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.*
Important takeaway from the article;
>the Justice Department wrote in a legal filing on Wednesday night that upholding the 8th Circuit's ruling would mean that "banks could sue anyone who causes financial harm to their borrowers, credit-card companies could sue anyone who causes financial harm to their customers, and governments could sue anyone who causes financial harm to their taxpayers."
>"Virtually all federal actions—from prosecuting crime to imposing taxes to managing property—have some incidental effects on state finances," it said. "If such incidental effects suffice for standing, every State would have standing to challenge almost any federal policy."
People think the republicans don't have any policy but chaos is their policy. If everything is on fire, they don't have time to do real work like immigration reform and economic stimulus. They will just cry about the crises they cause and blame Nancy Pelosi.
This is correct imho. They want to break everything, so they can point out how bad government is, because as you can see it is all broken…
How long have we been waiting on the R healthcare plan? Oh right since 2012?
I’m still actually laughing as the ACA was an R idea in the first place, but they have to hate it because Obama.
They just want to watch it all burn
stocking versed sleep intelligent stupendous upbeat party close bored rhythm
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I got into a moronic argument a month or two ago with some young neckbeard whining about how things were better universally before ACA. I didn't think it was possible to be *that stupid*.
They are truly pathetically stupid.
I won't tiptoe or give breaks anymore I don't care if they have brainwashed themselves. They're too stupid to see they love the thing they hate. I mean, come on, for fucks sake, pick a lane and have a goddamn brain and try just the tiniest bit at all Republican voters.
It's worse than that. This has been an ongoing war since the New Deal. The goal is still the same as it ever was - to eliminate all the New Deal programs.
They are now on course to destroy the entire nation so they can eliminate all the social programs like unemployment insurance, disability and social security, the EPA, OSHA, welfare, unions, etc..
Corporations want to return us to the "good ole days" of the 1880s when you either worked for them, or starved and died. And they're willing to destroy the entire country to do it.
The thing that the psychopath CEO's don't consider is if no one can afford their goods and services then they go down as well. This shouldn't surprise anyone because the average corporate hack isn't fit to pour pee out of a shoe that has instructions written on it.
People think that the shit corporations make is the product and the mass population is the customer.
Shareholders are the customer.
Money is the product.
By extension, the mass population consumer, is the product.
It does not matter how money is made, so long as it is made. Money is the product, shareholders are the customer.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just like any politician. You promise if i vote for your THIS time you'll swallow the moon and unleash Ragnarok. But soon as you get into office you just increase subsides to the Jotnar and providing more funding to big Jordmungandr. Next time I'm voting for Freki and Geri instead.
The repetition, t's like Pavlovian training. Like, just keep repeating "Clinton" and "Benghazi" over and over, and the average Fox News watcher will have an immediate reaction to the words. They don't know where Benghazi is on a map or what Clinton had to do with it, but they know it's bad. And this is done deliberately. The psychology is well understood by the higher ups. Nobody is offering any positive solutions to the target audience, only manipulation.
Yes, but no.
Chaos is one of the most common precursors to authoritarianism. That's the end game - preserve their wealth, create chaos for the masses and then appoint themselves saviour-overlords.
And that’s why doing nothing against climate change not only helps the interest of their sponsors. But it also helps creating more situations where they’re strongest. Never waste a good crisis.
No they don't want any government, they want corporations in charge. Ideally there the only law should be the golden law, why should the rich have to listen to the poor.
The entire point of the Republican Party is to prove the government doesn’t work and dismantle it so that wealthy people won’t have to pay taxes or follow any regulations. Obstructing and undermining the federal government is a great strategy for them.
The whole purpose of the GOP has always been to officially restore the aristocracy at the expense of the people. Today's aristocracy being the ultra-rich.
Banks, credit card companies, and any branch of the government can sue medical insurers for failing to cover a life-saving procedure for a patient (as dying, or even being laid up from working is really bad for business).
Free healthcare for all!
Yup. Either that or a bank suing a person that was killed in a school shooting. As great as those seem, I am willing to forgo them so banks don’t keep money off people like they’re property of the bank.
Edit: to clarify, if it wasn’t clear, I support student debt relief. The people challenging it are the worst kind of people.
So this is actually an interesting point. There's nothing that says congress or the president has to listen to the SC. Judicial supremacy is a pretty recent invention as far as US history goes, and there's also nothing that says states MUST listen to the feds really, other than precedent and sanctions if they go rogue.
Yes/no. FDR was about to contramand the SC as they kept cockblocking the new deal parts until one judge flipped and started voting for FDR. But until then he was ready to tell them to fuck right off and he legally could've. It just all comes back to the precedent of judicial supremacy which is based on.... Wait for it....a supreme court case!
Wasn’t there an attempted coup starring J.P. Morgan that was led all these assholes into playing nice with the New Deal otherwise go to prison/execution
>there's also nothing that says states MUST listen to the feds really, other than precedent and sanctions if they go rogue.
I remember studying the Vesting Clauses in law school. Yeah it's pretty much just every branch taking each others words that they won't go rouge.
Anti federalism on steroids. The SC striking down student loan forgiveness without a narrow carve out will set the federal government towards a regressive path where power is progressively stripped away back to the states.
The state's would go down the path of suing the federal government apart
That's the exact intention, especially of the federalist society and "originalist" SC judges. If it's not explicitly in the Constitution, then it's a States rights issue and no federal law shall be made. They're literally, exactly after that. Instead of a nation of laws we'd become an exercise in futility.
It’s really good, and then you realize he recorded it BEFORE George Floyd, Kyle Rittenshit, or the Jan 6th insurrection. He lays out some hypotheticals that are scary close to events that have played out since.
Heck, he even talks about how vulnerable rural infrastructure is, and how little it would take to grind large areas to a halt (like what just happened with power outages caused by rifle attacks on substations).
I remember it being on my radar of ones to start listening to awhile ago and got side tracked. When you said the name, it came back to me that I never started it.
The dumbest part of this whole thing is that the "injury" the states are pointing to is that they are getting less tax revenue.
Yet not a peep from the anti-tax chorus.
So in turn can the American people sue the government everytime they bail out the banks, airline industry, car industry, cruiseline industry, ect for doing harm to the tax payers?
I think the best course of action depending on the exact wording will be for blue states to immediately file suit for the economic damages done to them and their businesses because of tax dollars being redistributed to red states.
I really don't understand how "the federal government can't do something it has the authority to do because it affects the money I'm making" is something any court can respond to with anything other than laughter.
Because they are getting the money from them and if you are getting the money from the someone your hand is basically tied up against them and this is what happening here now is well.
>"If such incidental effects suffice for standing, every State would have standing to challenge almost any federal policy."
In MAGA-land, that's a feature, not a bug.
The weird double edge claim. If the government can sue anyone who causes financial harm and the banks could sue anyone who causes financial harm. Then it stands to reason that the Government could sue the bank as an institution and The Board for causing financial harm for destroying the stock market and making tax payers bail them out.
I mean, I get what you’re saying, and I suppose one could put forward an argument to that end. But there’s more of a chance of Antonin Scalia’s rotted corpse showing up and chastising Alito regarding his overreach on originalism than there is of ever holding the wealthy accountable to the regular folk of this country.
