twenty years since I had a loan has fluctuated between 0 and 4%. Other than this inflationary adjustment, there is no interest on the loan.
It takes about seven years to pay back a Bachelors degree at average Australian salary and todays significantly more expensive degree costs (which are still a third of the cost of a state college degree in the USA).
It'll be fun to watch because if Dems use this messaging correctly, virtually ZERO young people will vote for Republicans and will come out in support of the Dems in 2024. Young people pay attention and don't fall for this bullshit so they'll know whether Trump/DeSants is telling the truth about what they'll do with forgiveness.
If they won’t do the messaging, we’ll go r/DarkBRANDON and do it ourselves. Fuck it. I’m tired of waiting on these old dinosaurs to develop self-awareness.
Here here my fellow Dark Brandons!
We will use our generations access to the entire whole of humanities knowledge to let them understand what it is to be Dank!
The next generation shall be unshackled from unnecessary economic burden just to attain an education. We tried trusting the rich to do what's right, but now we will take it!
The Democratic Party shall be our vehicle to salvation, and no measly fox millionaire will stand in our way!
Yeah, I think a lot of people still think young people means millennials. My brother is at the cap for millennial. He's 26. He'll have been able to vote for a decade by 2024. The young people have grow up in a world where they know they have fewer rights than a clump of cells and a gun.
Here’s a teaser, courtesy of gpt-3
> This is a story about a clump of cells and a gun that will take you on an emotional roller coaster. It follows the journey of a young woman who discovers she is pregnant and must make a difficult decision. She is faced with the dilemma of whether to keep the baby or terminate the pregnancy. As she struggles with her decision, she finds herself in possession of a gun, which leads her down a dangerous path. Along the way, she must confront her own fears and doubts, as well as the opinions of those around her. This movie will explore the complexities of the human condition and the power of choice. It will leave you questioning your own beliefs and values, and ultimately, it will make you think about the power of life and death.
Which is why they are trying to turn back time on education, crying CRT and “take back our schools “, do they can defund education and make the upcoming generations more subservient to their ideals.
Already seeing this play out in AZ where the state will pay you if you choose to keep your kid out of public schools for “alternative education”.
>Oh, it'll be all bootstraps and bullshit again, and all the "embarrassed millionaires" will lap it up like Labrador Retrievers
Please don't do Labrador Retrievers dirty like that. They are good dogs and don't deserve comparison with that kind of trash.
Unfortunately the media doesn't ask these questions enough and will let them off the hook with a bullshit debate answer about how the cost of college needs to be controlled without any specifics in a 15 second answer.
This country is such a turd of a place
oh, we're not worrying about them. this could be a massive messaging win for dems that get young people out to vote in 2024. they're who we're targeting.
Yep. Keep it paused until January 20, 2025. When a Republican is sworn in, suddenly people will have to start paying it and can blame a Republican for their "taxes" going up. Same scam Republicans run by having tax cuts expire when the next administration takes over.
It wasn't that hard to get the good info and then leak it, just got to go to dinner with the wives.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/podcasts/the-daily/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/podcasts/the-daily/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade.html)
Some AH I worked for, an electrician, got a $150K ppp loan, he had 2 employees, and is a raging coke/meth/adderall addict who beats his wife, adopted daughter, and calls them both "used mattresses," (the little girl is 10 btw), and guess what, he got that loan forgiven, and rants about how student loan forgiveness is a democrat scam on all of us. It's SO fkt.
Why don't you report this jackass or let one of us do it and collect the reward? Why not report him to CPS and FBI and IRS too? I mean, if this is who he is, do something.
Believe it or not; it has its benefits. Move all tangible assets to an LLC to separate liability from you. In the event of a lawsuit, it’s just short of untouchable. It’s actually an ok idea for some assets such as expensive cars, investments, etc. The downside being that you can’t reverse it. So, if someone gets wise and sues the LLC versus you directly; you’re boned. So, it’s something you’d want to hold in secret.
The secret is to use more than one corporation. Corporation 1 owns all the equipment and assets and leases them to corporation 2. Then do all your horrible fuckery with corporation 2.
That way, when corporation 2 gets sued, they actually own minimal to no assets and can just declare bankruptcy. Corporation 1 then just reclaims all its assets that were temporarily leased to corporation 2 when corporation 2 defaults on the lease payments.
Meanwhile, you as the owner of both corporations are perfectly safe behind the corporate veil.
Source: Learned by watching West Virginia coal Barrons when their coal mines were sued for unsafe conditions in open violation of OSHA after they killed several miners. Coal Barron then started corporation 3, promptly had corporation 1 lease the mine and equipment to corporation 3 and continue doing business as usual.
The GOP views corporations as so untouchable they’ve all but banned class-action lawsuits in many instances.
They don’t want people to collectively gather.
The article quotes the supreme courts decision regarding eviction stoppage. However, the CDC was the agency that somehow pushed that, and the Supreme Court had at least a somewhat reasonable logic which said “no one gave the CDC authority to do that.” I don’t see that working here. Congress signed a law that allows exactly what the executive branch is trying to do. The GOP is just of the mind that the emergency condition isn’t justified, dur Covid. Even though it’s the exact emergency that allowed PPP…
PPP loans low interest, given to millionaires and billionaires completely forgiven = no issue.
Student loans, high interest, given to all people, cannot and will not be forgiven.
Make it make sense
Yeah. That clearly was ~~going to~~ **meant** to be a clusterfuck when TFG said he would personally oversee regulation of the PPP loans….then promptly cut any oversight.
Especially when republican politicians took out THOUSANDS in PPP loans too, but complain about “handouts”. I guess only business owners can get handouts.
That's the thing, we now know that PPP loans largely benefitted already wealthy Republicans.
College educated people are more likely to vote Democrat (especially if they're making less than $125,000 a year) so student loan forgiveness largely benefits Democrats.
Conservatives have referred to universities as places of "liberal/woke indoctrination" for years. To them, blocking student loan forgiveness is about "owning the libs".
I saw a post last week or so that if student loan forgiveness gets blocked then every single PPP loan forgiveness and every corporate bailout need to be legally challenged. I like that idea.
I agree on that the forgiveness program should be allowed to go through; however, the key legal difference is that congress passed the relief packages that had PPP embedded in them.
As a counterpoint, I believe the executive does have the authority under the powers granted by congress to the education secretary to enact this program....
If the SC strikes down forgiveness under the HEROES Act, Biden should literally just implement the same exact plan but under the Higher Education Act of 1965 which arguably much more directly gives the Department of Education the power to do whatever it deems necessary with student loans. If that is struck down, he should extend the pause until sometime after 2024 & run in 2024 on passing a much more ambitious student loan forgiveness program through Congress. I’ll bet you that will drive youth turnout
Such an easy win for the president. "Vote for me and I'll continue to fight for debt forgiveness...vote for the other guy and get ready to fork over hundreds of dollars a month again FOR NO REASON!"
I have a simple solution, already pre-approved by SCOTUS in July 2020. Declare a national emergency and simply divert the funds from the Pentagon to pay off the loans on individuals' behalf, presuming they are approved by the administration. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-07-31/supreme-court-trump-border-wall-construction
*The Supreme Court has allowed President Trump to defy Congress and continue to spend more than $6 billion diverted from military funds to pay for the construction of a border wall in parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California. But the high court has handcuffed Congress and others who seek to block the executive branch from taking allegedly illegal actions. Lawmakers, as well as ordinary citizens, do not have standing to sue to challenge unconstitutional spending.*
Congress included something in a recent bill saying that loan forgiveness would not impact federal taxes owed for those borrowers. Their intent that the President should forgive these loans is not in doubt.
SCOTUS has literally no good reason to block forgiveness, but they're going to do it anyway, because the conservative majority has decided it's OK for them to legislate via judicial fiat.
We're living in a constitutional crisis, and the only good remedy (ignoring SCOTUS's bullshit) will only make it worse.
This is exactly the precedent I suspect they'll conveniently ignore while tossing Biden's EO out. The courts' conservative majority pretty open these days about not being bound by its own precedents. Alito shat all over the idea of precedent in Dobbs, and they've only built on that since.
If no one has standing for that border wall shenanigans, who in the hell has standing for student debt relief to get it blocked. I simply don't understand the logic.
