Two Federal Courts Halt Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness End-Run Around SCOTUS Ruling
Suits brought by Missouri, Florida, and several other states. In many ways states, and particularly state attorney generals, have become our last line of defense against a lawless federal executive branch.
The Supreme Court ruled that Joe Biden could not rewrite the terms of student loans.
Joe don’t care. He bragged he would get around it. The way he planned to get around it was complicated at one level, but simple in its essence: reconfigure repayment and other calculations to effectuate what SCOTUS said he could not do.
This Reuters article has a pretty good summary of the multiple lawsuits and decisions, with links to the opinions:
Two federal judges in Kansas and Missouri on Monday sided with several Republican-led states and partially blocked Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration from moving forward with a key student debt relief initiative that would cost billions of dollars.
U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree in Wichita, Kansas, blocked the U.S. Department of Education from proceeding with parts of a plan set to take effect July 1 designed to lower monthly payments and speed up loan forgiveness for millions of Americans.
He ruled shortly before U.S. District Judge John Ross in St. Louis, Missouri, issued a preliminary injunction barring the department from granting further loan forgiveness under the administration’s Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan.
The SAVE Plan provides more generous terms than past income-based repayment plans, lowering monthly payments for eligible borrowers and allowing those whose original principal balances were $12,000 or less to have their debt forgiven after 10 years.
Biden announced the SAVE Plan in 2022, alongside a separate, broader plan that would have fulfilled a campaign promise by cancelling up to $20,000 in debt for up to 43 million Americans.
That plan would have canceled about $430 billion in debt but was blocked by the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court in June 2023 after several Republican-led states challenged it. But the Supreme Court’s ruling did not address the SAVE Plan
🚨BREAKING: The Court has granted our motion to BLOCK Joe Biden’s illegal student loan plan.
Congress never gave Biden the authority to saddle working Americans with half-a-trillion dollars in other people's debt.
A huge win for the Constitution.
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) June 24, 2024
A federal court just granted the State of Florida an injunction against Biden’s unlawful student loan forgiveness plan. Working class Americans should not be paying for other peoples’ student loans, and Biden’s attempt to defy the Supreme Court was rightly rejected.…
— AG Ashley Moody (@AGAshleyMoody) June 24, 2024
In many ways states, and particularly state attorney generals, have become our last line of defense against a lawless federal executive branch. They have the resources to fight the Biden administration. It’s not enough, because the federal bureaucracy is so broad, but it’s the best we have right now.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The loan forgiveness programs make sense if student borrowers are motivated to pay a sizable share for the 10 years (or more if necessary depending on the balance). What Biden admin did was gut the amount of money that the students were expected to pay in the 10 years leading up to forgiveness….it was a ridiculously irresponsible tactic that should be struck down by the courts. What’s funny is that self-absorbed, deadbeat millenials who want their loans forgiven right now so they don’t have to pay anything are not satisfied by his little slow walk scam.
Also, this public service nonsense has got to go. Why should people who work for the government get a better deal on loan repayment than people who drive our economy in the private sector?
Also, it’s not forgiveness if I have to pay someone else’s loans. Next, these dead beats will want “rent forgiveness” so they can live in someone else’s home at the landlord’s expense.
If anyone should be paying student loans, it should be the colleges and universities who have raised their tuition higher than the cost of living.
How about, “I forgive you, but you still have to pay it back.”?
The same Universities and Colleges which have substantial Endowment accounts in the high Millions and many into the Billions should be on the hook for outstanding tuition costs.
Until Universities and colleges adjust Tuition costs, repayments could be lowered with making it a Direct Loan from the school to the student. If the loans originate from the schools and were on their books, Federal Dollars which they now receive, should cease until they put their own remedies into action first.
If legislation were enacted for changes, those students who have outstanding loans would be able to go back to the school and arrange payment with them with the school picking up the outstanding balance on the original debt of the student. It should be the school which accepted the student and granted a diploma to also accept the student’s as their liability. The schools should now accept the same liability for those who have the “current student loans”. Perhaps colleges would refocus and spend more time teaching subjects which will leave the student in a position to pay them back those loaned $’s.
Whether it’s ridiculous or irresponsible is irrelevant to any court. A court that takes that into account is violating its oath. The only question any court may consider is whether this is within the authority that Congress gave the secretary by statute. If it’s within then the court must uphold it no matter how reckless it is; if it isn’t then the court must strike it down no matter how responsible and sensible it might be.
That’s all true. But it doesn’t mean we can’t condemn the secretary for using his authority “irresponsibly,” which is actually an extremely mild way of characterizing the buying of votes with the taxpayers’ money.