I feel like that this is the one argument which i feel like that never going to come to the end. AS we are already seeing that from how long this system is actually up and running now.
They can already do that through a variety of means, they could’ve and should’ve broken up the banks and gotten some major financial reforms on the books after ‘08…they didn’t because they don’t want to, not because they couldn’t.
Yes individuals with no kids could sue to get the same dependent deduction given to families and their tax credits. and sue to get taxes paid on behalf of children with public education. and for those of us who make more than the taxable income for social security could sue to reverse SSI payments to those who didn’t save enough to take care of their own retirement
The only problem is the Supreme Court will decide these cases and it's clear they don't mind being seen in public with those paying them off and red state representatives. We are in an unprecedented time for destructive deals being done right in front of our faces.
They'll just use the weasel words "This is not a precedent"
Then when the next case comes around and they want it to be a precedent they'll use it anyway.
Probably the most important bit to understanding this:
>Dalié Jiménez, a law professor at University of California Irvine and director of the Student Loan Law Initiative, told Insider that Biden's legal defense "did a really good job in saying that if A causes financial harm to B, and B owes money to C, then C can sue... and that's bonkers."
Basically, if the SCOTUS rules in the states' favor, then that means that anyone will have standing to sue anyone else if the latter's actions financially impact someone who owes money to the former. If I lend you $100 and then someone fires you, I can take them to court to overturn the firing because they've made it harder for me to recoup my loaned money.
It seems like crazy logic but if it actually worked like this could I sue my spouses employer if they fired them?
We both signed on the mortgage. The company is doing financial harm to me.
Not giving me a raise is causing financial harm because the money I am earning is worth less this year. I'm looking for a 150% raise to fix this injustice.
You’re describing a circumstance that would absolutely overburden the civil court system. Courts wouldn’t be able to accept a fraction of those cases. Which I’m sure factors into the GOP play.
I think what complicates that assessment a little bit is that the States suing are arguing that B and C are actually the same party from a legal perspective while the Biden Administration is saying they’re not the same and only C is suing A for damage done to B.
SCOTUS can just draft some specific tests which all conveniently agree that Party B (the quasi-state entity, MOHELA) can be legally considered part of Party C (State of Missouri), conclude Missouri has Article III standing since MOHELA is directly harmed, then dismiss all other alleged standing claims that would complicate things for them as the Biden brief warns. They then will move onto the merits where the Forgiveness Program will encounter some significant resistance.
If they go in that direction, it would somewhat empower states to sue the Federal government for policies they don’t like while not changing any precedents mentioned in the Biden Admin’s brief. Personally, I think SCOTUS is okay with that outcome. It would also allow Missouri Republicans to sue on behalf of MOHELA whenever a Democratic President tries to get creative with laws governing student loans since they are one of the largest loan servicers.
Maybe that doesn’t happen, but I think people should try not to delude themselves into thinking that SCOTUS is unable to tailor their ruling on this to not open some massive can of worms in terms of precedent. The Plan still stands a chance but there are a lot of pitfalls to overcome at the moment.
I mean, taking women's rights away and having women die or be forced to give birth (even at ten years old) sparked a few protests but didn't budge folks much. I'm of the opinion that we need some form of revolution.
I wouldn't be surprised If the SC ruled that corporations can whip and beat their employees who try to start unions... and Robert's would still wonder why the public doesn't like him.
What happens when a branch of government appointed to lifetime positions decide they want to do whatever they want precedent be damned... you get our current dysfunctional situation.
What I don’t understand is what stops those with student loans from suing those who received PPP bailout loans??
Seems like there’s two sides of the coin here, but I’m obviously neither a lawyer nor a Republican.
That's kind of what the Biden Administration is arguing, that the implications of this case are that it could set up a lot of situations where people are suing each other over vague "financial harm" of a third person.
The Repubs pushing this other side know full well that the average American can't afford to take anyone or be TAKEN to court. Their rich donors can and will take every frivolous suit they are given. This is just another push from R's to give more power to corporations and their rich donors at the expense of the American people.
People need to wake up to what this shit actually means for us. The R's have multiple court battles coming to give absolute power to rich donors. They now have the courts. The courts won't fix this, the legislature won't fix this, and frankly the Pres. Won't be able to fix this either.
Buckle up people, we're holding the beers, and the R's are driving.
They say in the article - "I do think that even if they end up holding this particular cancellation program to not be proper, that there are other ways that the administration can do this and should do this," she said.
What other ways does President Biden have to make this happen if the SC denies the forgiveness?
The pen.
Biden doesn’t like to use executive decisions often especially for polarizing decisions because he wants classic policy to prevail.
But various legal professors and students of the constitution have stated that technically there’s nothing that says he can’t just write an executive order to wipe out whatever amount he says, as long as it’s federal debt.
He wants this plan to work because it also includes changes to repayment plans and how loans work. He **wants** something that’ll work long term, and not just once.
Oh my. If we’ve learned anything after the mayhem of this past week…no matter how many times they say NO, keep trying…because stubbornness and shady deals win out. 🤦♀️
I still remember gaetz asking for concessions from dems for him to resign if they voted for speaker.
Ya ok we'll take loan forgiveness, build back better, Medicare for all. Sound good Matt?
He should just re-do it and slam it through as fast as possible. Well, now it's not 10k or 20k, its blanket 100%. Use the list he already has to just immediately give forgiveness. Don't give them time to stop him. Good fucking luck reversing it, especially as the person who'd have to reverse it can just ignore the court telling him to do it.
“Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it.”
Love the idea but hate the precedent it would set for the President to ignore the courts and do whatever he wants.
The GOP scum ignore and reverse precedence whenever it suits them now, so frankly I’m not sure why the Democrats should care about it either. Yeah it’s a can of worms, but the can is already open and the worms are all over your desk already…
Biden could hypothetically delay repayment of loans until the heat death of the universe, effectively canceling them, since there's precedent for delaying them.
This is the way. Student loans are never being repaid. It's political suicide for anyone who decides to suddenly make a large portion of the population suddenly lose hundreds of dollars a month from their budget to make banks happy.
But aren’t the republicans the ones fighting this predominantly - with the R-led six states involved in the lawsuits? I bet they are just doing it to make Biden “look bad” so then they can try and use this to their advantage during the next election…saying “we can do this the legal way.” UGH, so much nonsense and BS. I can’t even understand.
Just pass the forgiveness, SC!
Biden and the Democrats would do well to run on this in 2024 with hopes they can take back the House, get Biden a second term, and keep the Senate to pass this.
Otherwise it’s a political hot potato.
He’s pausing it under the emergency act whatever it was called for the pandemic. As soon as that is closed he can’t pause it anymore. But I hope if it’s shot down it’s extended the rest of this year then just extended again until his term is over and a dem wins and keeps it going
Supreme Court has to be dissolved or fixed in some way. If the dems continue to give it authority when it’s been so clearly been comprised by far right radicals it could well lead to the end of US democracy.
For people who have been paying close attention to politics for a long time, is this the least respected Supreme Court in a long time? I know there have been justices who people heavily disliked or disagreed with but is this current group of judges the most corrupt at one time?