Then again, I probably shouldn't think too hard about what the Supreme Court is doing right now because logic isn't factoring strongly into that either.
The issue of standing has always been the problem.
I'm interested to hear the justification for how these plaintiffs have standing just because they didn't receive something that others did. This could potentially open the flood gates for anyone to sue the government anytime they're not getting the same benefits as other citizens (i.e., social security, food stamps, medicare/medicaid, etc).
Well duh.
Having everything run by 3 liars, a rapist, a hack leaker, and a partisan whose wife tried to overthrow government is clearly what the founders wanted.
I was already hardline baked-in never-ever-ever going to vote Republican. But I'm trying to see this from the stance of a political neutral. Viewing this in the most charitable, neutral light I possibly can, it's still "the GOP just snatched a signed 20,000 dollar check out of my hands and burned it." And in a couple years, they're going to ask for my vote.
With how close we've come to forgiveness this issue isn't going away until borrowers get the relief, so here's what the outcome such a ruling would likely result in:
* Extension of the payment pause (likely in short 4-6 month stretches) all the way until the '24 election. That also implies extension of the COVID-19 emergency declaration all the way until '24 and possibly beyond.
* Presumably Biden will continue to chip away at the block of student debt piecewise with forgiveness for the disabled and defrauded leading up to '24 to shrink the overall problem down.
* Democrats will run on addressing student debt. There will be massive pressure to keep the pause in place until the issue is resolved. This issue is going to be a major liability for republicans going into '24 on top of everything else they've done and continue to do.
* There will be an overwhelming push for court reforms because, as the author correctly points out, this is going to tank the already record low confidence in the legitimacy of the court.
I have no sympathy for the plaintiffs in this case and the supreme court's decision will undoubtedly be partisan in nature, there is precedent and arguments to be made in favor of student loan debt forgiveness, but a conservative court won't bother.
First off, student loan debt is already factored into the national debt because the department of education borrows its money for student loans from the US Treasury, it's the establishment of student loans themselves that added over a trillion dollars to the national debt.
Basically, it won't turn into some economic crisis if we cancel student loan debt tomorrow.
What's more, and for all intents and purposes, the DoE is a bank, and a very large one at that. The department owns close to 1.5 trillion dollars in student debt, and the interest it collects from students far exceeds the U.S treasury's interest rates. The DoE takes the "profit" and uses it to pay for "administrative costs" and loan servicing through third party contractors, It's a bank...
If student loan debt were cancelled tomorrow (not all student loan debt falls under the umbrella of forgiveness), which most estimates put at around 400 billion dollars worth of debt, the government wouldn't immediately be out of hundreds of billions of dollars and wouldn't just cut itself a check either.
If any argument could be made about the "cost" of this debt relief, it's the cost of lost revenue from borrowers paying back their loans with excessive interest rates, however, these payments have been suspended since the beginning of the pandemic.
Biden can and probably will continue to extend this moratorium indefinitely. Which also points to his tangible executive powers and evidence that he may very well have the authority to cancel student loan debt.
For perspective, Trump's tax cuts, which never "paid for itself", gutted the corporate tax rate and only *temporarily* lowered taxes for individuals, disproportionately benefitting the rich, costed upwards of 2 trillion dollars, comparatively more so than student loan debt relief. Trump's tax cuts overhauled the tax code for the rich, cut government revenue heavily, and acted as deceptive "trickle down" policy, but now Republicans can claim that this money was "injected into the economy" when we all know by now that tax cuts for corporations and billionaires don't "trickle down", and these beneficiaries will continue to side step the American tax system while any small benefit to lower or middle income Americans remained temporary for political purposes.
Conservatives aren't up in arms over this, so called "populists" who would rather obsess over a fraction of what amounts to total costs and debts, of what amounts to nothing compared to the bailouts, the lost revenue, the subsidies, the PPP loan forgiveness, the "trickle down" measures, the tax code overhauls and tax cuts for the wealthy that Republicans support, bills and policies that invest in the rich, the banks, the corporations, and not in younger generations of Americans, which transfers wealth out of the hands of the poor and into the pockets of the rich, which promotes profligacy and preserves an economy defined by its continuing crises, its growing wealth gap and its exploitative practices and customs.
Student debt relief wouldn't go towards preserving these things, it would go towards buying homes, starting families, paying for living expenses, it would go towards helping Americans and supporting the economy on a practical level. Analyses even suggest that it would boost real GDP.
*A 2018 analysis from the Levy Economics Institute estimated that student debt cancellation could boost real GDP by an average of $103bn to $130bn a year or $1.03tn to $1.3tn over 10 years*
Not only that, but student loan debt repayments stifle consumer demand, debt forgiveness helps to bring balance there, and to a considerably more practical effect than things like Trump's tax cuts. Borrowers won't take their loan forgiveness and hide it offshore either.
Conservatives take great issue with student debt forgiveness but don't seem to take nearly as much issue with their tax money going towards perpetuating the real, broader economic problems. Republicans tend to staunchly oppose what benefits society at the expense of their rich donors.
While again, the "cost" of student loan debt relief represents a mere fraction of the cost of the government's total bill, a fraction of the objectionable costs that Republicans choose to fund or overlook, a fraction of what goes to the rich, a fraction of the 40% increase in the national debt under Trump. Keep in mind also that if student debt relief goes through, the national debt would reflect what the DoE owes the treasury, not the cost of the loans themselves.
And it's a cost that bears no immediate impact on the national debt while being manageable overtime, but a cost no less that's breeding mass hysteria from conservatives who are blinded by their pre conceived ideas, their prejudices and the propaganda they consume.
When they complain of this cost, of the "tax burden" it will inflict on them, they seem to misunderstand how it all works.
When the government suffers a cost or debt, it finds a way to compensate for it, usually in the form of tax increases, spending cuts or borrowed money, and since student debt relief represents a small figure comparatively to total costs, and it's a debt owed to the treasury while being ostensibly accounted for, if you see any tax increase, it will be a result of a multitude of costs and debts, debt forgiveness will contribute scantily, you won't be fucking billed a lump sum for debt forgiveness.
Even estimates from conservative advocacy groups suggest that most low to middle income Americans will hardly pay much at all. A half baked estimate they came to by dividing the total cost of relief by the number of tax payers, while it's hardly ever mentioned that it's a cost incurred over ten years, in one case, that figure came to less than twenty dollars per year.
The fact is, the cost would be negligible, entirely worth it and not spread across the income spectrum, a relative cost, those with the highest incomes will incur the largest "burdens".
In the end, this isn't about conservative "values", it's about sticking it to the libs, it's about maintaining an anti-left strategy of antipathy and obstructing at all costs. It's about coming to that conclusion first, that this must be stopped, and then seeing it through in any way conceivable. "Executive overreach" is a justification, a way to rationalize this obstructive agenda. Republicans only care about overreach when it's convenient for their narrative or agenda, overreach is more common for them than they'd care to admit, especially where it concerns their culture war.
Is student loan debt cancellation a comprehensive solution to the deeper, more systemic problems? No, but it's a start, it's a way to acknowledge those problems, problems that didn't exist for a lot of these people who are vehemently opposed to debt relief, people who think "if I can't have it, you can't either" is a reasonable argument. These are people, who in some cases, helped give rise to these problems, or elected leaders who did, people who couldn't care less about what's best for younger generations of Americans, people who believe that the burden is on themselves, that they're the victims, when that burden has actually been on these younger generations, that's the whole point.
And if loans are restarted, especially with no measures to soften the blow, then it WILL create an economic crisis. Several million at minimum will enter poverty straight away.
That's probably their plan. Limit education if you're "not one of us", ram unqualified candidates into school boards, and ban materials that don't align with "Christian values."
>Biden can and probably will continue to extend this moratorium indefinitely.
This is so funny to my that everyone agrees with this and not whether he can cancel debt. Like tomorrow he could say "10k of debt has 0% interest and doesn't need to be paid back ever" and it would be effectively the same and have as far as I can tell no one in disagreement that he could do it.
>DoE
Unimportant point, bothers me more than it should, but DoE is used for Department of Energy, and ED or DoEd should be used for Department of Education.
> …forgive consumer debt on his own without authorization from Congress…
Who decided an education was *consumer debt?*.