Oh, we can and definitely should condemn it, but that’s not what healthguy said. He said it should be struck down by the courts because it’s a bad policy, and that’s just wrong. It’s legally wrong and it’s morally wrong. Courts have no business ever considering whether the measures being challenged are good or bad policy.
Upholding or striking down statutes based on “policy” was a halmark of Ginsberg opinions and dissents
ACA
Encino Motors (dissent)
Ledbetter v goodyear, (dissent)
to name a few.
Except they DO … all the frickin time Your vaunted…. Muh THE LAW….isn’t even a pale imitation of what it’s was designed to be. Your refusal to acknowledge that makes you… Clownhouse
The Constitution specifically bars states from interfering with legitimate contracts, and the central government was granted no such power within enumerated powers). Why? Because the Framers thought a legitimate government protected contracts (part of property rights). Sadly, the Democrat regime has already bragged about thwarting court decisions. Just more evidence that the rule of law is gone.
The contract is between the former student and the government, so forgiving it is not interfering with anything.
Congress definitely has the power to authorize loan forgiveness, and it has done so many times. The only question at issue here is whether it has also done so in this instance.
The loans were essentially nationalized by Obama, leaving banks as the loan servicers. But I’ll pay along. Show me the enumerated power where the central government can abrogate otherwise valid contracts of any sort. Contracts are property rights that the Founders believed a legitimate government was bound to protect. Plus, “forgiving” them imposes the burden on others—a form of theft—and violates the idea that government derives its powers from the people. That is, I have no power to “forgive” a debt by imposing it one you, so neither does a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. What you are arguing for is legalized vote buying—government run by whim of the elite, and in their interests.
Hmmmm……I seem to remember you saying there were no legal challenges to this round of debt forgiveness.
You further went on to accuse me of lying about the court challenges, even though I provided quotes and citations.
Now you want to comment on court cases you say didn’t exist.
An adult would just man up and say “well, I got that wrong. I apologize,”
We’ll see if you can do that.
And… you’re still lying. I had not heard of this challenge; the moment you provided a citation I immediately acknowledged and accepted it.
Actually, you didn’t.
But here’s the thing……..
You now say “and you’re still lying.”
“Still” means that I was lying in the first instance. I wasn’t and you know it.
Once again, it seems that you can’t do the right thing and admit you were wrong. Instead you doubled down in the above comment.
Adults admit their errors and apologize.
It seems you are incapable of that and instead would rather continue to hurl insults in the face of facts.
Yes, I did. As soon as you provided the citation.
Yes, I did. As soon as you provided the citation.
Nope.
I provided the citation and you still claimed I was lying.
Furthermore, your stance that you said something doesn’t address the fact that you claim that I am still lying. That doesn’t address your false claim that I was lying initially even after providing you the citation that you now claim you acknowledged.
Once again, be an adult and admit you screwed up the first time and then doubled down on that same screw up in this thread.
I suspect that you won’t admit your multiple errors. Somehow you seem to think that wrongfully calling a person a liar multiple times doesn’t mean your shouldn’t be at least morally accountable and apologize.
That’s what adults do.
You haven’t.
The Plaintiffs also need standing, which is satisfied if the state governments have a financial interest in loan servicing fees.
Excuse me; where in the enumerated powers is the power to give loans for college?!?!
Making the loans is not at issue here. The issue here is forgiving them once made. And that is a power inherent in any creditor. The USA, like any creditor, must have the inherent power to wipe out debts owed to it; and Congress, being authorized to borrow money on the USA’s credit, must also be the body authorized to forgive debts owed to the USA (or to authorize the executive to do so).
In a vacuum sure. But loan payoff via military service (I think it capped at $60K today, was up to $80K in GWT) is a very powerful recruitment tool which this program and any other non military service linked forgiveness program undermines.
Congress has a habit of creating programs for Veterans and Service members then activists glom onto them like barnacles demanding their group be treated the same as military members/Veterans.
One other kick in the teeth for military members is the Biden WH has allows DoD to roll back tuition assistance programs to basically irrelevance. Under this program service members used to receive up to $4K per year for College courses while on AD. Lots of Nights, Weekends and lunchtime classes by motivated students.
Military members actually earn their education benefits, but first have to survive being deployed to war zones by elitists who view them as cannon fodder.
Exactly. Which is why the distinction between earned v unearned benefits should be reinforced and why we must return to the notion of deserving poor v undeserving poor. Then help those who are deserving poor and provide the earned benefits to those who sacrificed to become eligible.
The current give everyone $ dynamic is well out of control and is becoming not only unsustainable but is crowding out available spending on earned benefits and assistance for the deserving poor. That’s today, tomorrow if we don’t radically change course we won’t have have excess funds for much of anything beyond debt service, social.security, Medicare and Medicaid. That debt service is moving to become the 2nd largest expenditure behind social security. It already surpassed DoD and Medicaid this FY.