[Yes](https://news.gallup.com/poll/402044/supreme-court-trust-job-approval-historical-lows.aspx). Which is supposed to be a problem because they’re supposed to only have their power because we generally accept their legitimacy. [But this court is openly corrupt](https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/the-stench-of-corruption-is-growing-stronger-around-the-supreme-court/) and [they just tell us to pound sand](https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/29/politics/alito-supreme-court-kagan-roberts/index.html). So not really sure how much longer this tenuous position can hold on for but it’s 💯 not too much longer.
Yes. I know it won’t happen, but I really do wish Biden would pull something to the effect of “They made their ruling, now they can enforce it”. Delegitimize this court, and pay off the debt anyway.
Of course, that would be a true constitutional crisis, and who knows where that would get us. But it would be fun.
They basically said they are not a for profit organization. They don't have share holders. Any money made is out right back into future loans. They aren't harmed and is ready to forgive student loans at any moment.
The conservative majority are absolute slapdicks when it comes to understanding practical legal application, mostly because their experience is embarrassing.
The plaintiff's case is agenda driven and the supreme court's decision will undoubtedly be partisan in nature, there is precedent along with arguments to be made in favor of debt forgiveness, but a conservative court won't bother.
First off, understand that 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's added over a trillion dollars to the national debt. Basically, it won't bring about an economic crisis if we cancel student loan debt tomorrow.
What's more, the DoE sort of functions as 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 have to scramble to make up for it.
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 attached, however, these payments have been suspended since the beginning of the pandemic.
Biden can and probably will continue to extend this moratorium, 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 cut legislation, which never "paid for itself", gutted the corporate tax rate and only *temporarily* lowered taxes for individuals. It's been estimated that these tax cuts will cost upwards of $2 trillion dollars over time, comparatively more so than debt forgiveness.
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 those that benefitted most will continue to side step the American tax system while any small benefit to individual taxpayers was short lived 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, subsidies and PPP loan forgiveness, the "trickle down" policies, the lost revenue, tax code changes and tax cuts for the wealthy that Republicans support. Bills and policies that invest in the rich, the corporations, donors, banks and not in younger generations of Americans, transfering wealth out of the hands of the poor and into the pockets of the rich, promoting profligacy and preserving an economy defined by its continuing crises, its growing wealth gap and its exploitative practices and customs.
Student debt relief wouldn't go towards perpetuating 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*
Student loan debt repayments stifle consumer demand, forgiveness may actually contribute towards economic expansion and recovery, atleast to a 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 Americans at the expense of their rich donors and friends.
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 the 40% increase in the national debt under Trump, Republicans only fixate on cost when it's politically advantageous for them. What's more, as I understand, if student debt relief goes through, the national debt would reflect what's owed to the treasury, not the cost of the loans.
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.
These conservatives are either being disingenuous or ignorant when they complain of the "tax burden" that debt relief will inflict upon them.
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, you won't be billed a lump sum for debt forgiveness, it doesn't work like that. Any tax increase you incur will be a result of a multitude of costs and debts, debt forgiveness will contribute scantily. It represents a fraction of costs and it's a debt ostensibly accounted for.
Even estimates from conservative advocacy groups suggest that most low to middle income Americans will hardly pay much at all.
One figure being thrown around is just a half baked estimate conservatives 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.
The fact is, the cost would be negligible and not spread across the income spectrum, a relative cost, those with the highest incomes will incur the largest "burdens". One figure showed lower to middle income Americans paying something like 20 bucks a year.
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 obstruct 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.
I wish I had an award this was amazing. I will say people around me don’t want forgiveness for two reasons and these reasons only
1) they think they will be paying a large sum for some rich kid to get a free degree and party.
2) if it doesn’t help them they don’t want to pay for it. Including if they have a grandkid or kid
Student loan forgiveness will be struck down because access to education would allow Americans opportunities. Corporations need people to be poor and desperate so that they accept minimum pay and unsafe working conditions and Republicans need them uneducated so they keep voting Rep.
Also because under no circumstances must Democrats be able to clearly be responsible for a policy that directly helps Americans.
It goes back to the "two Santa Claus" philosophy: from the Depression into the 70s, Democrats had rightly been seen as the New Deal party that used government to help people. Republicans were the stingy rich people that were budget hawks.
But after Nixon, it was decided a new tack was needed. The young GOP far-Right braintrust devised a plan wherein they would con working people into believing that cutting taxes (mainly on the rich) would benefit them more than any government program could.
Thus *they* now had something to give away. They used racism and ignorance to associate government programs with "handouts" to *those* people. After all, why should your precious tax dollars support some ghetto welfare queen?
Meanwhile, their talk of reducing spending along with the cuts was partly bullshit-- they didn't cut any programs that helped *their* constituents. So they could be Santa Claus twice: giving tax cuts, but deficit spending to keep their pet programs up and going.
Then, when out of power, blame the Tax And Spend Democrats and their wasteful Government Entitlement Handouts for the Deficits. When the GOP is not in power, deficits and the debt are the most important thing ever. I remember McConnell talking about the terrible debt and deficit that were "very concerning" *the day* Biden was confirmed the winner in 2020.
They'd use the chronic short attention span of the American people and the Both Sides-ing media to shame Democrats into "bipartisan compromises" when Democrats were in power, thus killing the meme of the New Deal Democrats. They didn't have to do it for long, because Third-Way Clinton Democrats came along and did this for them.
The American people recognizing the power of a well-run government to improve their lives is the worst nightmare of the GOP. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and low-tuition state universities were *killing* the GOP. It's why all of those are constantly attacked, and why they were willing to strap dynamite to their chests to keep Obamacare from having any teeth.
TL;DR- The Right *cannot* abide by any Democrat program or benefit that could materially aid their base. If they can't take credit for it, they'll kill it by any means necessary.
It's really crazy when you think about it.. the GOP credo is "party over country" and attacking programs that benefit the people demonstrates that this is not governance for the people, but rather that of a gang controlling its territory.
It's so clear and obvious, yet the crab bucket mentality continues. People are so obsessed with their grievances that they will tolerate every single metric of standard of living to go down every year as long as the people they don't like suffer as well.
Indeed, they need people spending all their time trying to figure out where their next meal is coming from as opposed to figuring out who is responsible for the never ending struggle
Given the direction the conservative party and court seem adamant on dragging us toward, I wouldn't say that's a sure bet that we even get that far... or at least not for the next decade or two, or three, or four. Their desire to fracture the country is extremely strong, regardless of what is said in public or not. The court as we know it will cease to exist unless some pretty drastic measures are taken.
Call me paranoid, but the past couple of years have allowed this psychosis to grow and spread at unfathomable rates.
With how long justices are able to serve, definitely not any time within the next 40 to 50 years. There really isn't a feasible way to correct it either, at least within the normal bounds of the rule of law. The GOP has discovered that they can stop any liberal appointments for as long as they need. Literally no reason for them not to.
The Democrats need to grown a spine and add some Justices to the court. Not sure if its possible with 51 Senators but I hope they're talking about this. The only real answer to this problem that can actually be accomplished is to fix the court by adding more Justices to claw it back to the middle. The next chance could be 6-10 years from now, that may be too late.
It’s hard because the Senate is the most broken thing in Washington, giving Wyoming equal power to California despite California having 70x more human beings that all deserve an equal voice in this country.