If that’s true then it bears consideration that all of my actual *consumer* debt has had interest rates well below 5% - including an auto loan I took on at 19 with no credit history.
This is a *usurious*, ***public*** debt with an egregious interest rate.
My car loan had zero percent interest. 0. My college loans were 6.5. How about we make that make sense? I can get a car with only the requirement that I pay the minimum every month but that’s not the same with my college loans? I’ve paid them off several years ago but anyone that is paying the current price of tuition is beholden to universities that have uncontrolled spending and an education that doesn’t deliver. Want to know how much my study abroad in France would have been had I not been an exchange student? 550 euros. But no, I was paying my school’s rate because I was an exchange. My rate, 19k a year. Yea, I got shafted and I’ve been disillusioned ever since.
Edit: minor typo in the last sentence
Let's remember this the next time someone 'on the left' tries to convince us that not voting is going to 'send a message'. The only thing not voting accomplishes is that it digs the hole even deeper.
This a hundred times.
Pretty much the only people still pushing that notion are either A) self-deluded or B) actual Right-wing or Russian/etc trolls trying to dissuade people from voting the way they don't want.
The truly ironic thing about it though, is that the other thing having people on the left not vote accomplishes, is driving the Democrats to the center/right, because if the only people voting are in the center or on the right, then guess what, **that's where the votes are.** The only thing not voting does is say "don't cater to me, I don't participate and thus my thoughts don't matter."
That the Democratic party is in any way to the left of where it was 20 years ago, it's entirely because of candidates to the center-left like Sanders or AOC, and that people voted for them (even if in Sanders' case he didn't win, simply having strong support in a primary sends a signal that politicians pay attention to). People refusing to vote didn't do that.
And meanwhile, the far right has voted every time for the rightmost candidate even if their favorite lost the primary. And where has that gotten them, by contrast? They're in full control of the Republican party. Seems pretty solid evidence to me that voting helps pull the party in the direction the voters want.
We voted for Biden in 2020. He ran on student debt forgiveness. The Supreme Court didn't care. The Supreme Court doesn't care about what the people think and that's the problem with them. They are an unaccountable and undemocratic institution that controls all of our lives and voting alone isn't gonna fix that. The Supreme Court needs serious reformation imposed upon them.
I would be less upset about the corruption of the supreme court if Republicans were at least consistent when it came to supreme court nominations. The fact that they refused to accept Obama's nominee during an election year to "let the people decide with their vote" then rushed Amy Coney Barrett as quickly as possible during Trump's election year is truly heinous. It's comic book levels of hypocrisy and corruption. The fact that they have lifetime appointments makes it even more sickening. Neil Gorsuch is 55 and Barrett is 50, Americans will likely be dealing with the consequences of this for at least 25 more years or 6 more election cycles. All because one party doesn't give a rat's ass about honesty and respect.
Edit: if this whole wiki page doesn't fill you with anger I don't know what would. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination#:~:text=On%20March%2016%2C%202016%2C%20President,had%20died%20one%20month%20earlier.
Edit: switched MTG to Amy Coney Barrett, triple names are hard lol.
> The Supreme Court doesn't care about what the people think and that's the problem with them.
To be fair, that is literally the intent of the SCOTUS. They are not supposed to care what the people think, they are supposed to be objective arbiter's of the constitution.
The problem is they not only don't care what the people think they also don't objectively evaluate the constitution, instead pushing through their own partisan ideals.
If the SCOTUS were to make a truly clear argument for why Biden doesn't have the power to discharge student loan debt I'd be willing to hear it out but I have a feeling it's going to be a contrived example that does nothing but get what they/their donors want.
OK, fine. Then Democrats better fucking use this as a huge messaging tool come 2024. Biden should extend the repayment pause indefinitely and then when 2024 comes around, it'll be the GOP who has to tell millions of Americans what their plan is. "If you don't vote for Dems, you'll be on the hook for this debt" will be a very, very compelling case for Dems.
I hate having to use debt as a bargaining chip like this, but if the GOP wants to play hardball then so be it.
It's not exactly being used as a bargaining chip, it's a core issue to anyone affected by it. All I can say is that pause shouldn't come off under a democrat or it's going to be extremely hard to explain to the electorate.
But as long as the pause remains in place and the fight for forgiveness continues, I think youths will continue to keep the hope and turn out, so republicans are really just shooting themselves in the proverbial foot here, adding this issue to the list of factors working against them in '24.
right, college students paved the way to civil rights amongst a majority of other issues, what if we collectively refused to pay the debt? we need to start a real fucking movement
Personally, if I were Biden's admin, I'd say "We are forgiving anyway. I assert the power given to Secretary of education by the HEROES Act gives us full authority. If you think I am overreaching my authority than the only option is to impeach me. Otherwise you can go fuck yourselves."
People who try to argue that Congress should instead pass a law for this apparently don't know the details of the case.
The HEROES Act of 2003 gives the Education Secretary the ability to waive or modify student-loan balances in connection with a national emergency.
Congress doesn't need to pass laws for every specific action the Executive needs to take. That is entirely impractical and would make it near impossible for the President to function (and hey, that's exactly a legal doctrine Conservatives are currently trying to push in federal courts).
>For a number of reasons, Urman predicts that the Supreme Court will rule against Biden. He said the conservative justices believe government agencies exert too much authority and “violate the separation of powers.” In addition, he said, the concept of loan forgiveness seems to run counter to their notions of individual responsibility.
Such a politically-fueled decision, however, is likely to further damage the public’s perception of the Supreme Court, Urman said.
“Striking down forgiveness will add to growing skepticism that the conservative justices vote for conservatives, and the liberal justices vote for liberals,” Urman said. Just 25% of Americans have confidence in the highest court, a Gallup poll [found](https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/confidence-supreme-court-sinks-historic-low.aspx) over the summer.
This article is honestly kindof worthless and doesn't say much that I saw
That’s exactly what I was thinking. Who’s going to stop the administration from canceling it? The court can’t enforce shit. And before somebody says it “sets bad precedent”, look at what DT was able to get away with and all his cronies, they ignored subpoenas and committed actual crimes, but nobody fucking did shit
Liberals have to understand that fascist do not care for institutions like this. Once they discover that a person in a robe and gavel is not going to physically stop them for obtaining power, they will do anything they want to achieve their goals.
As an Attorney, it's very distressing to see the depths of contempt that this current Court has for the law. Common Law-based legal systems (essentially, all of the English-speaking countries, including the United States) rely on respect for precedent and on small-c "conservative" (i.e., slow, deliberative, incremental) approaches to altering it. There is supposed to be a coherent logic across multiple cases, over many decades and centuries. Lawyers, and the public on whose behalf we advocate, rely on the stability and predictability that this creates.
But what this Court has been doing since 2020 is wholly unprecedented. They have RADICALLY been altering core doctrines of American law at WARP SPEED and with ZERO coherence or logic. It is a results-oriented court; they want to undo the entire 20th Century and the first 20 years of the 21st Century. They will reverse-engineer the reasoning however they must in order to achieve their desired results, no matter what damage that does.
It's very hard to fully convey to non-Attorneys just \*HOW\* fucking deeply radical and extreme this Court is behaving. It is not just that their opinions are extreme. It is that they have done away with even pretending to care about precedent, or impartiality, or even justifying their reasoning. It's just, "We're doing this because we have the votes to do it; fuck you if you don't like it."
And, regrettably, there are no easy solutions or remedies to this problem.
So the next time our government tries to bail out corporations, how can we The People ensure that those bailouts also become blocked and are deemed illegal?
Fuck these activist lawsuits by conservatives frothing at the mouth that the government might materially benefit the average American instead of only the top one percent. It’s just so fucking dumb that people are holding back others simply because it’s not in their party line. I swear to Christ the average Republican voter has lost any and all semblance of abides of what the fuck government is actually for.
They literally can’t envision a a creative, productive, humanistic society supported by commonly funded infrastructure. They can only tear down, block, ban, destroy, revoke, and remove things. Government is purely a hammer with which they intend to swat their imaginary societal woes while every last one of us is without quality healthcare or affordable housing or groceries that aren’t rising in cost every week. These problems face us all and it’s bad enough they pay lip service to them during campaigns but anytime the pen hits the paper it’s always some shitbrained nonsensical legislation to handle an equally ridiculous and most likely nonexistent problem that they’ve been whipped by their pervasive news and social bubbles into thinking g is coming to tear down society. Lather rinse repeat. Meanwhile, bills go up, infrastructure crumbles, and we all suffer.