Like “benefits” in the private sector, they come with the employment, and are enticements in lieu of higher pay. Both government and the private sector offer various forms of benefits to attract qualified job applicants and to retain experienced employees. Government must offer these enticements to attract people who might otherwise go into private employment, and vice versa.
Service not service in combat. I was in the navy and never saw any form of danger.
The modern U.S. Military also doesn’t see anyone as cannon fodder.
If you want to know what being treated like cannon fodder looks like just give a look at the casualties of both sides of the Ukraine-Russia war.
Tell it to the military members slaughtered during the Biden regime’s Afghan Rout. The regime certainly considered them cannon fodder and like the Benghazi heroes rather cavalierly dismissed their sacrifice as “what they signed on for.” Really? I’ll bet people willing to sacrifice their lives might assume that means at the hands of an enemy—not at the hands of inept, incompetent, and uncaring commanders all the way up to dirtbags like Obama and Biden.
In my bankruptcy practice I recently consulted a couple, the husband of which was contemplating filing for chapter 7. Their joint income was too high to qualify, and the only thing that could have saved them was an enormous amount of overall debt from the non-filing spouse. I asked and the potential debtor sent his wife’s credit bureau report, and there it was – the solution – her $756k student loan balance. I indicated that there was a very small window of opportunity that sometimes was opened by an enormous amount of household debt and this seemed to have saved the day, The wife broke in and apologized for spoiling that avenue, but she had just received a letter the previous day from the DOE indicating that her loan foregiveness program requirements were satisfied after she had paid 8% of her total outsanding balance over 10 years. The $756k was fregiven to the debtor and shifted onto the backs of the taxpayer. I have seen the receipts on this.
Finally!!!
If you signed on the dotted line, you pay what you borrowed.
Best life lesson evah! All Biden et al. were doing was trying to buy votes, and causing more division in the process.
Missouri has really been doing a bang up job the last few years. They are continuing what Trump did during his first term: fight for the citizens of the Republic and the sanctity of the Constitution.
Missouri has a direct financial interest in people repaying student loans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOHELA is owned by them, and it owns a shedload of student loan debt.
Obamacare was funded in large part by the predatory interest expected to be gained from federalizing student loans. Repeal this nonsense, and convert current loans to simple (or zero) interest that students can actually pay back. That would be a fair solution.
A fair solution would be to repay what you borrowed.
No disagreement here. Many were actually paying their student debt down during the Covid zero interest period. That suggests a willingness to pay them when they can afford to. The guvmint makes it impossible on purpose. It needs the revenue.
Join the military and take advantage of the existing program where AD military service over 4-6 years pays off up to $60K in student loans.
These were adults who can vote, sign a contract, buy a car. If they didn’t understand the consequences of massive student loan debt for a worthless degree in fuzzy bunny studies instead of a higher paying STEM degree….that’s on them, their Parents, mentors, guidance counselors.
That’s what the man is saying.
What are they going to do if joie just ignores them and forgives the loans anyway? Send the marshals?
He can’t, and hasn’t. He is in full compliance with all court decisions and orders, and there’s no grounds for supposing that he ever intends to defy them.
SCOTUS struck down his first plan, so he went back to the drawing board. Now there’s a challenge to one of his alternative plans, and it’s on hold; he will not go ahead with that one until and unless it’s cleared. The other plans go ahead until someone challenges them.
That’s how it works. And you had no problem with it when Trump did the same thing over his so-called “Moslem ban”. Courts can’t strike down a policy; they can only strike down specific means for achieving a policy. And that only when those means are challenged by someone with standing.
Ha! That’s a hoot. I guess you’re not really up on Traitor Joe and what he threatens to do … or what he has actually been doing for the past … 4 or 5 decades …
LOL … as when the courts struck down Trump’s reversal of Barky’s ILLEGAL dreamer treason because they thought that Trump had bad feelings when he said what he would do?? Even though the court acknowledged that the DREAMER executive order had been un-Constitutional to start, Trump could not reverse it because he might have bad feelings while doing it …
Don’t you ever get tired of being a shill for the America-hating left?? Do you have some fetish for playing Devil’s advocate? Frankly, the Devil could use different representation.
He has never violated a court order or defied a court decision. You just can’t do that, or you’re held in contempt and the marshals come for you.
Regulatory actions under the APA may not be arbitrary or capricious. Every court examining an APA action must take that into account. When Trump explicitly said he didn’t want to do it but was doing it only because he had been advised that he legally had to, the court said “No, you don’t have to, which invalidates your stated reason, and leaves your action arbitrary.” If he’d said from the beginning that he was repealing both DAPA and DACA because they were against his policy he’d have had a lot better luck with the courts. But he refused to do that because he deliberately wanted to play on both sides of the question.