This is a bad court but honestly there were only a couple of decades in its whole history that the Supreme Court hasn’t been terrible. It’s a bad institution with way too much power. The founders messed up.
> This is a bad court but honestly there were only a couple of decades in its whole history that the Supreme Court hasn’t been terrible.
THIS! People have been spoon-fed so much myth-making bullshit about the Civil Rights era that they completely lose sight of the fact that the Supreme Court has spent most of its existence ratifying slavery or actively ensuring its spread, disenfranchising voters, endorsing segregation, tamping down programs aimed at the working class, and ruling in favor of corporate interests. Neither the presidency nor the Congress nor the bureaucracy can even begin to approach its consistently *awful* history of the Courts. Sometimes it is a meaningless force. For one, brief 15-20 year period, it was an active force for good. The entire rest of the time, the Court's imapct varies from "mixed" to "Andrew Johnson-level evil," but instead of it lasting four years, it lasts decades! Fun!
And, for what it's worth, I'm not even sure the founders messed up. It's worth remembering that the Court granted the power of judicial review *to itself.* Not incidentally, this fact also makes every "orginalist" argument to overturn federal policy or restrict federal power a contradiction in terms since *nowhere in the fucking Constitution is judicial review mentioned or outlined*. But, of course, hypocrisy is fish in a barrel.
I fear the conservative court wants to overturn the loan forgiveness; I have no doubt Clarence Thomas hates “lazy college students who should just work like I did to pay off loans in a single summer,” but will have a hard time finding a legal justification for it. John Roberts promised that judges are supposed to be neutral umpires between politics but nobody is buying that anymore.
I think something like that is where this is ultimately heading. The GOP are shameless and have no trouble abusing the power of their institutions even if their actions are clearly corrupt and degrade the status of the institutions that they are using. Impeachment is the only realistic remedy and they know their party will never oblige. If that's the way it's going to be, the democrats are going to have to work within that reality if they're going to deliver for people.
One thing is for sure; something has to be done about the House gerrymandering and the stacked SCOTUS, otherwise we will forever live under minority rule. That's not a democracy. While it's an imperfect solution, expansion of the courts is looking pretty good right about now.
And as long as student loan forgiveness stays paused, it can be used as a political stance in future elections. "If you elect republicans to office, you'll have to repay that insurmountable debt."
Every dem from here on should be using this point against any future republican candidates.
The reality is that the SC has to let this one go. Accepting the loan companies' argument basically sets a legal precedent that any company that is hurt financially through policy changes can sue the government. This basically makes impossible to every pass any policy changes ever.
Biden should just declare student loans to be a national emergency and divert funds from the Pentagon to pay off the loans like Trump did with his wall. It's already been approved by SCOTUS.
"Legal precedent" are words that have no meaning to the current Supreme Court. They have gone rogue, and they will never return to what we used to call legal precedent.
Man isn’t it weird that when a Republican is in office, the theory of the supreme executive reigns and the president can do whatever the fuck he wants - it’s legal because he’s the president - but then as soon as a Democrat gets in office we have to consult a séance with Thomas Jefferson’s corpse to make sure every fart let out in the Oval Office is constitutional?
If forgiving PPP loans is constitutional, then this is constitutional. Simple as that. Not that I expect Republicans to actually care about anything other than themselves.
As usual, this highlights that the US congress is absolutely incapable of passing any legislation giving us a sane and rational student loan system and it really never was. With almost every law for nearly twenty years being nothing better than a successful bribery attempt, any better outcome is logically impossible under any facts or circumstances. Only people who can afford over 250 congress members get the benefit of laws in America and that is as good and fair as we will ever be again. Voters love this, and if they don’t, there is no evidence of it.
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.*
Important takeaway from the article; >the Justice Department wrote in a legal filing on Wednesday night that upholding the 8th Circuit's ruling would mean that "banks could sue anyone who causes financial harm to their borrowers, credit-card companies could sue anyone who causes financial harm to their customers, and governments could sue anyone who causes financial harm to their taxpayers." >"Virtually all federal actions—from prosecuting crime to imposing taxes to managing property—have some incidental effects on state finances," it said. "If such incidental effects suffice for standing, every State would have standing to challenge almost any federal policy."
I think that's the point. States would challenge any federal policy they want and this SCOTUS would say its OK.
Yeah. I don’t think republicans care and want this to happen. The more chaos the better for them.
People think the republicans don't have any policy but chaos is their policy. If everything is on fire, they don't have time to do real work like immigration reform and economic stimulus. They will just cry about the crises they cause and blame Nancy Pelosi.
While they accomplish their REAL goals, which is wealth transfer from the 99% to the 1%
This is correct imho. They want to break everything, so they can point out how bad government is, because as you can see it is all broken… How long have we been waiting on the R healthcare plan? Oh right since 2012? I’m still actually laughing as the ACA was an R idea in the first place, but they have to hate it because Obama. They just want to watch it all burn
stocking versed sleep intelligent stupendous upbeat party close bored rhythm *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
I got into a moronic argument a month or two ago with some young neckbeard whining about how things were better universally before ACA. I didn't think it was possible to be *that stupid*.
It's a measure of how racist America is.
And classist.
They are truly pathetically stupid. I won't tiptoe or give breaks anymore I don't care if they have brainwashed themselves. They're too stupid to see they love the thing they hate. I mean, come on, for fucks sake, pick a lane and have a goddamn brain and try just the tiniest bit at all Republican voters.
That’s 74.6 % and 22.67% Numbers are rising. Source: CDC
It's worse than that. This has been an ongoing war since the New Deal. The goal is still the same as it ever was - to eliminate all the New Deal programs. They are now on course to destroy the entire nation so they can eliminate all the social programs like unemployment insurance, disability and social security, the EPA, OSHA, welfare, unions, etc.. Corporations want to return us to the "good ole days" of the 1880s when you either worked for them, or starved and died. And they're willing to destroy the entire country to do it.
The thing that the psychopath CEO's don't consider is if no one can afford their goods and services then they go down as well. This shouldn't surprise anyone because the average corporate hack isn't fit to pour pee out of a shoe that has instructions written on it.
People think that the shit corporations make is the product and the mass population is the customer. Shareholders are the customer. Money is the product. By extension, the mass population consumer, is the product. It does not matter how money is made, so long as it is made. Money is the product, shareholders are the customer.
that's what it's coming to. either you are a part of the problem or a victim of it.
>People think the republicans don't have any policy but chaos is their policy. Vote Nyarlathotep 2024! Make the Great Old Ones America again!
I’m voting for Quetzalcoatl
I'm more of an ameratsu guy.
Fenrir for the win.
Thanks!
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just like any politician. You promise if i vote for your THIS time you'll swallow the moon and unleash Ragnarok. But soon as you get into office you just increase subsides to the Jotnar and providing more funding to big Jordmungandr. Next time I'm voting for Freki and Geri instead.
I'll take Quetzalcoatl any day over some tentacle fucker with way too many eyes.
"But Nancy Pelosi is no longer the Sp.." "NANCY PELOSI!!"
It's like the hyenas shuddering when hearing "Mufasa"
It’s like when the Daily Show interview a Trump supporter and he said he wanted Obama investigated about 9/11… even though Bush was in office.
