i love this game of semantics. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45113.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45113.pdf "Even though Section 523(a)(8) renders student

i love this game of semantics. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45113.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45113.pdf "Even though Section 523(a)(8) renders student loans presumptively nondischargeable, however, it does not render them completely nondischargeable". italics not mine. so it is all but nondischargeable. "Even though Section 523(a)(8) renders student loans presumptively nondischargeable, however, it does not render them completely nondischargeable. Section 523(a)(8) as currently written allows a debtor to discharge a student loan if “excepting such debt from discharge . . . would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents.” 33 In order to discharge a student loan on undue hardship grounds, the debtor must ordinarily file a separate complaint against the creditor holding the student loan debt. 34 The debtor must then prove by a preponderance of the evidence that repaying the student loan would impose an undue hardship on him" BUT "The Bankruptcy Code does not define “undue hardship,” 72 and the legislative history of Section 523 does not precisely specify how courts should determine whether a debtor qualifies for an undue hardship discharge." i.e. it's not written into law. it is stare decisis on the other hand that the brunner test can be used. note i do not have student loans (i.e. no dog in this fight) but i do believe it is disingenuous to make it seem more straightforward to discharge student loan debt than it actually is. the reason this person's discharge is newsworthy is exactly because of how exceptional it is.