No, it did not. No court has ever asserted that.
And that makes you not only a liar but a moral cretin. Anyone who thinks a person’s positions are or should be tailored according to whose ox is gored is a deeply corrupt person. And someone who can’t even understand why that is so, or the whole concept of not doing that, is incapable of morality or integrity.
Now you see, this kind of Twisted pretzel logic is why people hate lawyers. We all know that the pedophile in Chief violated the supreme court order. The fact that you refuse to say so shows why he feels free to
What is an end-around to defeat a SCOTUS decision but contempt of court? SCOTUS told the administration what they were attempting was unlawful. A new plan to do that which has already been forbidden shows contempt for the court.
Too many in the executive and legislative branches of our governments (State and federal) have the juvenile notion that they can accomplish indirectly what the Constitution and the law doesn’t permit them to do directly. (E.g., having social media platforms conduct censorship operations at government’s behest.) This is a wrong-headed notion that runs counter to law.
You hate lawyers for the same reason Dick the Butcher did — because lawyers are all that stand between you and dictatorship.
No, we don’t “all know” it, because it isn’t true. It’s a fucking lie that you and your ilk deliberately spread out of pure malice. If he had violated a supreme court order, the underlings whom he ordered to do so would be in prison, and the government would now be in full compliance. Or they’d have refused the orders in the first place, not wanting to go to prison.
That’s a dishonest misrepresentation of events. There was no such thing.
No, it didn’t. It never said anything even remotely like that. It said the challenged program was not authorized by the statute on which it relied. The government immediately accepted that and stopped it. The court never said, and couldn’t possibly say, that the government’s goal was unlawful.
Nothing was forbidden. A new plan to achieve the same goal by some other means is the exact opposite of contempt; it shows respect for the court, by accepting its interpretation of the law.
When the police block a road you’re traveling on, so you turn off and go around the block before resuming your journey, is that somehow “contempt of the police”?! The police said you can’t go on that block; they never said and couldn’t say that you can’t go to your destination.
First of all, that is not a “juvenile notion”. State governments, at least, are not limited to enumerated powers (unless their own constitutions say so) and are only restricted by explicit prohibitions. Anything that isn’t explicitly forbidden is permitted.
And in this case it’s irrelevant, because nobody in the administration ever claimed that the president could wipe out debt by some inherent power he had that didn’t come from statute. That’s a fundamental lie that the corrupt alt-right commentators have made up. The various loan forgiveness programs were always based on alleged statutory authority, so when one such alleged authority is struck down there’s nothing wrong or even unusual about looking for another one.
Again, how did you feel when Trump did exactly the same thing? You had no problem with it then, so you can’t possibly have a problem with it now.
Indeed. The Executive Branch and the bureaucracy ignores the law, the Constitution and the Judicial Branch at will, while the Legislative Branch does nothing.
Subotai Bahadur
If it comes up at Thursday’s debate, I would suggest that Trump accuse Biden of being against Democracy – selecting a class of citizens who on average are making the most money for loan forgiveness (for a contract they signed) paid by those who did not go to college, on average making less money. Any changes should be decided by the People’s representatives in Congress, not a President acting as Dictator.
Again, seize the endowments.
Use the disgorgements to pay-down student loans.
It’s win-win.
Good people gave good money to those endowments. Why do you want to take that money to pay for the student loans of slugs?
Good people give money to unis as a form of bribery to accept their kids because unis have a monopoly on access to sinecures thanks to Griggs v. Duke. (Needless to say, this can be undone with ordinary legislation.) If good people want a refund (and can document how their kid(s) did not secure said jobs), I’m open to that, no problem.
Good people got tax write-offs for that money.
Tough titties. The schools should be responsible and their money piles should be the only ones that are drained if there is some catastrophe that their overcharging and underteaching might have caused.
And there should be no more federal dollars going to pay for any college tuitions or other expenses and no more loan guarantees, even … and schools that are clearly profit centers can no longer be allowed to have tax-exempt status of any sort. If “good people” want to give money to a school, they can give it off the top and not because they are getting any sort of tax benefits from it.
Why should the schools suffer for reacting to an economic environment created by the government? Government is responsible to creating the distortions that exist with regard to the cost of a higher education (as it is responsible for the distortions in the economy and the markets by its fiscal irresponsibility).
The schools and the government are equally responsible for the situation. Both need to be held accountable. The taxpayer, however, has no part of any of this yet is being turned upside down and stripped of all his change by the schools and the government in order to try and brush their actions under the carpet.
The schools have abused every benefit and all trust ever placed with them. They are venal, destructive institutions who, while they are allowed to be venal and destructive, must do it all on their own dimes.