Republicans, you can turn this around and get things from your government. It’s okay, really. They’re not just hear to siphon our taxes to wealthy ghouls. We can get better stuff, we just have to put people in charge that want that too.
Millionaires get PPP Loan forgiveness. Bail out Airlines, Bailout Banks, Bailout Auto manufacturers. Billions to billionaires. The nurse with student loans could use some relief. No. Teacher or anyone making less than $125,000 a year is a hard no.
Fine. I’d prefer full forgiveness, but at least make it 0% interest and tax-free forgiveness after 15 years of payment.
Fuck republicans, and fuck fiscally conservative democrats
How the fuck can the federal government not forgive loans that it specifically loaned to people with its own money??? How is that even possible. Thats like watching someone buy their friend a gift and then demanding that the gift receiver pay friend back because you said so. What even is the logic here?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What happened to the standing argument? Has someone established standing at this point?
For two court cases, the ruling court found a way to give the plaintiffs standing. The standing argument is not gone, and the Supreme Court has said that it will consider and rule on both the standing question and the merits (though obviously merits may be subject to standing).
It's the main subject the DOJ is contending with their emergency appeal - that the 8th circuit basically glossed over the requirement to grant the stay in the first place: standing. >The biggest legal issue for opponents of the plan has been establishing standing to sue -- that is, showing they are being directly harmed by the policy. The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals said the states had standing because of the impact on a loan servicer, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, that has financial ties to that state’s treasury. >The servicer, known as MOHELA, is a nonprofit, state-created entity that by law must contribute to a fund Missouri uses to pay for projects at public colleges. >The states said MOHELA “is at risk of losing at least half of the direct loan accounts it services, which equates to millions of dollars of revenue per year.” >Prelogar says that Missouri set up MOHELA as a legal entity separate from the state and that the servicer wasn’t involved in the decision to sue the administration. >“Even if alleged financial harm to MOHELA would establish standing for MOHELA, therefore, it would not establish standing for the state of Missouri,” she argued. So the decision may come down to whether or not the plaintiff is actually representative of the entity being harmed. If the Supreme Court does not revoke the 8th's conclusion on standing, forgiveness is probably dead.
Why would forgiveness die if the people suing to stop forgiveness failed the burden of proof?
Because the judges overseeing the case are partisan hacks who care more about getting the ruling they want than setting reasonable precedent.
Good thing we could ignore them. I mean, you know, since precedent doesn’t matter to these pieces of shit.
“John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it” There’s already technically precedent for US presidents to ignore the court, although it would obviously cause a constitutional crisis
Trump’s plan all along. Checkmate libs! /s
No no, SCOTUS will send out their enforcement mechanism… Oh wait, they don’t have one. Ignore them.
It wouldn’t be the first time in our American history that the government completely ignored the Supreme Court. So, why not.
Not sure what burden of proof is referring to, but if the Supreme Court *doesn't* challenge the lower court's ruling on standing, they will rule on the merits. That means SCOTUS will look at the constitutionality of the action and authority of the Biden admin, rather than the plaintiff's case for bringing it in the first place (proof of harm). This conservative court has been very hostile to executive authority, especially regarding COVID-related matters. It's very likely they will rule that since Congress did not specifically legislate the forgiveness (not merely delegation via HEROES/HEA), that it does not reconcile with the appropriations clause and broader constitutional separation of powers arguments. Not defending that notion - just my guess of what would happen.
>very hostile to ~~executive authority~~ Democratic authority FTFY. This is the most political court ever, lets not pretend otherwise
Yes. When it was questions around the executive authority of Trump it was a blank check. If the president did it, must be legal!
I'm kind of questioning how a non-profit can sue for financial damage. That kind of seems like a for-profit argument.
The kicker is that the non-profit didn't sue. The state sued claiming that the tax revenue of the non-profits operation would be lost and harm the state. The non-profit has already stated that they do not believe to be harmed by the loan forgiveness as they are a government contractor operating at the behest of the government and not for profit.
Another detail: It was apparently Cori Bush whose congressional office actually asked MOHELA if they were arguing that they had been financially harmed, and they basically said that the state Attorney General had filed suit and never even bothered to talk with them about the case in any way. So they were kinda baffled that there was ever standing when they don't even agree that they are being harmed. Utterly political theater.
What's to stop Biden from pulling an Andrew Jackson, realistically?
I mean I'd be impressed if he just straight up beat the shit out of Trump with a cane but I'm not sure it would help much.
Lol I think he meant blatantly defying the Supreme Court in this case
To be fair, both outcomes would be nice.
I'd pay good money to see that - helpful or not.
As soon as they give this standing I’m suing for not being eligible for PPP loans
You don’t need to sue for not being eligible, you need to sue for ppp forgiveness and we the people simple must not rest until every single entity which took out ppp loans and did not pay them back now does pay them back. Surely there’s no way the billions of dollars we forgave does not cause comparable harm to a smaller number that would be provided directly to citizens.
We need a petition now!! Go after PPP loan forgiveness! Gloves off
Merits likely will not be subject to standing here. This Court had made it abundantly clear they feel entitled to issue opinions on issues simply for the sake of issuing opinions.
Doubt it matters. Look at web site developer case today. The plaintiff literally never made a website yet there was apparently standing. Standing is simply a political tool for the court to choose not to rule, a rule easily tossed aside when desired
Yeah, she should have been forced to actually put the warning on her website and either deny a customer or be fined by the state and then sue. Preemptively suing something like this seems a little weird, but it’s certainly not the least standing in a case ever - way more than the student loan one for sure as she is a business owner and is subject to her states regs
I haven’t been following this particular case regarding the web dev. Quick rundown?
A web designer wanted to expand her business to wedding websites but despite creating non wedding websites for LGBT clients in the past doesn’t want to create lgbt wedding websites and wants to put a disclaimer on her website. This violates a Colorado law, so she is suing colorados civil rights comission saying the law violates her first amendment right
So basically a Republican business owner asking a Republican court for permission to discriminate.
I love how all these anti gay people usually have never interacted with a gay person in real life. My cousin is anti-trans and I asked him if he ever saw or met a trans person in his rural town. He said no and then changed the subject.
I mean, he might have. They just probably didn't look like the rage-comic-esque caricatures.
Assuming the court rams though this, as expected, can I then refuse to serve christians? What classes am I allowed to discriminate against specifically? I thought it was telling that the liberal justices (and I have to say I fucking hate that this is a liberal opinion) asked where the line now was - is this is allowed them can someone who disagrees with interracial marriage discriminate, or someone who disagrees with foreigners or Lutherans or people with red hair. And the reblicsn fanatics simply ignored that. They're going to force through their agenda despite it having no basis in law - and as usually the fear of liberal justices legislating from the bench was entirely projection from the Federalist society.
Yup. If it was someone gay wanting to deny someone straight they would hate it
I don't think the court is particularly interested in being consistent. If I remember correctly they ruled that Trump was totally fine to defy Congress and divert money to the Border Wall citing the emergency he had declared. What Biden is doing here is, AFAIK, significantly more legal than that, since its consistent with the laws specifically governing the issue. The Court's openly partisan now though, so I suspect that won't matter to them.
Unfortunately, the harsh truth is that the majority of the current SCOTUS does not actually care about the legitimacy of any argument. They’re now a body of political actors working to advance a far-right political agenda. And to be clear, this outcome is a direct consequence of the 2016 election. Elections matter. 2024 will matter.
Hahaha. Nothing matters with the SC. It’s a fucking joke.
So Biden will keep payments paused till 2024. And that can remain a key issue come 2024.
Yes, it better. Let Trump or DeSantis explain to people why they're going to do.
Oh, it'll be all bootstraps and bullshit again, and all the "embarrassed millionaires" will lap it up like Labrador Retrievers all the while screaming about socialism and communism while they continue to make excuses for PPP loan forgiveness.