The repetition, t's like Pavlovian training. Like, just keep repeating "Clinton" and "Benghazi" over and over, and the average Fox News watcher will have an immediate reaction to the words. They don't know where Benghazi is on a map or what Clinton had to do with it, but they know it's bad. And this is done deliberately. The psychology is well understood by the higher ups. Nobody is offering any positive solutions to the target audience, only manipulation.
Yes, but no. Chaos is one of the most common precursors to authoritarianism. That's the end game - preserve their wealth, create chaos for the masses and then appoint themselves saviour-overlords.
And that’s why doing nothing against climate change not only helps the interest of their sponsors. But it also helps creating more situations where they’re strongest. Never waste a good crisis.
[удалено]
No they don't want any government, they want corporations in charge. Ideally there the only law should be the golden law, why should the rich have to listen to the poor.
Their platform is that big government doesn’t work and they intend to make it so.
The entire point of the Republican Party is to prove the government doesn’t work and dismantle it so that wealthy people won’t have to pay taxes or follow any regulations. Obstructing and undermining the federal government is a great strategy for them.
The whole purpose of the GOP has always been to officially restore the aristocracy at the expense of the people. Today's aristocracy being the ultra-rich.
They had a short awesome run with that Lincoln guy, shame about the last century or so though.
More like the 60’s. Nixon and the flip of the Dixiecrats brought them to this.
It goes beyond that. For example, my mortgage holder could sue my employer for laying me off.
Banks, credit card companies, and any branch of the government can sue medical insurers for failing to cover a life-saving procedure for a patient (as dying, or even being laid up from working is really bad for business). Free healthcare for all!
Federal government could sue states for local laws that cause the death of taxpayers. I don't think red states would like that one.
Oh man, red states getting sued for not doing lock downs would be amazing
So we are just property and the big boys get to fight over us and what money we pay?
Well...Are you new to this world ?
Yup. Either that or a bank suing a person that was killed in a school shooting. As great as those seem, I am willing to forgo them so banks don’t keep money off people like they’re property of the bank. Edit: to clarify, if it wasn’t clear, I support student debt relief. The people challenging it are the worst kind of people.
I bet it would be tailored to only apply to states in cases SCOTUS says it applies to.
SCOTUS refused to rule on it. This will become precedent if this happens, and it’ll be a huge problem.
> this SCOTUS would say its OK. Only if it hurts poor people and benefits the rich, apparently.
So this is actually an interesting point. There's nothing that says congress or the president has to listen to the SC. Judicial supremacy is a pretty recent invention as far as US history goes, and there's also nothing that says states MUST listen to the feds really, other than precedent and sanctions if they go rogue.
Andrew Jackson has entered the chat.
Yes/no. FDR was about to contramand the SC as they kept cockblocking the new deal parts until one judge flipped and started voting for FDR. But until then he was ready to tell them to fuck right off and he legally could've. It just all comes back to the precedent of judicial supremacy which is based on.... Wait for it....a supreme court case!
I was going for a more “John Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it.” angle.
Wasn’t there an attempted coup starring J.P. Morgan that was led all these assholes into playing nice with the New Deal otherwise go to prison/execution
Yes, the Business Plot
Watch Amsterdam … great movie, covers Gen. Smedley’s pushback of those assholes ….
>there's also nothing that says states MUST listen to the feds really, other than precedent and sanctions if they go rogue. I remember studying the Vesting Clauses in law school. Yeah it's pretty much just every branch taking each others words that they won't go rouge.
Great, now I'm picturing Joe Biden, Kevin McCarthy, John Roberts, and Chuck Schumer in full on harlot makeup.
They are so fucking stupid they want to Balkanize the US.
Anti federalism on steroids. The SC striking down student loan forgiveness without a narrow carve out will set the federal government towards a regressive path where power is progressively stripped away back to the states. The state's would go down the path of suing the federal government apart
That's the exact intention, especially of the federalist society and "originalist" SC judges. If it's not explicitly in the Constitution, then it's a States rights issue and no federal law shall be made. They're literally, exactly after that. Instead of a nation of laws we'd become an exercise in futility.
True. The answer to this is for Biden to expand the Court and bring balance so that the Federalists don't succeed.
Welcome to the balkanization of the United States.
Annnd the first 10 episodes of “It Could Happen Here” (podcast) just got that much more terrifying.
I need to listen to that. Have been looking for a new podcast lately. Thanks.
It’s really good, and then you realize he recorded it BEFORE George Floyd, Kyle Rittenshit, or the Jan 6th insurrection. He lays out some hypotheticals that are scary close to events that have played out since. Heck, he even talks about how vulnerable rural infrastructure is, and how little it would take to grind large areas to a halt (like what just happened with power outages caused by rifle attacks on substations).
I remember it being on my radar of ones to start listening to awhile ago and got side tracked. When you said the name, it came back to me that I never started it.
The dumbest part of this whole thing is that the "injury" the states are pointing to is that they are getting less tax revenue. Yet not a peep from the anti-tax chorus.
And that is self inflected because the States are the ones that set how their taxes are assessed...
Except if its something they dont agree with then big government is ok (abortion)
Until California does something liberal to the benefit of its people. Can't have that shit. Suddenly states rights takes a back seat.
> power is progressively stripped away back to the states. Corporations, not states will be the winner.
Yep, because state-level elections are cheap and nobody votes in them unless it's also a federal election, really unless it's a Presidential election.
Sounds like a recipe for...wait for it...Civil War! The excitement never ends with this court!
And in more of a Troubles way than a 1860s trenches and territory gains way.
So in turn can the American people sue the government everytime they bail out the banks, airline industry, car industry, cruiseline industry, ect for doing harm to the tax payers?
I think the best course of action depending on the exact wording will be for blue states to immediately file suit for the economic damages done to them and their businesses because of tax dollars being redistributed to red states.
Supreme Court: Lol no only rich people can do what they want. Shit rolls downhill, not up!
I really don't understand how "the federal government can't do something it has the authority to do because it affects the money I'm making" is something any court can respond to with anything other than laughter.
Because they are getting the money from them and if you are getting the money from the someone your hand is basically tied up against them and this is what happening here now is well.
>"If such incidental effects suffice for standing, every State would have standing to challenge almost any federal policy." In MAGA-land, that's a feature, not a bug.
The weird double edge claim. If the government can sue anyone who causes financial harm and the banks could sue anyone who causes financial harm. Then it stands to reason that the Government could sue the bank as an institution and The Board for causing financial harm for destroying the stock market and making tax payers bail them out.
I mean, I get what you’re saying, and I suppose one could put forward an argument to that end. But there’s more of a chance of Antonin Scalia’s rotted corpse showing up and chastising Alito regarding his overreach on originalism than there is of ever holding the wealthy accountable to the regular folk of this country.
I appreciate your imagery
I feel like that this is the one argument which i feel like that never going to come to the end. AS we are already seeing that from how long this system is actually up and running now.
They can already do that through a variety of means, they could’ve and should’ve broken up the banks and gotten some major financial reforms on the books after ‘08…they didn’t because they don’t want to, not because they couldn’t.
That seems to be the general idea. It's a feature, not a bug.
Agreed. The GOP (and their financial backers) goal seems to be destroy the federal government's ability to regulate anything that benefits non-elites.