The taxpayer elected the government and is legally and morally liable for everything the government does.
Milhouse: “The taxpayer elected the government and is legally and morally liable for everything the government does.”
If I ever find that taxpayer I’m going to kick him/her in the shins.
Anonymous mail-in ballots elected this government … and a lot of the mail-in ballots never paid any taxes, at all. Further, even among the real people who legally voted, many, many, many of them don’t pay taxes. any of them live off of the taxes that the rest of us pay.
I never thought I’d hear the day when conservatives were openly advocating for asset confiscation. Do you all know anything about slippery slopes??? Stop being idiots.
The only way to make asset seizure end, is for all asset seizure to end. The only way to make that happen is that all people and entities must be subject to asset seizure in full measure.
That means that the schools that raise their costs exorbitantly high because Uncle Sugar is paying the cost needs to be treated the same as the guy who happens to be carrying a couple thousand $ and has his money seized, or his car seized, during a traffic stop should be treated the same.
Asset seizure is a horrible thing without due process, but it happens. Frequently.
Seize private property?! On what grounds? That would be outright theft.
Novel interpretations of “fraud”, of course. That’s the novel lawfare against Trump, after all. Sauce for the goose and all that.
Dozens of people awaiting the return of their expensive bump stocks are laughing at you, not with you.
And of course the firearms seized via red flag and DV TRO orders. Firearms are private property and absent true due process with a jury trial seems like a violation of 2A, 4A, 6A, 9A and 14A. That’s a high hurdle for the govt to be forced to overcome, unfortunately we don’t seem to want to require the gov’t to have to do so. Much easier to ignore or give a wink to the hurdle and just move expeditiously ..in the name of ‘safety’.
Theft is one of the few things the government’s actually good at
The Justice department’s Office of Legal Council should be providing unbiased reviews on these orders to filter out the actions that have high probability of being overturned. It appears that the OLC forgot their purpose.
I HAVE TO POST THIS
YEA!!!!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/breaking-julian-assange-be-freed-after-reaching-plea/
Huh? Who? It is impossible for me to care less.
ROTC/NROTC and especially the GI Bill has been made a laughingstock. Joe Biden has essentially said: ‘Sign up for four years of obligated active-duty service plus two-years of obligated reserve service and we’ll give to you the same thing we just gave to the blue-haired Womyn’s Studies major for doing nothing but smoking weed and marching with BLM and Hamas.’
It’s infuriating.
And this is the reason that we need to make all women subject to Selective Service. No registration, no student loans.
When Blue Haired Front Hole has a stake in the game, maybe she’ll think twice about wearing her ghutrah as a fashion accessory, knowing full well that she could be called to military service.
Men have been refused student loans for failing to register between the ages of 18 and 26.
Not being a lawyer, or otherwise involved what is laughingly called the “justice system”, I’d like somebody to explain to me why the Biden Crime Syndicate would pay any more attention to some shlub judge than they do to the Supreme Court.
The claim that they have defied the Supreme Court is an outright fucking lie that too many people, including here in LI, have repeated. SCOTUS struck down his original plan, and that plan is now off the table.
SCOTUS didn’t and couldn’t strike down the policy; policy is none of the judicial branch’s business. There is no reason on earth why, having had one plan struck down, he should not immediately have looked for other plans to achieve his policy. That is how all administrations work and how they are supposed to work.
Now one of his alternative plans has been challenged and put on hold. He will defend it in court, but in the meantime that plan is on hold. If it’s eventually struck down it will be off the table too, but that has not yet happened and may not happen. The courts are just as likely to uphold it as to strike it down, but if they don’t it will be time for Plan C or D or E, just as it was with Trump’s so-called “moslem ban” or with any other policy whose first attempt at implementation didn’t work.
In other words, it doesn’t matter what the courts say, they’ll just do what they want anyway.
No, that is not anything like “other words”.
No court can ever tell an administration that its policy is invalid and can’t be achieved. That’s not a justiciable question. All it can consider is whether a specific act, order, or statute, is legal or illegal, and it can only do that when someone with standing challenges it.
Again, consider the so-called “moslem ban”. Did you have any problem when the first court struck down the first plan, and Trump immediately went back to the drawing board and came up with a different plan to achieve more or less the same thing, but that addressed all the objections the court raised the first time? I don’t think you did, and nor should you have. That is a completely legitimate thing to do, and that is what Biden has done here.
So Milhouse, what would you consider defying the court? Or would you just dance around finding some way to massage it to not be defying the court like you usually do?
Defying the court means disobeying a court order, or when the court says your interpretation of a statute is wrong, continuing to rely on that interpretation anyway. As Jackson is falsely remembered as having said, “Mr Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it”. That gets you held in contempt. In this case there is no defiance at all. The court said you can’t forgive any debts in reliance on that statute and the administration immediately stopped doing so.