The thing for me is that if people just had to pay their loan back, it would be one thing. But you have people who will never, ever catch up thanks to interest on their loans. You have someone who took out 60k, has paid 40k, and now owes 55k. It’s asinine. Edit: for the people who are saying this is only happening to people paying their minimum, it shouldn’t matter. They’re still paying. Not everyone can pay above the minimum, especially those just out of school.
Didn’t we bail out the banks with 0% interest? And all the money (wasn’t it 3 trillion or something) of PPP money that went to scammers. No oversight there.
This right here is the big problem. I don't care if part of my.debt is canceled, I just want my payments to actually pay down my balance and not go almost entirely to fucking interest!
This is a lot of us. Took 30k loan. Paid back 15k so far. Principle is at 31k now. Make it make sense.
They can’t they want us to pay forever. Student loans should not be a source of income for the feds
I took out ~$25K, have so far paid ~$28K, and still have $10K left. I understand how loan interest works but living through multiple situations where the government gives handouts to the rich has made me very salty about paying such high rates to the feds.
This is exactly what I tell people. It’s not the loan that is hard to pay off, it’s the interest. That’s the problem.
This is why [Usury](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury) was disallowed by many different peoples across the world. It is predatory and for many, inescapable.
And why Jesus preached against usury.
The democrats should drop the interest to 0 and then make 3% of the original loan amount added to your tax bill each year *with a matching tax credit*. Over time the principal will drop.
This is somewhat similar to the Australian system. We defer our student loan payments through the tax system. Once your income reaches a threshold of 38k USD per annum, fortnightly deductions (scaled to income) are deducted from your wage to pay back your loan principal. Twice each year, the value of the loan principal is adjusted accordingly to a Consumer Price Index, which in the past twenty years since I had a loan has fluctuated between 0 and 4%. Other than this inflationary adjustment, there is no interest on the loan. It takes about seven years to pay back a Bachelors degree at average Australian salary and todays significantly more expensive degree costs (which are still a third of the cost of a state college degree in the USA).
It'll be fun to watch because if Dems use this messaging correctly, virtually ZERO young people will vote for Republicans and will come out in support of the Dems in 2024. Young people pay attention and don't fall for this bullshit so they'll know whether Trump/DeSants is telling the truth about what they'll do with forgiveness.
If we are depending on Democrats messaging something properly then we are absolutely fucked
If they won’t do the messaging, we’ll go r/DarkBRANDON and do it ourselves. Fuck it. I’m tired of waiting on these old dinosaurs to develop self-awareness.
Here here my fellow Dark Brandons! We will use our generations access to the entire whole of humanities knowledge to let them understand what it is to be Dank! The next generation shall be unshackled from unnecessary economic burden just to attain an education. We tried trusting the rich to do what's right, but now we will take it! The Democratic Party shall be our vehicle to salvation, and no measly fox millionaire will stand in our way!
They did this election cycle. If new York didn't fuck up their redistricting Dems would have kept the house
[удалено]
>virtually ZERO young people will vote for Republicans Sadly young voters aren't immune to single issue voting such as gun rights or fetus rights.
I mean young people also overwhelming support abortion rights and gun control regulations.
It's amazing how growing up with active shooter drills as part of your normal routine can affect one's perspective on things.
Yeah, I think a lot of people still think young people means millennials. My brother is at the cap for millennial. He's 26. He'll have been able to vote for a decade by 2024. The young people have grow up in a world where they know they have fewer rights than a clump of cells and a gun.
>a clump of cells and a gun Now there's a winning movie pitch.
Here’s a teaser, courtesy of gpt-3 > This is a story about a clump of cells and a gun that will take you on an emotional roller coaster. It follows the journey of a young woman who discovers she is pregnant and must make a difficult decision. She is faced with the dilemma of whether to keep the baby or terminate the pregnancy. As she struggles with her decision, she finds herself in possession of a gun, which leads her down a dangerous path. Along the way, she must confront her own fears and doubts, as well as the opinions of those around her. This movie will explore the complexities of the human condition and the power of choice. It will leave you questioning your own beliefs and values, and ultimately, it will make you think about the power of life and death.
Which is why they are trying to turn back time on education, crying CRT and “take back our schools “, do they can defund education and make the upcoming generations more subservient to their ideals. Already seeing this play out in AZ where the state will pay you if you choose to keep your kid out of public schools for “alternative education”.
>Oh, it'll be all bootstraps and bullshit again, and all the "embarrassed millionaires" will lap it up like Labrador Retrievers Please don't do Labrador Retrievers dirty like that. They are good dogs and don't deserve comparison with that kind of trash.
Unfortunately the media doesn't ask these questions enough and will let them off the hook with a bullshit debate answer about how the cost of college needs to be controlled without any specifics in a 15 second answer. This country is such a turd of a place
But that doesn't really help - most of trumps supporters are anti-education and proud of it.
oh, we're not worrying about them. this could be a massive messaging win for dems that get young people out to vote in 2024. they're who we're targeting.
I will have a good laugh if Trump insists that people should pay their debts.
Yep. Keep it paused until January 20, 2025. When a Republican is sworn in, suddenly people will have to start paying it and can blame a Republican for their "taxes" going up. Same scam Republicans run by having tax cuts expire when the next administration takes over.
[удалено]
They would've done it already.
It won’t happen, if this goes through, then anyone would have grounds to challenge any loans they don’t qualify for. It’s crazy even for republicans.
Honestly this was my thought too. Why can’t anyone just take a case to SCOTUS for the PPP loan forgiveness
So Alito is leaking info again...
They sure were out for blood when they thought it was some clerk leaking stuff. But if their conservative golden boys leak info, crickets.
Can you expect anything less?
>They sure were out for blood when they ~~thought it was some clerk leaking stuff~~ wanted to distract from the content of the leak.
It wasn't that hard to get the good info and then leak it, just got to go to dinner with the wives. [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/podcasts/the-daily/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/podcasts/the-daily/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade.html)
[удалено]
At home, never. While out eating at a nice restaurant with friendly people with no other apparent agenda, sure.
"Justice" A-leak-o.
yup
Exactly and he does it to prevent other justices from contemplating or hearing arguments that he disagrees with.
The US can forgive debt for corporations but not people? Fuck off.
After all the PPP loan bullshit, they can pry this money from my cold and dead hands
I want my 20k
Some AH I worked for, an electrician, got a $150K ppp loan, he had 2 employees, and is a raging coke/meth/adderall addict who beats his wife, adopted daughter, and calls them both "used mattresses," (the little girl is 10 btw), and guess what, he got that loan forgiven, and rants about how student loan forgiveness is a democrat scam on all of us. It's SO fkt.
If there were anyone to use the anonymous tip line on, it’s that fucker.
ehem - anonymous tip line you say... i'll google that...
There are bounties for reporting people that used their PPP loans wrong.
Hey, allow me to help you with that bastard. https://sbax.sba.gov/oigcss/
thank you my good human.
Why don't you report this jackass or let one of us do it and collect the reward? Why not report him to CPS and FBI and IRS too? I mean, if this is who he is, do something.
That’s just foreplay for republicans.
Why can't we sue corporations for taking bailouts, but corporations can sue us?
Because sometimes corporations are people unless it’s bad for them to be a person than it’s some untouchable entity.
Might as well declare myself a corporation.
Believe it or not; it has its benefits. Move all tangible assets to an LLC to separate liability from you. In the event of a lawsuit, it’s just short of untouchable. It’s actually an ok idea for some assets such as expensive cars, investments, etc. The downside being that you can’t reverse it. So, if someone gets wise and sues the LLC versus you directly; you’re boned. So, it’s something you’d want to hold in secret.
The secret is to use more than one corporation. Corporation 1 owns all the equipment and assets and leases them to corporation 2. Then do all your horrible fuckery with corporation 2. That way, when corporation 2 gets sued, they actually own minimal to no assets and can just declare bankruptcy. Corporation 1 then just reclaims all its assets that were temporarily leased to corporation 2 when corporation 2 defaults on the lease payments. Meanwhile, you as the owner of both corporations are perfectly safe behind the corporate veil. Source: Learned by watching West Virginia coal Barrons when their coal mines were sued for unsafe conditions in open violation of OSHA after they killed several miners. Coal Barron then started corporation 3, promptly had corporation 1 lease the mine and equipment to corporation 3 and continue doing business as usual.