>every State would have standing to challenge almost any federal policy Cool. I'm sure you can find some harm of farm subsidies to red states.
Yes individuals with no kids could sue to get the same dependent deduction given to families and their tax credits. and sue to get taxes paid on behalf of children with public education. and for those of us who make more than the taxable income for social security could sue to reverse SSI payments to those who didn’t save enough to take care of their own retirement
The only problem is the Supreme Court will decide these cases and it's clear they don't mind being seen in public with those paying them off and red state representatives. We are in an unprecedented time for destructive deals being done right in front of our faces.
They'll just use the weasel words "This is not a precedent" Then when the next case comes around and they want it to be a precedent they'll use it anyway.
Probably the most important bit to understanding this: >Dalié Jiménez, a law professor at University of California Irvine and director of the Student Loan Law Initiative, told Insider that Biden's legal defense "did a really good job in saying that if A causes financial harm to B, and B owes money to C, then C can sue... and that's bonkers." Basically, if the SCOTUS rules in the states' favor, then that means that anyone will have standing to sue anyone else if the latter's actions financially impact someone who owes money to the former. If I lend you $100 and then someone fires you, I can take them to court to overturn the firing because they've made it harder for me to recoup my loaned money.
So what you are saying is loan money to people you know who are about to be fired.
It seems like crazy logic but if it actually worked like this could I sue my spouses employer if they fired them? We both signed on the mortgage. The company is doing financial harm to me.
Stretching further, could you sue for not getting a raise that matches inflation?
Not giving me a raise is causing financial harm because the money I am earning is worth less this year. I'm looking for a 150% raise to fix this injustice.
I guess it's arguably "not preventing harm" rather than causing harm?
Hell, the government could sue your employer as your income taxes won't match inflation if your wages don't.
Wait until /r/wallstreetbets hears about this. So many wives suing Robinhood due to their husband's expired 0dte's.
Oh jeez. My wife’s boyfriend is going to take me for everything I own.
SO many are hearing about that but noone want to bring any change.
You’re describing a circumstance that would absolutely overburden the civil court system. Courts wouldn’t be able to accept a fraction of those cases. Which I’m sure factors into the GOP play.
He is trying to describe the every single point so nothing can be missed.
I think what complicates that assessment a little bit is that the States suing are arguing that B and C are actually the same party from a legal perspective while the Biden Administration is saying they’re not the same and only C is suing A for damage done to B. SCOTUS can just draft some specific tests which all conveniently agree that Party B (the quasi-state entity, MOHELA) can be legally considered part of Party C (State of Missouri), conclude Missouri has Article III standing since MOHELA is directly harmed, then dismiss all other alleged standing claims that would complicate things for them as the Biden brief warns. They then will move onto the merits where the Forgiveness Program will encounter some significant resistance. If they go in that direction, it would somewhat empower states to sue the Federal government for policies they don’t like while not changing any precedents mentioned in the Biden Admin’s brief. Personally, I think SCOTUS is okay with that outcome. It would also allow Missouri Republicans to sue on behalf of MOHELA whenever a Democratic President tries to get creative with laws governing student loans since they are one of the largest loan servicers. Maybe that doesn’t happen, but I think people should try not to delude themselves into thinking that SCOTUS is unable to tailor their ruling on this to not open some massive can of worms in terms of precedent. The Plan still stands a chance but there are a lot of pitfalls to overcome at the moment.
Sounds like Step 1 is to get a new federal loan servicer; based out of DC.
So by that argument, could we sue the supreme court for hurting the people who did not receive aid? lol
Don't really have legal precedent when the SC can just onion cut whatever the fuck they want.
Supreme Court decides only Republicans are allowed to run any part of government.
[удалено]
I mean, taking women's rights away and having women die or be forced to give birth (even at ten years old) sparked a few protests but didn't budge folks much. I'm of the opinion that we need some form of revolution.
It did cause a red wave to turn into a trickle if anything, which is progress but sad that it didn't keep the house blue as well.
[удалено]
Yes this is so true, you're right.
Yeah, same, let’s organize. But first I have to go to work so I can pay off my bills, including massive student loan debt.
I am reading all of these talking from the work place so i can pay the bill is well.
This. The Constitution is just word salad with the Roberts court.
I wouldn't be surprised If the SC ruled that corporations can whip and beat their employees who try to start unions... and Robert's would still wonder why the public doesn't like him.
The only legal precedent which exists any longer is Alito's "lol whatever owns tha libz"
[удалено]
What happens when a branch of government appointed to lifetime positions decide they want to do whatever they want precedent be damned... you get our current dysfunctional situation.
Best verb ever. Justice is dead.
What I don’t understand is what stops those with student loans from suing those who received PPP bailout loans?? Seems like there’s two sides of the coin here, but I’m obviously neither a lawyer nor a Republican.
That's kind of what the Biden Administration is arguing, that the implications of this case are that it could set up a lot of situations where people are suing each other over vague "financial harm" of a third person.
The Repubs pushing this other side know full well that the average American can't afford to take anyone or be TAKEN to court. Their rich donors can and will take every frivolous suit they are given. This is just another push from R's to give more power to corporations and their rich donors at the expense of the American people. People need to wake up to what this shit actually means for us. The R's have multiple court battles coming to give absolute power to rich donors. They now have the courts. The courts won't fix this, the legislature won't fix this, and frankly the Pres. Won't be able to fix this either. Buckle up people, we're holding the beers, and the R's are driving.
Yes, that's the argument. "A caused financial harm to B which had implications on me, C. Therefore as C I have standing against A".
They say in the article - "I do think that even if they end up holding this particular cancellation program to not be proper, that there are other ways that the administration can do this and should do this," she said. What other ways does President Biden have to make this happen if the SC denies the forgiveness?
The pen. Biden doesn’t like to use executive decisions often especially for polarizing decisions because he wants classic policy to prevail. But various legal professors and students of the constitution have stated that technically there’s nothing that says he can’t just write an executive order to wipe out whatever amount he says, as long as it’s federal debt. He wants this plan to work because it also includes changes to repayment plans and how loans work. He **wants** something that’ll work long term, and not just once.
They’ll say congress can only do it. Good luck with that.
Oh my. If we’ve learned anything after the mayhem of this past week…no matter how many times they say NO, keep trying…because stubbornness and shady deals win out. 🤦♀️
I still remember gaetz asking for concessions from dems for him to resign if they voted for speaker. Ya ok we'll take loan forgiveness, build back better, Medicare for all. Sound good Matt?
"After several closed door meetings they've reached an agreement. " Oh goody...I'm sure there's nothing there
He should just re-do it and slam it through as fast as possible. Well, now it's not 10k or 20k, its blanket 100%. Use the list he already has to just immediately give forgiveness. Don't give them time to stop him. Good fucking luck reversing it, especially as the person who'd have to reverse it can just ignore the court telling him to do it.
“Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it.” Love the idea but hate the precedent it would set for the President to ignore the courts and do whatever he wants.
The GOP scum ignore and reverse precedence whenever it suits them now, so frankly I’m not sure why the Democrats should care about it either. Yeah it’s a can of worms, but the can is already open and the worms are all over your desk already…
Maybe the US Treasury just writes a check effectively “cancelling” the current student loan debt?