The court never said you can’t forgive any debts, under any statute, ever. Such a ruling would be invalid and should be defied; but this court would never be so arrogant as to say such a thing.
Gus, Milhouse is correct. The CT makes a ruling about X ‘case or controversy’ in front of it. When they say don’t do X that applies to X. It doesn’t apply to X +Y or X -Z. Each of those is its own ‘case or controversy’ which must be litigated separately. Occasionally the CT gets pissy at such shenanigans and orders a pre-clearance or approval prior to gov actions when they persist in shenanigans. The example of voting rights is one. Perhaps the CT will eventually tire of NY State attempts to circumvent the spirit of their rulings in Bruen re gun permits and carry. Same here should Biden get another term and continue this path.
Just stop, already. The “policy” being violated is that Congress holds the purse strings. No amount of legalistic or “regulatory” chicanery can get around that. The President and the Executive branch do not have that power. You are disingenuous and a bore.
Of course, I remember you making all the same sorts of idiotic arguments for Barky’s “prosecutorial discretion” (and many other dems’) when what they were doing was not “prosecutorial discretion” (which is on a case-by-case individual basis) but actually making law by determining which laws they would enforce on whom or on what sorts of people. But you argued until you were blue in the face that they were just ‘exercising disrcetion’ and that it was all perfectly legal and proper. you made the same moronic arguments about Traitor Joe’s TREASONOUS orchestration of an invasion under the guise of “asylum”.
Your arguments are tired and dumb and only convincing to the dimmest bulbs and the America-haters.
Sorry PrimordialOrderedPair. Meant that as an upvote!!
Heh. It happens. Thanks, wendy.
And nobody has ever denied that. To claim that Biden ever claimed the inherent power to forgive loans without having been authorized by statute is part of the absolute fucking lie that you and others on the right have been deliberately perpetrating. From the very beginning Biden relied on authority his lawyers claimed to have found in a statute. When the court said no such authority was in that statute, they went looking for other statutes that could be read to give such authority, albeit more limited, and they claim to have found some. No court has yet ruled on those. In this case two courts have issued preliminary injunctions, saying there’s at least a reasonable chance that the administration’s reading of this particular statute is invalid. That does not affect its ability to rely on other statutes, if it can find any. And we still don’t know how the judgment on this statute will come out.
Who says it must be on a case by case basis? That’s your assertion, it’s not the law.
SCOTUS told the administration that the law doesn’t permit its loan forgiveness policy. If the administration wants to advance its policy of loan forgiveness, it can do so – by having Congress change the law. The administration can’t ignore the law as it exists. As you wrote earlier, SCOTUS doesn’t care about “feels” (policy, goals), it’s concerned with the law (Constitution, statutes/acts of Congress). The law, as it exists, doesn’t permit the fulfillment of the administration’s policy goals. SCOTUS can’t prevent the administration from working towards its policy goals, but it can prevent it from effectuating those goals without the support of the law. SCOTUS did not rule “You must give up your policy goals.” If merely ruled “You can’t accomplish them under the laws that now exist.”
No, it didn’t. It said that one specific law doesn’t permit it. It never said, and couldn’t possibly say, that no law permits it. How could it know whether there’s a law that does permit it? It couldn’t even go looking for one if it wanted to; it’s limited to the question before it, which is only whether that specific law permits it.
Or by finding a law in which Congress has already done so.
And it isn’t. That’s why the program that SCOTUS struck down no longer exists. If it were ignoring the law that program would still be running, and it would have no need to look for other laws, or to announce the much more limited programs that it has been.
Says who? The administration believes it does permit it, and no court has ever said it doesn’t. No court could ever say it doesn’t. Courts can only ever say whether this or that law permits it, never that no law does.
Exactly. And that is exactly what the administration is doing. It is looking for existing laws that allow it to achieve part of what it originally attempted, and as it finds them it does as much as it believes them to permit. Its opponents are examining each of those laws as it comes up with them, and seeing whether they can come up with legitimate challenges to them. One such attempt has now progressed as far as a preliminary injunction, with which the administration is now complying. So you now agree that the accusation against the administration is a fucking lie?
Well, we have learned something: it takes 2-3 generations for one of these whole-system scams to get notices.
What’s the opposite of Carlin’s line: “You don’t need an active conspiracy when interests align?” Somebody loses when interests don’t align? If you don’t see the sucker looking around the table, the sucker’s you?
Politicritters, edu ministry, feeder systems, universities, everybody’s adminidrones, and the senior faculty all get a piece of what’s extracted from the students moving through the Us. Everybody’s cut is worth more, the more the sheeple get sheared. Their cut comes from the buy-in, not from using what’s been bought. How do those incentives line up?