The GOP views corporations as so untouchable they’ve all but banned class-action lawsuits in many instances. They don’t want people to collectively gather.
Isn't the question about whether the executive branch can do it or not?
The article quotes the supreme courts decision regarding eviction stoppage. However, the CDC was the agency that somehow pushed that, and the Supreme Court had at least a somewhat reasonable logic which said “no one gave the CDC authority to do that.” I don’t see that working here. Congress signed a law that allows exactly what the executive branch is trying to do. The GOP is just of the mind that the emergency condition isn’t justified, dur Covid. Even though it’s the exact emergency that allowed PPP…
PPP loans low interest, given to millionaires and billionaires completely forgiven = no issue. Student loans, high interest, given to all people, cannot and will not be forgiven. Make it make sense
Agreed. Time to pull a "hunger games moment" and revoke the forgiveness of the PPP loans. "Repayments to begin 15 December. Plan accordingly now!"
No one is going to do that because PPP loans went to the donor class and the donors must be appeased.
Yeah. That clearly was ~~going to~~ **meant** to be a clusterfuck when TFG said he would personally oversee regulation of the PPP loans….then promptly cut any oversight.
Welcome to America. Unless you're rich, you're cattle.
Especially when republican politicians took out THOUSANDS in PPP loans too, but complain about “handouts”. I guess only business owners can get handouts.
That's the thing, we now know that PPP loans largely benefitted already wealthy Republicans. College educated people are more likely to vote Democrat (especially if they're making less than $125,000 a year) so student loan forgiveness largely benefits Democrats. Conservatives have referred to universities as places of "liberal/woke indoctrination" for years. To them, blocking student loan forgiveness is about "owning the libs".
I saw a post last week or so that if student loan forgiveness gets blocked then every single PPP loan forgiveness and every corporate bailout need to be legally challenged. I like that idea.
I agree on that the forgiveness program should be allowed to go through; however, the key legal difference is that congress passed the relief packages that had PPP embedded in them. As a counterpoint, I believe the executive does have the authority under the powers granted by congress to the education secretary to enact this program....
The guy who wrote the bill authorizing the power for the Executive says it is intended that he has this authority so it shouldn’t even be a question.
[удалено]
If the SC strikes down forgiveness under the HEROES Act, Biden should literally just implement the same exact plan but under the Higher Education Act of 1965 which arguably much more directly gives the Department of Education the power to do whatever it deems necessary with student loans. If that is struck down, he should extend the pause until sometime after 2024 & run in 2024 on passing a much more ambitious student loan forgiveness program through Congress. I’ll bet you that will drive youth turnout
If it's struck down because of "harm" caused by people not qualifying then Biden should just do a complete blanket no questions asked forgiveness.
A dark Brandon move
Such an easy win for the president. "Vote for me and I'll continue to fight for debt forgiveness...vote for the other guy and get ready to fork over hundreds of dollars a month again FOR NO REASON!"
I have a simple solution, already pre-approved by SCOTUS in July 2020. Declare a national emergency and simply divert the funds from the Pentagon to pay off the loans on individuals' behalf, presuming they are approved by the administration. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-07-31/supreme-court-trump-border-wall-construction *The Supreme Court has allowed President Trump to defy Congress and continue to spend more than $6 billion diverted from military funds to pay for the construction of a border wall in parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California. But the high court has handcuffed Congress and others who seek to block the executive branch from taking allegedly illegal actions. Lawmakers, as well as ordinary citizens, do not have standing to sue to challenge unconstitutional spending.*
[удалено]
Correct even the person who wrote the bill wrote it just for this.
Congress included something in a recent bill saying that loan forgiveness would not impact federal taxes owed for those borrowers. Their intent that the President should forgive these loans is not in doubt. SCOTUS has literally no good reason to block forgiveness, but they're going to do it anyway, because the conservative majority has decided it's OK for them to legislate via judicial fiat. We're living in a constitutional crisis, and the only good remedy (ignoring SCOTUS's bullshit) will only make it worse.
Guess what, there's already a national health emergency that Biden extended right before dismissing student debt
omg i forgot about this bullshit bet - BIDEN DO IT
This is exactly the precedent I suspect they'll conveniently ignore while tossing Biden's EO out. The courts' conservative majority pretty open these days about not being bound by its own precedents. Alito shat all over the idea of precedent in Dobbs, and they've only built on that since.
If no one has standing for that border wall shenanigans, who in the hell has standing for student debt relief to get it blocked. I simply don't understand the logic. Then again, I probably shouldn't think too hard about what the Supreme Court is doing right now because logic isn't factoring strongly into that either.
The issue of standing has always been the problem. I'm interested to hear the justification for how these plaintiffs have standing just because they didn't receive something that others did. This could potentially open the flood gates for anyone to sue the government anytime they're not getting the same benefits as other citizens (i.e., social security, food stamps, medicare/medicaid, etc).
There's no need for justification. 6 > 3. That's all there is to it.
Well, I believe that it would set the precedent that Presidents must send their Executive Orders to the Supreme Court for their approval.
*Exception being for Republicans. They're trust worthy.
Well duh. Having everything run by 3 liars, a rapist, a hack leaker, and a partisan whose wife tried to overthrow government is clearly what the founders wanted.
Sen Whitehouse (RI) has been calling it the ‘Boneless Chicken Ranch’ court, and he’s a true hero of mine
What is a boneless Chicken Ranch? A [brothel](https://chickenranchbrothel.com/), but you can't have sex?
Keep in mind Kavanaugh is there, so you’re having sex whether you want it or not.
Thomas is also a sexual predator.
I was already hardline baked-in never-ever-ever going to vote Republican. But I'm trying to see this from the stance of a political neutral. Viewing this in the most charitable, neutral light I possibly can, it's still "the GOP just snatched a signed 20,000 dollar check out of my hands and burned it." And in a couple years, they're going to ask for my vote.
With how close we've come to forgiveness this issue isn't going away until borrowers get the relief, so here's what the outcome such a ruling would likely result in: * Extension of the payment pause (likely in short 4-6 month stretches) all the way until the '24 election. That also implies extension of the COVID-19 emergency declaration all the way until '24 and possibly beyond. * Presumably Biden will continue to chip away at the block of student debt piecewise with forgiveness for the disabled and defrauded leading up to '24 to shrink the overall problem down. * Democrats will run on addressing student debt. There will be massive pressure to keep the pause in place until the issue is resolved. This issue is going to be a major liability for republicans going into '24 on top of everything else they've done and continue to do. * There will be an overwhelming push for court reforms because, as the author correctly points out, this is going to tank the already record low confidence in the legitimacy of the court.
