I saw someone from the Bush Whitehouse suggest that the Supreme Court needs an IG like exists in other branches of government. I like that idea.
so many uneducated/ignorant commenters in this thread arguing over the merits of student loan forgiveness the issue before SCOTUS was if POTUS had the authority to forgive student loans, not whether it is or isn't good policy the dissenting opinion is based on the same fallacy
potential legal liability might prevent her from getting a loan or insurance, and that would be harm, and grounds for standing
I assume Merrick Garland's DoJ will begin targeting SCOTUS justices like he has all of Biden's political opponents. Especially since he's bitter about not getting confirmed after Scalia died.
"Potential liability" was never ground for article 3 standing until now. I get it. You're in power and you want to show the world who's got the biggest d$&%. The conservatives have a super majority and flexing their muscles. I get it and so does everyone else. Don't make up bullshit legal rationale. There was zero standing in the student loan case. Again you can claim 100% that the student debt is bullshit and its not right. You still had to find article 3 standing until today. The court announcement today shows they'll take up any case for any reason.
Because he is a hypocrite? To be clear - I am not claiming that he is a fantastic person… I am only arguing that he is probably the most misunderstood prominent Justice since at least Thurgood Marshall or Byrd.
That's a good idea. Now that you have suggested it, I think AG Garland should look into the obvious corruption that's been on display from Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. It hadn't occurred to me before. Seems like something the Attorney General of the United States should investigate, don't you think? Clearly you do. Who better to root out corruption, wherever it may be? Our Attorney General!
The Democrats are not trying to get the Justices to resign, that is a waste of time. If anything they are pointing out the questionable ethics of some Conservative Justices because they believe it will help them politically. Having said that - Thomas did what he did, no one made him or Alito act the way they have acted. Also, there are plenty of Conservative backed special interest groups constantly investigating Democrats. Some of them like Project Veritas actually make up lies to smear Democrats. There are special interest investigative groups on both side. Also, don’t worry, I am sure something against a liberal Justice will come out soon. My guess is probably Sotomayor, but we will see.
Most people believe that if they cannot payback a loan, that they can file bankruptcy. The reality is that this decision potentially could really hurt Republicans. A lot of these Americans are white and have families and middle class - prime for supporting moderate Republicans - but a lot of them will hold it against Republicans now.
Obviously with a 6-3 conservative majority, there are far fewer liberal justices to investigate in this moment… apparently Breyer may also have had trips paid for… who knows with justices of the past… It doesn’t arse me too much. Justices are Yale or Harvard educated lawyers whose friends and acquaintances are the rich, famous and influential who take fancy trips on private jets. It’s standard at that level of society. No big deal. It’s not like I’d expect these people to be hanging out at a public pool with some poors.
Fair enough. My wife owes 20k. Neither of us would mind if it went away. It was never an expectation at any point.
Washington Post editorial board disagrees https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/30/supreme-court-correct-biden-student-loan-plan/ Opinion What the Supreme Court got right about Biden’s student loan plan By the Editorial Board| June 30, 2023 at 5:23 p.m. EDT In August 2022, the Biden administration decreed $379 billion worth of debt forgiveness for 43 million student borrowers, based on its interpretation of a 20-year-old statute clearly intended to authorize only more selective and limited relief. On Friday, a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed with Missouri that this interpretation was too creative and must be voided, though to decide the case, the court resorted to creative interpretation of its own — regarding the state’s standing to sue. In this contest between the imperial executive and the imperial judiciary, Congress was mostly a bystander, though both chambers did recently vote by narrow but bipartisan majorities to overturn President Biden’s plan. (Special rules barred a Senate filibuster.) Mr. Biden vetoed that resolution on June 7. This is not a great moment for the separation of powers. But at least the net effect is positive in policy terms. Mr. Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan was a mistake, and not only because of its high cost and shaky statutory foundation. The plan offered $10,000 for individuals making less than $125,000 a year, and $20,000 for borrowers who were previously recipients of Pell Grants for low-income students. Even so, some $140 billion of the benefit would accrue to relatively well-educated, mostly White students from affluent family backgrounds, according to an analysis by Adam Looney of the Brookings Institution. Every dollar of relief would come from the broader taxpaying public, mostly made up of workers who did not attend or complete college. There’s nothing in it at all for those who saved for college and didn’t borrow. The plan might still have been worthwhile if it came accompanied by structural reforms to the nation’s system for financing higher education. But it did not. After this one-off benefit for current borrowers, new students would have signed up for loans, possibly borrowing even more than they would have otherwise, given that the Biden administration had created the expectation of another debt write-off someday. There would be no incentive for colleges and universities to control the costs that feed rising tuition rates. Unquestionably, the $1.8 trillion in student debt that 43 million people owe represents a burden on household finances for many, and a potential drag on the overall economy. And yet neither effect should be overstated; student debt, at least in part, pays for itself in enhanced human capital, both for individual borrowers and for the economy as a whole. Mr. Biden said Friday that he would seek a “new path” to debt cancellation based on different legal authority, the 1965 Higher Education Act, though he supplied few details — and raised the question why he did not invoke that statute in the first place. Better for Mr. Biden, and everyone else, to focus on proposals that could make a meaningful dent in the cost of higher education. Loans for graduate education, which are currently allowed without limit and make up an increasing share of total student debt, should be capped. The federal government should use its bargaining power to leverage greater cost control by colleges and universities. More student aid should come from means-tested subsidies such as Pell Grants, as opposed to debt. Structural reform should be accomplished urgently — and in the clearest statutory language Congress can write.