The problem is, the credential is a union card you gotta have; a ticket for a different ride than if you don’t. Practically, the people who could most use advancing themselves get one shot at it, one time, at one time in your life, when your “success” isn’t entirely up to you.
On top of the obvious payoff$, it’s a brilliant mechanism for perpetuating the credentialed caste, dressed up as a way for people to advance themselves. If you don’t see the sucker looking around the table…
RE: the Carlin line
This is what happened in the Obama-era Lois Lerner IRS scandal. Written instructions to bear down on conservative non-profits wasn’t necessary. Fellow travelers understand it’s their collective duty to advance an agenda, and they do so without having to receive orders.
Any loan forgiveness plan should go through Congress and be aimed at those with a low income. It should also abolish the student loan program.
Biden’s current plans are all being enacted pursuant to statutes that have been through Congress. He claims they comply with those statutes; if someone with standing disagrees they are free to challenge that claim. Which is what has happened here; we will now see whether the challenge is valid.
The federal government took over the entire student loan program (rather than just issuing loan guarantees to private lenders) in order to grab the profits for BarkyCare so the CBO could laughably claim that BarkyCare would be revenue-neutral for parliamentary purposes.
It’s a form over substance thing. When someone is forbidden from taking a certain act then sets out to take a series of separate acts whose only purpose is to achieve the same result, then this is tantamount to committing the forbidden act in every sense- intent and substance.
And such actions demonstrate contempt of court.
Milhouse spends his days here trying to convince everyone that what Biden does is correct and Constitutional, while pointing out what Trump did or intends to do is wrong and Unconstitutional. That includes defending what his fellow Democrats do every day.
Milhouse is without time or effort because it is an AI generated platform.
You are a fucking liar and a disgusting piece of filth that belongs all the way on the left. You have no more ethics than the Clintons, or than Hamas.
When a President ignores a SC ruling that is to be followed by an immediate impeachment by the Congress.
This is why Trump early on in his presidency didn’t ignore a local Hawaii judge’s restraining order on restricting aliens from entering the country — notwithstanding the constitutional and statutory authority to do so,
CO-EQUAL branches. Ignore it like Andrew Jackson did. The courts can be asses. They already destroyed Cali by pretending it was unconstitutional to refuse benefits to illegal aliens in the 90s.
They are destroying children by allowing gay “marriage,” whereby homosexuals and other mentally injured people get custody of helpless children and then warp them at best, and abuse or kill them at worst.
Jackson never defied a court order or decision. “Mr Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it” is a myth spread by his enemies, years after the fact.
Finally a sane decision from the courts. Any bets on how long before the pedophile in Chief decides to violate this one?
It is an huge insult to me if any of these student loans are paid by the taxpayers. I worked 30 hours a week for 3 years to get close to getting my two year degree after high school. I joined the USAF and I was able to complete the last two classes to get my AA. After getting out of the AF I had the Montgomery GI Bill that barely covered tuition. I was in the Air Guard and I had a full time job while it took me 4 years to get my BS Business IT degree. I busted my butt for just over 7 years to get a BS in an area that was needed in our economy and Biden wants to buy votes with my taxes for college grads who owe money for their education.
Just stop, already. The “policy” being violated is that Congress holds the purse strings. No amount of legalistic or “regulatory” chicanery can get around that. The President and the Executive branch do not have that power.
_________________________________________________________________
indeed, this appears to be the case–why is it so difficult to recognize biden’s attempts to exceed his authority in rather transparent efforts to secure votes / support ? like milhouse, am not a lawyer but if the constitution is indeed the ” law of the land ” and it prohibits the necessary authority to cancel student debt / loans, etc. to the executive branch, why is there any question at all ? the idea that fjb / the dems can simply do whatever the hell they want and the rest of us be damned contravenes both the spirit and the letter of the law–vigorous efforts to make a yes/no question somehow a ” maybe ” is despicable–the end result of his actions (if allowed) will saddle generations of americans to enormous debts that they did not knowingly / lawfully incur
Biden wants to torture the statute until it admits it allows loan forgiveness. If the statute actually allowed loan forgiveness, it wouldn’t require torture to figure that out.
TexanSamurai, the idea that Biden has claimed some sort of power inherent in his office to cancel debts owed to the USA is an outright lie. He has never claimed such authority, so no court has ever had occasion to rule that he lacks it. His claim has only ever been that he was authorized by statute to forgive certain loans.