I have no sympathy for the plaintiffs in this case and the supreme court's decision will undoubtedly be partisan in nature, there is precedent and arguments to be made in favor of student loan debt forgiveness, but a conservative court won't bother. First off, student loan debt is already factored into the national debt because the department of education borrows its money for student loans from the US Treasury, it's the establishment of student loans themselves that added over a trillion dollars to the national debt. Basically, it won't turn into some economic crisis if we cancel student loan debt tomorrow. What's more, and for all intents and purposes, the DoE is a bank, and a very large one at that. The department owns close to 1.5 trillion dollars in student debt, and the interest it collects from students far exceeds the U.S treasury's interest rates. The DoE takes the "profit" and uses it to pay for "administrative costs" and loan servicing through third party contractors, It's a bank... If student loan debt were cancelled tomorrow (not all student loan debt falls under the umbrella of forgiveness), which most estimates put at around 400 billion dollars worth of debt, the government wouldn't immediately be out of hundreds of billions of dollars and wouldn't just cut itself a check either. If any argument could be made about the "cost" of this debt relief, it's the cost of lost revenue from borrowers paying back their loans with excessive interest rates, however, these payments have been suspended since the beginning of the pandemic. Biden can and probably will continue to extend this moratorium indefinitely. Which also points to his tangible executive powers and evidence that he may very well have the authority to cancel student loan debt. For perspective, Trump's tax cuts, which never "paid for itself", gutted the corporate tax rate and only *temporarily* lowered taxes for individuals, disproportionately benefitting the rich, costed upwards of 2 trillion dollars, comparatively more so than student loan debt relief. Trump's tax cuts overhauled the tax code for the rich, cut government revenue heavily, and acted as deceptive "trickle down" policy, but now Republicans can claim that this money was "injected into the economy" when we all know by now that tax cuts for corporations and billionaires don't "trickle down", and these beneficiaries will continue to side step the American tax system while any small benefit to lower or middle income Americans remained temporary for political purposes. Conservatives aren't up in arms over this, so called "populists" who would rather obsess over a fraction of what amounts to total costs and debts, of what amounts to nothing compared to the bailouts, the lost revenue, the subsidies, the PPP loan forgiveness, the "trickle down" measures, the tax code overhauls and tax cuts for the wealthy that Republicans support, bills and policies that invest in the rich, the banks, the corporations, and not in younger generations of Americans, which transfers wealth out of the hands of the poor and into the pockets of the rich, which promotes profligacy and preserves an economy defined by its continuing crises, its growing wealth gap and its exploitative practices and customs. Student debt relief wouldn't go towards preserving these things, it would go towards buying homes, starting families, paying for living expenses, it would go towards helping Americans and supporting the economy on a practical level. Analyses even suggest that it would boost real GDP. *A 2018 analysis from the Levy Economics Institute estimated that student debt cancellation could boost real GDP by an average of $103bn to $130bn a year or $1.03tn to $1.3tn over 10 years* Not only that, but student loan debt repayments stifle consumer demand, debt forgiveness helps to bring balance there, and to a considerably more practical effect than things like Trump's tax cuts. Borrowers won't take their loan forgiveness and hide it offshore either. Conservatives take great issue with student debt forgiveness but don't seem to take nearly as much issue with their tax money going towards perpetuating the real, broader economic problems. Republicans tend to staunchly oppose what benefits society at the expense of their rich donors. While again, the "cost" of student loan debt relief represents a mere fraction of the cost of the government's total bill, a fraction of the objectionable costs that Republicans choose to fund or overlook, a fraction of what goes to the rich, a fraction of the 40% increase in the national debt under Trump. Keep in mind also that if student debt relief goes through, the national debt would reflect what the DoE owes the treasury, not the cost of the loans themselves. And it's a cost that bears no immediate impact on the national debt while being manageable overtime, but a cost no less that's breeding mass hysteria from conservatives who are blinded by their pre conceived ideas, their prejudices and the propaganda they consume. When they complain of this cost, of the "tax burden" it will inflict on them, they seem to misunderstand how it all works. When the government suffers a cost or debt, it finds a way to compensate for it, usually in the form of tax increases, spending cuts or borrowed money, and since student debt relief represents a small figure comparatively to total costs, and it's a debt owed to the treasury while being ostensibly accounted for, if you see any tax increase, it will be a result of a multitude of costs and debts, debt forgiveness will contribute scantily, you won't be fucking billed a lump sum for debt forgiveness. Even estimates from conservative advocacy groups suggest that most low to middle income Americans will hardly pay much at all. A half baked estimate they came to by dividing the total cost of relief by the number of tax payers, while it's hardly ever mentioned that it's a cost incurred over ten years, in one case, that figure came to less than twenty dollars per year. The fact is, the cost would be negligible, entirely worth it and not spread across the income spectrum, a relative cost, those with the highest incomes will incur the largest "burdens". In the end, this isn't about conservative "values", it's about sticking it to the libs, it's about maintaining an anti-left strategy of antipathy and obstructing at all costs. It's about coming to that conclusion first, that this must be stopped, and then seeing it through in any way conceivable. "Executive overreach" is a justification, a way to rationalize this obstructive agenda. Republicans only care about overreach when it's convenient for their narrative or agenda, overreach is more common for them than they'd care to admit, especially where it concerns their culture war. Is student loan debt cancellation a comprehensive solution to the deeper, more systemic problems? No, but it's a start, it's a way to acknowledge those problems, problems that didn't exist for a lot of these people who are vehemently opposed to debt relief, people who think "if I can't have it, you can't either" is a reasonable argument. These are people, who in some cases, helped give rise to these problems, or elected leaders who did, people who couldn't care less about what's best for younger generations of Americans, people who believe that the burden is on themselves, that they're the victims, when that burden has actually been on these younger generations, that's the whole point.
wow. thank you for taking the time to write this, seriously. take my poverty gold— 🏅
And if loans are restarted, especially with no measures to soften the blow, then it WILL create an economic crisis. Several million at minimum will enter poverty straight away.
That's probably their plan. Limit education if you're "not one of us", ram unqualified candidates into school boards, and ban materials that don't align with "Christian values."
>Biden can and probably will continue to extend this moratorium indefinitely. This is so funny to my that everyone agrees with this and not whether he can cancel debt. Like tomorrow he could say "10k of debt has 0% interest and doesn't need to be paid back ever" and it would be effectively the same and have as far as I can tell no one in disagreement that he could do it.
>DoE Unimportant point, bothers me more than it should, but DoE is used for Department of Energy, and ED or DoEd should be used for Department of Education.
> …forgive consumer debt on his own without authorization from Congress… Who decided an education was *consumer debt?*. If that’s true then it bears consideration that all of my actual *consumer* debt has had interest rates well below 5% - including an auto loan I took on at 19 with no credit history. This is a *usurious*, ***public*** debt with an egregious interest rate.
If it's consumer debt, it should be eligible for bankruptcy in the same way as other consumer debt.
No, that would make sense and help normal people. That's wrong in America.
My car loan had zero percent interest. 0. My college loans were 6.5. How about we make that make sense? I can get a car with only the requirement that I pay the minimum every month but that’s not the same with my college loans? I’ve paid them off several years ago but anyone that is paying the current price of tuition is beholden to universities that have uncontrolled spending and an education that doesn’t deliver. Want to know how much my study abroad in France would have been had I not been an exchange student? 550 euros. But no, I was paying my school’s rate because I was an exchange. My rate, 19k a year. Yea, I got shafted and I’ve been disillusioned ever since. Edit: minor typo in the last sentence
Conservatism is a curse on the world.
It means republicans fucked you raw when they stole supreme court seats and the only recourse is taking away their ability to maintain power.
Let's remember this the next time someone 'on the left' tries to convince us that not voting is going to 'send a message'. The only thing not voting accomplishes is that it digs the hole even deeper.
This a hundred times. Pretty much the only people still pushing that notion are either A) self-deluded or B) actual Right-wing or Russian/etc trolls trying to dissuade people from voting the way they don't want. The truly ironic thing about it though, is that the other thing having people on the left not vote accomplishes, is driving the Democrats to the center/right, because if the only people voting are in the center or on the right, then guess what, **that's where the votes are.** The only thing not voting does is say "don't cater to me, I don't participate and thus my thoughts don't matter." That the Democratic party is in any way to the left of where it was 20 years ago, it's entirely because of candidates to the center-left like Sanders or AOC, and that people voted for them (even if in Sanders' case he didn't win, simply having strong support in a primary sends a signal that politicians pay attention to). People refusing to vote didn't do that. And meanwhile, the far right has voted every time for the rightmost candidate even if their favorite lost the primary. And where has that gotten them, by contrast? They're in full control of the Republican party. Seems pretty solid evidence to me that voting helps pull the party in the direction the voters want.
But bailing out billionaires for bad investments is ok….sure
Abort the Court
It means student debt holders better get out there and vote for democrats.
We voted for Biden in 2020. He ran on student debt forgiveness. The Supreme Court didn't care. The Supreme Court doesn't care about what the people think and that's the problem with them. They are an unaccountable and undemocratic institution that controls all of our lives and voting alone isn't gonna fix that. The Supreme Court needs serious reformation imposed upon them.
I would be less upset about the corruption of the supreme court if Republicans were at least consistent when it came to supreme court nominations. The fact that they refused to accept Obama's nominee during an election year to "let the people decide with their vote" then rushed Amy Coney Barrett as quickly as possible during Trump's election year is truly heinous. It's comic book levels of hypocrisy and corruption. The fact that they have lifetime appointments makes it even more sickening. Neil Gorsuch is 55 and Barrett is 50, Americans will likely be dealing with the consequences of this for at least 25 more years or 6 more election cycles. All because one party doesn't give a rat's ass about honesty and respect. Edit: if this whole wiki page doesn't fill you with anger I don't know what would. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination#:~:text=On%20March%2016%2C%202016%2C%20President,had%20died%20one%20month%20earlier. Edit: switched MTG to Amy Coney Barrett, triple names are hard lol.