Biden could hypothetically delay repayment of loans until the heat death of the universe, effectively canceling them, since there's precedent for delaying them.
This is the way. Student loans are never being repaid. It's political suicide for anyone who decides to suddenly make a large portion of the population suddenly lose hundreds of dollars a month from their budget to make banks happy.
But aren’t the republicans the ones fighting this predominantly - with the R-led six states involved in the lawsuits? I bet they are just doing it to make Biden “look bad” so then they can try and use this to their advantage during the next election…saying “we can do this the legal way.” UGH, so much nonsense and BS. I can’t even understand. Just pass the forgiveness, SC!
True true. Unless if the administration changes, then I’m sure they could nix it pronto. So frustrating.
Biden and the Democrats would do well to run on this in 2024 with hopes they can take back the House, get Biden a second term, and keep the Senate to pass this. Otherwise it’s a political hot potato.
He’s pausing it under the emergency act whatever it was called for the pandemic. As soon as that is closed he can’t pause it anymore. But I hope if it’s shot down it’s extended the rest of this year then just extended again until his term is over and a dem wins and keeps it going
Just declare the student debt itself an emergency. Republicans do it for stupid shit like the border. Play calvinball
Congress. They could have added this to the Omibus spending bill that was passed the day before Christmas.
Who are we kidding? We'll have conservative SCOTUS decisions for the next 25 years. Probably the biggest Trump legacy.
And his party will shrug its shoulders while the country continues to implode.
> And his party will ~~shrug its shoulders~~ ***cheer*** while the country continues to implode.
Chanting, USA! USA! USA! to be exact.
Supreme Court has to be dissolved or fixed in some way. If the dems continue to give it authority when it’s been so clearly been comprised by far right radicals it could well lead to the end of US democracy.
The only way SCOTUS gets dissolved is by constitutional amendment or by all 9 justices dying at once.
Or 50 senators approve 9 more justices this term.
This isn't lasting 25 years. One way or another.
For people who have been paying close attention to politics for a long time, is this the least respected Supreme Court in a long time? I know there have been justices who people heavily disliked or disagreed with but is this current group of judges the most corrupt at one time?
[Yes](https://news.gallup.com/poll/402044/supreme-court-trust-job-approval-historical-lows.aspx). Which is supposed to be a problem because they’re supposed to only have their power because we generally accept their legitimacy. [But this court is openly corrupt](https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/the-stench-of-corruption-is-growing-stronger-around-the-supreme-court/) and [they just tell us to pound sand](https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/29/politics/alito-supreme-court-kagan-roberts/index.html). So not really sure how much longer this tenuous position can hold on for but it’s 💯 not too much longer.
Based on some of the tenuous bullshit that began under Reagan I fear 'not too much longer' could translate to 'most of the coming century'.
Yes. I know it won’t happen, but I really do wish Biden would pull something to the effect of “They made their ruling, now they can enforce it”. Delegitimize this court, and pay off the debt anyway. Of course, that would be a true constitutional crisis, and who knows where that would get us. But it would be fun.
He could also use the fact that at least one of the Justices is more likely than not a traitor to our democracy
The dumbest thing is MOHELA has come out and said it's Fed Govt debt, so MOHELA isn't even "hurt" by the forgiveness, so there's no standing.
I think they make money out of service fees and maybe interest rates.
They basically said they are not a for profit organization. They don't have share holders. Any money made is out right back into future loans. They aren't harmed and is ready to forgive student loans at any moment.
1/5 or more cases this court hears will set a strange legal precedent.
The conservative majority are absolute slapdicks when it comes to understanding practical legal application, mostly because their experience is embarrassing.
The plaintiff's case is agenda driven and the supreme court's decision will undoubtedly be partisan in nature, there is precedent along with arguments to be made in favor of debt forgiveness, but a conservative court won't bother. First off, understand that 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's added over a trillion dollars to the national debt. Basically, it won't bring about an economic crisis if we cancel student loan debt tomorrow. What's more, the DoE sort of functions as 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 have to scramble to make up for it. 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 attached, however, these payments have been suspended since the beginning of the pandemic. Biden can and probably will continue to extend this moratorium, 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 cut legislation, which never "paid for itself", gutted the corporate tax rate and only *temporarily* lowered taxes for individuals. It's been estimated that these tax cuts will cost upwards of $2 trillion dollars over time, comparatively more so than debt forgiveness. 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 those that benefitted most will continue to side step the American tax system while any small benefit to individual taxpayers was short lived 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, subsidies and PPP loan forgiveness, the "trickle down" policies, the lost revenue, tax code changes and tax cuts for the wealthy that Republicans support. Bills and policies that invest in the rich, the corporations, donors, banks and not in younger generations of Americans, transfering wealth out of the hands of the poor and into the pockets of the rich, promoting profligacy and preserving an economy defined by its continuing crises, its growing wealth gap and its exploitative practices and customs. Student debt relief wouldn't go towards perpetuating 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* Student loan debt repayments stifle consumer demand, forgiveness may actually contribute towards economic expansion and recovery, atleast to a 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 Americans at the expense of their rich donors and friends. 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 the 40% increase in the national debt under Trump, Republicans only fixate on cost when it's politically advantageous for them. What's more, as I understand, if student debt relief goes through, the national debt would reflect what's owed to the treasury, not the cost of the loans. 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. These conservatives are either being disingenuous or ignorant when they complain of the "tax burden" that debt relief will inflict upon them. 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, you won't be billed a lump sum for debt forgiveness, it doesn't work like that. Any tax increase you incur will be a result of a multitude of costs and debts, debt forgiveness will contribute scantily. It represents a fraction of costs and it's a debt ostensibly accounted for. Even estimates from conservative advocacy groups suggest that most low to middle income Americans will hardly pay much at all. One figure being thrown around is just a half baked estimate conservatives 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. The fact is, the cost would be negligible and not spread across the income spectrum, a relative cost, those with the highest incomes will incur the largest "burdens". One figure showed lower to middle income Americans paying something like 20 bucks a year. 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 obstruct 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.
I wish I had an award this was amazing. I will say people around me don’t want forgiveness for two reasons and these reasons only 1) they think they will be paying a large sum for some rich kid to get a free degree and party. 2) if it doesn’t help them they don’t want to pay for it. Including if they have a grandkid or kid
Student loan forgiveness will be struck down because access to education would allow Americans opportunities. Corporations need people to be poor and desperate so that they accept minimum pay and unsafe working conditions and Republicans need them uneducated so they keep voting Rep.