The idea that any court has ever found that existing law “prohibits the necessary authority to cancel student debt / loans, etc. to the executive branch” is equally a lie. There has never been such a decision, and there can’t be. No court could ever find such a thing. All a court can ever say is whether a certain statute authorizes a certain action; it can never say that there are no statutes, anywhere, that authorize it. It can’t do a search of all the laws to ascertain that there aren’t any. It has no authority to do that. It can only rule on the question that are before it, which is always whether this statute says what the defendant says it says, or what the plaintiff says it says. There are no other options.
dont forget
the lefts whole economic policy that they ARDENTLY AVOIDED SAYING IS THAT
there are no such thing/need FOR A BUDGET
when your philosophy is to print money without backing b/c its “good for people to have money in their pockets”
you have lost the CIVILIZED ANSWERS to keep that society civilized
then its a tribalistic free for all that depends on street violence for the middle class and the poor to sort out while the elites sit on top laughing and looking down at the fray
by the scotus having ALLOWED THE LEGALITY OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
the Courts gave the dictatorship the push that is needed to do just that
dictate
it doesnt matter if its your guy or the other guy who does it
EXECUTIVE ORDERS being legal
is the foot that wedged itself into the door and made alllll this possible
EOs are legal. They’re how the executive directs its officers and agents how and when to execute the laws (passed by Congress). So if Congress authorizes money for renovation of housing at a military base, the POTUS can issue an EO saying “Paint the bachelor officer quarters blue.”
What the POTUS can’t do with an EO is direct one of his functionaries to violate the law as it exists (either by doing something not authorized by law, or by doing something counter to existing law). If the POTUS wants to do something currently not permitted by law, he must work with Congress to enact a new law, or to change existing law, to permit him to execute his preferred policy.
well then the question becomes:
<<>>
running around that law
be they called Executive Orders /Moratoriums etc etc
The president is directing the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to examine limits on rent increases for future investments and actions promoting renter protections.
by passing congress is the argumentative point here
and the
by any means necessary is the culprit ( and I dont which party does this)
So what biden,in this case, is doing is
appropriating funds
he is in fact “setting aside” these funds ( loans) and how they are to be used
A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION which as we allll know is Congress job
AND OF COURSE those chickenshorts dont want the responsibility
so they allow this to happen and then be atch about it
“After the president issues an executive order, that order is recorded in the Federal Register and is considered binding, which means it can be enforced in the same way as if Congress had enacted it as law.”
the oxford guide
This true only so long as the EO itself doesn’t run counter to law. Like an act of Congress, an EO is potentially unconstitutional/without foundation in law. EOs are the mechanisms by which a POTUS executes his policy according to existing law. But if no law exists supporting the policy, the EO isn’t valid. Courts have the authority to review an EO with regard to whether it is, or is not, founded upon law.
it reminds us of how the potus is allowed to “declare” war when its Congressional powers only but the courts allowed THAT runaround
that is what leads to the dictatorship we are getting ourselves into
As usual, you have no idea what you’re prattling about.
Only Congress can declare war, and no president has ever challenged that.
But no declaration of war is necessary in order for a state of war to exist, or for the president to fight it. Whenever the USA is at war, whether anyone has declared it or not, the president has the inherent duty and authority to deploy the resources Congress has put at his disposal to prosecute it.
Congress cannot prohibit or interfere with that authority, which is why every president, while voluntarily complying with the War Powers Act, has said it is likely unconstitutional.
You haven’t explicitly said, but likely believe, that presidents have also prosecuted long-term wars without congressional declarations. That is not true. Every significant war the USA has been in has been declared by Congress. An Authorization for the Use of Military Force is a declaration of war. The idea that in order to be valid such a declaration must contain some magical formula is just bizarre.
millmouse:
you had to add that word/phrase ( every significant war) to justify your flow of diarrhea from your orifice of a hounds pleasure
I greatly appreciate Milhouse for the precision of his arguments (even when I believe him to be wrong) no matter which side of the political divide he is criticizing.
This is why I am looking forward to reading Milhouse’s definition of “religion”. Since our understanding of the First Amendment seriously depends on the definition of religion, it is important to have a good definition. It’s almost as important as having a good definition of “woman”.
Normally quite voluble, Milhouse seems to be quite tongue-tied on this subject. As has been said of pornography, he seems to “know it when he sees it”, but to be oddly unable to define it.
I’m not aware of anything from the founding era formally defining religion, but we know by example what the founders considered to be religions. “The Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.” We don’t need an exact definition to know that any definition that excludes these is automatically invalid, like a definition of “arms” that excludes AR-15s.
Does “infidel of every denomination” include atheists and Antifa? Is the “civil religion” taught in government schools a religion?
The Supreme Court of the United States has based some of its most important decisions on definitions of “religion”. Does it matter that its definitions have been seriously inconsistent?
Prez Dead but Refrigerated defied SCOTUS. Why should his regime respect the decision of lower federal courts? The regime knows the dictatorial bureaucracies can work around both Congress and courts to do whatever the regime tyrants want.