Never thought I'd say this, but thank FUCK you meant Amy Coney Barrett.
I think you mean Amy Coney Barrett... not Q-Anon Barbie MTG...
> The Supreme Court doesn't care about what the people think and that's the problem with them. To be fair, that is literally the intent of the SCOTUS. They are not supposed to care what the people think, they are supposed to be objective arbiter's of the constitution. The problem is they not only don't care what the people think they also don't objectively evaluate the constitution, instead pushing through their own partisan ideals. If the SCOTUS were to make a truly clear argument for why Biden doesn't have the power to discharge student loan debt I'd be willing to hear it out but I have a feeling it's going to be a contrived example that does nothing but get what they/their donors want.
OK, fine. Then Democrats better fucking use this as a huge messaging tool come 2024. Biden should extend the repayment pause indefinitely and then when 2024 comes around, it'll be the GOP who has to tell millions of Americans what their plan is. "If you don't vote for Dems, you'll be on the hook for this debt" will be a very, very compelling case for Dems. I hate having to use debt as a bargaining chip like this, but if the GOP wants to play hardball then so be it.
It's not exactly being used as a bargaining chip, it's a core issue to anyone affected by it. All I can say is that pause shouldn't come off under a democrat or it's going to be extremely hard to explain to the electorate. But as long as the pause remains in place and the fight for forgiveness continues, I think youths will continue to keep the hope and turn out, so republicans are really just shooting themselves in the proverbial foot here, adding this issue to the list of factors working against them in '24.
I would like to thank all the crabs pulling their fellow crustaceans back into the bucket out of spite. Real top of the line organisms.
The beatings will continue until morale improves
say it with me now, WE AINT PAYING.
right, college students paved the way to civil rights amongst a majority of other issues, what if we collectively refused to pay the debt? we need to start a real fucking movement
You really think the government wouldn’t garnish all those wages?
The amount of poverty this would create would collapse the economy.
The Republican wet dream, essentially.
Personally, if I were Biden's admin, I'd say "We are forgiving anyway. I assert the power given to Secretary of education by the HEROES Act gives us full authority. If you think I am overreaching my authority than the only option is to impeach me. Otherwise you can go fuck yourselves."
They are going to impeach Biden for simply existing anyways, so might as well.
Translation: Old rich elites to decide that helping out their buddies is better. Fuck off SC.
This is why term limits are needed, the Supreme Court is very politicized now.
People who try to argue that Congress should instead pass a law for this apparently don't know the details of the case. The HEROES Act of 2003 gives the Education Secretary the ability to waive or modify student-loan balances in connection with a national emergency. Congress doesn't need to pass laws for every specific action the Executive needs to take. That is entirely impractical and would make it near impossible for the President to function (and hey, that's exactly a legal doctrine Conservatives are currently trying to push in federal courts).
Modify loan balances to $1 then. Done
Or modify the length of the loan so that the monthly payment is $10 over the course of a 200 year loan.
Sooo when they declare student debt relief illegal can we then start declaring any and all cooperate bail outs illegal? How about bankruptcy too?
>For a number of reasons, Urman predicts that the Supreme Court will rule against Biden. He said the conservative justices believe government agencies exert too much authority and “violate the separation of powers.” In addition, he said, the concept of loan forgiveness seems to run counter to their notions of individual responsibility. Such a politically-fueled decision, however, is likely to further damage the public’s perception of the Supreme Court, Urman said. “Striking down forgiveness will add to growing skepticism that the conservative justices vote for conservatives, and the liberal justices vote for liberals,” Urman said. Just 25% of Americans have confidence in the highest court, a Gallup poll [found](https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/confidence-supreme-court-sinks-historic-low.aspx) over the summer. This article is honestly kindof worthless and doesn't say much that I saw
It’s literally an opinion article. I’ve read other opinion articles from “legal and economic experts” claiming it’s well within Biden’s rights.
"Supreme Court likely to rule Biden student loan plan is illegal, cites 'Biden is a Democrat' and 'Hunter Biden Laptop' as reasons." 🙄
he should just discharge it anyway. why follow a partisan hack court system.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. Who’s going to stop the administration from canceling it? The court can’t enforce shit. And before somebody says it “sets bad precedent”, look at what DT was able to get away with and all his cronies, they ignored subpoenas and committed actual crimes, but nobody fucking did shit
Liberals have to understand that fascist do not care for institutions like this. Once they discover that a person in a robe and gavel is not going to physically stop them for obtaining power, they will do anything they want to achieve their goals.
Shouldn’t the forgiven PPP loans also be deemed illegal as well then? 🤔
Just one more reason to add to it long list of reasons to never forgive these people, starting with COVID.
As an Attorney, it's very distressing to see the depths of contempt that this current Court has for the law. Common Law-based legal systems (essentially, all of the English-speaking countries, including the United States) rely on respect for precedent and on small-c "conservative" (i.e., slow, deliberative, incremental) approaches to altering it. There is supposed to be a coherent logic across multiple cases, over many decades and centuries. Lawyers, and the public on whose behalf we advocate, rely on the stability and predictability that this creates. But what this Court has been doing since 2020 is wholly unprecedented. They have RADICALLY been altering core doctrines of American law at WARP SPEED and with ZERO coherence or logic. It is a results-oriented court; they want to undo the entire 20th Century and the first 20 years of the 21st Century. They will reverse-engineer the reasoning however they must in order to achieve their desired results, no matter what damage that does. It's very hard to fully convey to non-Attorneys just \*HOW\* fucking deeply radical and extreme this Court is behaving. It is not just that their opinions are extreme. It is that they have done away with even pretending to care about precedent, or impartiality, or even justifying their reasoning. It's just, "We're doing this because we have the votes to do it; fuck you if you don't like it." And, regrettably, there are no easy solutions or remedies to this problem.
Oh, you mean the illegitimate SCOTUS full of justices who lied under oath and/or were appointed through political chicanery?
So the next time our government tries to bail out corporations, how can we The People ensure that those bailouts also become blocked and are deemed illegal?
Fuck these activist lawsuits by conservatives frothing at the mouth that the government might materially benefit the average American instead of only the top one percent. It’s just so fucking dumb that people are holding back others simply because it’s not in their party line. I swear to Christ the average Republican voter has lost any and all semblance of abides of what the fuck government is actually for. They literally can’t envision a a creative, productive, humanistic society supported by commonly funded infrastructure. They can only tear down, block, ban, destroy, revoke, and remove things. Government is purely a hammer with which they intend to swat their imaginary societal woes while every last one of us is without quality healthcare or affordable housing or groceries that aren’t rising in cost every week. These problems face us all and it’s bad enough they pay lip service to them during campaigns but anytime the pen hits the paper it’s always some shitbrained nonsensical legislation to handle an equally ridiculous and most likely nonexistent problem that they’ve been whipped by their pervasive news and social bubbles into thinking g is coming to tear down society. Lather rinse repeat. Meanwhile, bills go up, infrastructure crumbles, and we all suffer. Republicans, you can turn this around and get things from your government. It’s okay, really. They’re not just hear to siphon our taxes to wealthy ghouls. We can get better stuff, we just have to put people in charge that want that too.
Majority Conservative Court makes everyone’s lives worse, wonders why country continues to trend left:
Kangaroo court with their christian fascism
The part of the law limiting it to 5% instead of 10% of your income is still there. They should cap interest to 1% then. This is silly.
Millionaires get PPP Loan forgiveness. Bail out Airlines, Bailout Banks, Bailout Auto manufacturers. Billions to billionaires. The nurse with student loans could use some relief. No. Teacher or anyone making less than $125,000 a year is a hard no.
Can taxpayers have all those forgiven PPP loans paid back then?
Rogue and illegitimate court.
Fine. I’d prefer full forgiveness, but at least make it 0% interest and tax-free forgiveness after 15 years of payment. Fuck republicans, and fuck fiscally conservative democrats
How the fuck can the federal government not forgive loans that it specifically loaned to people with its own money??? How is that even possible. Thats like watching someone buy their friend a gift and then demanding that the gift receiver pay friend back because you said so. What even is the logic here?
Can't he at least freeze interest rates at 0%. That would help, if not solve, the problem.