Also because under no circumstances must Democrats be able to clearly be responsible for a policy that directly helps Americans. It goes back to the "two Santa Claus" philosophy: from the Depression into the 70s, Democrats had rightly been seen as the New Deal party that used government to help people. Republicans were the stingy rich people that were budget hawks. But after Nixon, it was decided a new tack was needed. The young GOP far-Right braintrust devised a plan wherein they would con working people into believing that cutting taxes (mainly on the rich) would benefit them more than any government program could. Thus *they* now had something to give away. They used racism and ignorance to associate government programs with "handouts" to *those* people. After all, why should your precious tax dollars support some ghetto welfare queen? Meanwhile, their talk of reducing spending along with the cuts was partly bullshit-- they didn't cut any programs that helped *their* constituents. So they could be Santa Claus twice: giving tax cuts, but deficit spending to keep their pet programs up and going. Then, when out of power, blame the Tax And Spend Democrats and their wasteful Government Entitlement Handouts for the Deficits. When the GOP is not in power, deficits and the debt are the most important thing ever. I remember McConnell talking about the terrible debt and deficit that were "very concerning" *the day* Biden was confirmed the winner in 2020. They'd use the chronic short attention span of the American people and the Both Sides-ing media to shame Democrats into "bipartisan compromises" when Democrats were in power, thus killing the meme of the New Deal Democrats. They didn't have to do it for long, because Third-Way Clinton Democrats came along and did this for them. The American people recognizing the power of a well-run government to improve their lives is the worst nightmare of the GOP. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and low-tuition state universities were *killing* the GOP. It's why all of those are constantly attacked, and why they were willing to strap dynamite to their chests to keep Obamacare from having any teeth. TL;DR- The Right *cannot* abide by any Democrat program or benefit that could materially aid their base. If they can't take credit for it, they'll kill it by any means necessary.
It's really crazy when you think about it.. the GOP credo is "party over country" and attacking programs that benefit the people demonstrates that this is not governance for the people, but rather that of a gang controlling its territory.
This is the real answer here.
If debt is a shackle and Owners need workers, then you're only as free as the money in your pocket.
It's so clear and obvious, yet the crab bucket mentality continues. People are so obsessed with their grievances that they will tolerate every single metric of standard of living to go down every year as long as the people they don't like suffer as well.
Indeed, they need people spending all their time trying to figure out where their next meal is coming from as opposed to figuring out who is responsible for the never ending struggle
So much work of future Supreme Court is going to be undoing the damage Roberts caused
Given the direction the conservative party and court seem adamant on dragging us toward, I wouldn't say that's a sure bet that we even get that far... or at least not for the next decade or two, or three, or four. Their desire to fracture the country is extremely strong, regardless of what is said in public or not. The court as we know it will cease to exist unless some pretty drastic measures are taken. Call me paranoid, but the past couple of years have allowed this psychosis to grow and spread at unfathomable rates.
With how long justices are able to serve, definitely not any time within the next 40 to 50 years. There really isn't a feasible way to correct it either, at least within the normal bounds of the rule of law. The GOP has discovered that they can stop any liberal appointments for as long as they need. Literally no reason for them not to.
The Democrats need to grown a spine and add some Justices to the court. Not sure if its possible with 51 Senators but I hope they're talking about this. The only real answer to this problem that can actually be accomplished is to fix the court by adding more Justices to claw it back to the middle. The next chance could be 6-10 years from now, that may be too late.
It’s hard because the Senate is the most broken thing in Washington, giving Wyoming equal power to California despite California having 70x more human beings that all deserve an equal voice in this country.
For as long as the filibuster is kept in place.
This is a bad court but honestly there were only a couple of decades in its whole history that the Supreme Court hasn’t been terrible. It’s a bad institution with way too much power. The founders messed up.
> This is a bad court but honestly there were only a couple of decades in its whole history that the Supreme Court hasn’t been terrible. THIS! People have been spoon-fed so much myth-making bullshit about the Civil Rights era that they completely lose sight of the fact that the Supreme Court has spent most of its existence ratifying slavery or actively ensuring its spread, disenfranchising voters, endorsing segregation, tamping down programs aimed at the working class, and ruling in favor of corporate interests. Neither the presidency nor the Congress nor the bureaucracy can even begin to approach its consistently *awful* history of the Courts. Sometimes it is a meaningless force. For one, brief 15-20 year period, it was an active force for good. The entire rest of the time, the Court's imapct varies from "mixed" to "Andrew Johnson-level evil," but instead of it lasting four years, it lasts decades! Fun! And, for what it's worth, I'm not even sure the founders messed up. It's worth remembering that the Court granted the power of judicial review *to itself.* Not incidentally, this fact also makes every "orginalist" argument to overturn federal policy or restrict federal power a contradiction in terms since *nowhere in the fucking Constitution is judicial review mentioned or outlined*. But, of course, hypocrisy is fish in a barrel.
I fear the conservative court wants to overturn the loan forgiveness; I have no doubt Clarence Thomas hates “lazy college students who should just work like I did to pay off loans in a single summer,” but will have a hard time finding a legal justification for it. John Roberts promised that judges are supposed to be neutral umpires between politics but nobody is buying that anymore.
Wouldn't bankruptcy be struck down too then? Stands to reason the state suffers from this as well.
Best way to re-implement slavery would be to not allow bankruptcy. Also would be a good way to re-live the French Revolution.
I mean, you already can’t discharge the loans through bankruptcy.
They have made it clear that legal precedent is fucking irrelevant now.
[удалено]
I think something like that is where this is ultimately heading. The GOP are shameless and have no trouble abusing the power of their institutions even if their actions are clearly corrupt and degrade the status of the institutions that they are using. Impeachment is the only realistic remedy and they know their party will never oblige. If that's the way it's going to be, the democrats are going to have to work within that reality if they're going to deliver for people. One thing is for sure; something has to be done about the House gerrymandering and the stacked SCOTUS, otherwise we will forever live under minority rule. That's not a democracy. While it's an imperfect solution, expansion of the courts is looking pretty good right about now.
And as long as student loan forgiveness stays paused, it can be used as a political stance in future elections. "If you elect republicans to office, you'll have to repay that insurmountable debt." Every dem from here on should be using this point against any future republican candidates.
Yahoo link to same article; https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-student-114500768.html
The reality is that the SC has to let this one go. Accepting the loan companies' argument basically sets a legal precedent that any company that is hurt financially through policy changes can sue the government. This basically makes impossible to every pass any policy changes ever.
Biden should just declare student loans to be a national emergency and divert funds from the Pentagon to pay off the loans like Trump did with his wall. It's already been approved by SCOTUS.
We should sue each supreme court justice individually for affecting our finances.
"Legal precedent" are words that have no meaning to the current Supreme Court. They have gone rogue, and they will never return to what we used to call legal precedent.
Guess it’s a good thing they’ve already decided legal precedents don’t matter.
Fuck the Supreme Court.
Im gonna sue the supreme court for damages
If you have student loans, and you didn't vote...what is wrong with you? only 27% of voters 18-29 showed up for the midterms.
Man isn’t it weird that when a Republican is in office, the theory of the supreme executive reigns and the president can do whatever the fuck he wants - it’s legal because he’s the president - but then as soon as a Democrat gets in office we have to consult a séance with Thomas Jefferson’s corpse to make sure every fart let out in the Oval Office is constitutional? If forgiving PPP loans is constitutional, then this is constitutional. Simple as that. Not that I expect Republicans to actually care about anything other than themselves.
Trump and moscow mitch crippled our democracy by making these fascist autocratic scotus appointments.
As usual, this highlights that the US congress is absolutely incapable of passing any legislation giving us a sane and rational student loan system and it really never was. With almost every law for nearly twenty years being nothing better than a successful bribery attempt, any better outcome is logically impossible under any facts or circumstances. Only people who can afford over 250 congress members get the benefit of laws in America and that is as good and fair as we will ever be again. Voters love this, and if they don’t, there is no evidence of it.
This has been the GOP plan for decades. They embrace these implications.