ISTM the Supremes are basically saying “we’ll wait for something that’s worth us looking at it to work its way up the appeal/review process.” So all the various cases down the different levels keep going and eventually there will be one that both technically and substantively fits the bill for them to take it up.
I wonder how many people in Georgia stand to benefit from student debt relief? The message repeated to them in the next few weeks really should be “Democrats are trying to help you with this, but Republicans want to take it away.”
From the article
In the Texas case, the plaintiffs argued, in part, that the Biden administration made arbitrary decisions about who would qualify for debt forgiveness and how much of their balance would be canceled. Biden’s loan relief plan would cancel up to $10,000 in federal student debt for borrowers who earn up to $125,000 annually or up to $250,000 annually for married couples. Borrowers who received Pell Grants are eligible for an additional $10,000 in forgiveness.
I’m sure those people were crying for me while cashing their stimulus check. I didn’t get it because working two jobs made me “too rich” to get one. In other words, as long as they get theirs, then the guv’ment can give out all of the money they want.
@D_Anconia Do you have a link to the ruling? I can’t find one.
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe agrees that the judge ignored standing.
“Such injury is needed to establish what courts call ‘standing,’” said Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor.
For that reason, Tribe said he was floored by the Texas judge’s ruling.
“Judge Pittman’s decision was about as wrong and weird as any federal court ruling I can recall reading,” Tribe said. “He was wrong to decide the merits without first deciding whether either of the two plaintiffs had standing.”
The ruling, because someone above asked for a link:
Standing is addressed beginning on page 10 of the ruling.
Laurence Tribe is not writing from a neutral point of view. He’s a leftie.
Whereas a rightie would be completely objective?
Ah, the old might be biased so I can ignore things I don’t like play. Works every time.
Every accusation is an admission, and here it appears that it is being admitted that right biased judges cannot be neutral.
Using that logic, all the leftists accusing the two judges of staying Biden’s decision are admitting that they, the leftists, are basing their arguments on their politics and their emotions, rather than legal principles. Here’s a relevant accusation:
So using your logic, the clearly biased opinion of the accuser renders his arguments worthless. Similarly, most newspaper opinions of the subject will be from an author with bias. Therefore, their arguments should be rejected as “Every accusation is an admission”. Perhaps you’d like to flesh out your argument? (And please try to do so without fisking.)
Furthermore, on the issue of standing, the issue was addressed in the second ruling,
First, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs fail to meet the burden of
proof at the summary-judgment stage to establish standing. Id. at 1–2.
But if this were true, Defendants would not be prejudiced by proceeding
to the merits because the Court would rule in Defendants favor and
dismiss the case for lack of standing. This argument thus fails.
(There are further reasons for the rejection of dismissal for lack of standing.)
And relevant to the thread, an important question is whether someone who has sacrificed to avoid student loans or to pay off student loans is harmed by someone else receiving relief for their student loans. I believe they are harmed. Without a clear authority for the Executive Branch to relieve the student loans, the Judicial Branch has the power to review the executive decision. Every state in the United States will have people who were responsible to not take out student loans they couldn’t afford, or to sacrifice to pay out the loans they agreed to. Therefore, standing is present through all federal courts and the issue at hand should be referred to the court with national jurisdiction - the US Supreme Court.
If the Executive Branch had wanted to avoid this issue, they would have had the Legislative Branch enact the student debt relief into law as part of a budget. They didn’t do so and they’re trying a workaround. That workaround should be subjected to judicial review.
Maybe you should ask the person in this thread that claimed that a leftist judge couldn’t be neutral.
Everything else that you have said here is utterly irrelevant to anything that I’ve said. I’m sorry that you have chosen to jump to a conclusion based on poor reading and motivated reasoning and that you’ve wasted your time.
Eh, that’s true of anyone that gets anything at all. For instance, I avoided becoming a farmer, so I’m harmed by agricultural subsidies.
Could you please elaborate on this comment? My interpretation was that a poster having a political bias to agree with a judge’s opinion could not be trusted to evaluate that judge’s opinion fairly. Surely that work’s both ways, whether the political bias is to agree or disagree with the judge’s decision. I may have misinterpreted your comment. Thus my request:
If I’ve misread the comment, I’d appreciate constructive criticism on how my interpretation was incorrect, and how my poor reading could be rectified. Please help us both by addressing student debt relief in your reply so that we can keep the thread on track.
As to your comment about agricultural subsidies, the question would be if the US government offered protection against risk to farmers that it didn’t offer to other industries or groups, and if that protection was via executive order versus legislation. Make the case that farmers made bad decisions and were relieved of the monetary consequences of those bad decisions by executive order, and therefore college students who made equivalent bad decisions deserve similar relief, and I’ll accept your analogy.
I think it’s your unfamiliarity with the American use of the phrase, “Every accusation is a confession,” and similar phrases, that’s tripping you up here. In the US it’s not a general rule to be applied in all cases. It’s a useful tool for decoding statements made by people on the right.
Not your fault that you didn’t know this. It’s an American thing.
Thank you for the answer. I was indeed unfamiliar with the phrase, and I’m grateful I learned something.
When I Google the phrase, this is the top response:
That’s not a journalistic cite, just a really leftist first reply, but I’d hardly take it as a balanced evaluation of Republican Party policies. The next few responses were even more biased. There wasn’t from my quick search an an objective detailed etymology of the phrase.
Related to this thread, and using the Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, “Always accuse your enemies of your own sins." quote, isn’t that an ineffectual argument? The “sin” is someone not being able to pay off their student loan debts. If the US student loan burden was to be treated as a form of bankruptcy, with consequences to both the borrowers and the lenders, then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But the proposal is for the US government stepping in to cancel student debt the debtors knowingly undertook. Is anyone admitting that the debt undertakers made bad decisions? The accusation seems more about absolving youngish middle-class college graduates with debt issues that they should be freed from their debts to help the Democratic Party. It seems to me to regards that, per the OP, as not “Good news”.
The poster who used the phrase wasn’t even talking about student loans.
If it’s considered an actual legal harm that one of the students didn’t qualify for relief because they had private loans, and the other only qualified for 10K because they didn’t receive a Pell grant, than I would immediately like to sue for relief because I didn’t receive any PPP money because I don’t own a business. I also didn’t receive a bailout on my mortgage and loans because I’m not a multimillion dollar corporation. I don’t remember a question and comment period. If that’s the way it works…
Who made that claim? I searched the thread and couldn’t find it.
The CARES act was a law passed by Congress. As such, a public “question and comment period” is not required. The Administrative Procedures Act applies to administrative agencies of the government, not Congress.
Addressed rather poorly, if you ask me. (IANAL) As stated on page 10, standing usually hinges on three factors: Concrete injury (i.e. not hypothetical), causation and redressability. The only “concrete” injury the judges could find was purely procedural; they used a couple of citations in unrelated cases to show that those who had no received government benefits had standing in their cases and made a reaching argument to apply it here.
Frankly, it’s like arguing, in trying to assert that atheism is a religion, that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.