5 ms·

The Texas court system seems corrupt beyond belief. Same state that just blocked federal student loan debt relief on what appears to be a strictly partisan bas

by naet 4y ago

The Texas court system seems corrupt beyond belief. Same state that just blocked federal student loan debt relief on what appears to be a strictly partisan basis rather than legitimate legal finding.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
It's that pesky Constitution again. The court ruled that Biden can't just spend that kind of money on his own executive order; Congress has to do it. And, you know, reading the Constitution sure makes it look like the court is right on this one.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 4y ago
  It's weird how the court is always correct in its reading of the Constitution when its interpretation favors the ideology one party, and always wrong when it favors the other.
- dataflow 4y ago
  I would love to see a legal analysis of this: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10818#page=2 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10818#pag...
- lovich 4y ago
  Is Congress not allowed to delegate out their power over specific issues?
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    The line item veto was ruled unconstitutional -- congress passed a law to allow the president to veto portions of spending bills but not the entire bill. This was ostensibly done to reduce "pork" spending stuffed into bills. So this is an example of congress trying to delegate a specific, narrow power, but the court basically said "If you want to change separation of powers, then this requires a constitutional amendment. Separation of powers can't be reduced due to one branch voluntarily delegating power to another" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996
    - dataflow 4y ago
      I disagree on that power being "narrow". Being able to veto individual portions of all spending bills in the future (until/unless the Act is repealed) is a pretty broad power as I see it. "Narrow" would have been something like "this bill authorizes spending $X on Y", leaving the executive branch to decide which of those specific authorizations to take advantage of in that specific Act.
      - rsj_hn 4y ago
        > "Narrow" would have been something like "this bill authorizes spending $X on Y", leaving the executive branch to decide which of those specific authorizations to take advantage of in that specific Act. What you describe is how things are generally done, and there is no legal issue here, nor would it be challenged in court. If you are referring to executive order on student loans, then IIRC, some amounts were authorized for student debt forgiveness, but they were not in the same timezone as what the executive order was trying to spend (which was $430 Billion). I know this is an emotional issue for many people and hits their personal finances, but that's a lot of money to spend by executive order. One can even say that the fact that so many people would have their finances improved by this EO is kinda proof that it involves spending a lot of money, it's more than the budgets of the US Airforce and the US Navy added together.
        dataflow 4y ago
        I'm confused. If generally the spending is just an authorization and not mandatory, then what would be the point of a line item veto on that spending? Couldn't the executive avoid that expenditure regardless? (I'm not asking about the student debt issue - I'm asking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996)
        rsj_hn 4y ago
        The President is not a dictator of the executive branch, he is there to execute the law, not set policy that contradicts congressional authorizations, so there are limits on what an EO can do. * First, many agencies are (by law) independent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un... This is now a huge fight, as the administration is trying to also direct independent agencies. See https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/competition-eo-further-blurs-independence-of-agencies/ https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/competition-eo-f... * Second, if the money is given to the states as a grant, there isn't much the Federal government can do to restrict the funds. There were attempts, for example by the Trump administration to withhold money to states that don't cooperate with INS, but those were struck down. There were also attempts by the Biden administration to deprioritize farm aid to white farmers, but these were also struck down. * Third, as the job of the President is to carry out the law rather than set his own policy, if the EO appears to contradict the founding charter of the agency or specific legislation passed by congress, then it can also be struck down. The role of the president in setting policy should be limited to signing or vetoing legislation, not trying to tip a federal agency to go one way or another. Of course no President honors this ideal, they are always trying to affect policy, and the courts are constantly striking down EOs that go too far in that direction. As to pork barrel spending, it's generally money given to states, negotiated by congressmen. It's really hard to stop that kind of spending via executive order. Some of it you can, most you can't. One of the litigants of the line item veto was Robert Byrd, famous for successfully routing huge quantities of pork to Virginia, primarily by relocating every federal office to Virginia, and funding lots of programs for virginia schools, parks, etc. Here are some examples: * Bill to move FBI headquarters to Virginia, building a new office there -- spend up to $X (How will you stop the spending with an EO? Move the headquarters but only build half of the new HQ? The FBI will not like this) * Bill to build a new post office in Virginia, spend up to $X (USPS is supposed to be independent, so hard to block with an EO) * Bill to create a cancer research fund to be given to some Virginia university, that can spend up to $X. Again, you are going to tell the grant review board to turn down all those proposals? That's hard to do, especially if the review board works for an independent agency. But here is stuff that you could do more easily with an EO * Bill to provide up to $X in hurricane relief to qualified home owners. Now maybe you don't spend the full $X. You can set the requirement to screen applicants to be stricter as FEMA is not an independent agency (it used to be, but now under DHS). You have to be careful how you word the EO, but you could get away with spending less. So while there are things the President can do to spend less, it's often quite difficult to do once the legislation is passed.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Maybe they are. Did they? Did Congress pass something saying that the President can forgive student loans at his discretion? More to the point, did Congress say that the President can spend the money to do so?
- Supermancho 4y ago
  > The court ruled that Biden can't I think you should read about the case, which you haven't. The ruling was over someone who wanted in on the forgiveness, not challenging the ability to prescribe it. Laws do not solely reside in the Constitution, even after including Congressional bills. In the USA, laws are only one class of rules that people are subject to. POTUS oversees (directs execution) of various agencies that have their own rules and regulations. These are also, ultimately, controlled by Congress as fast as bills can be passed (which isn't very fast) making POTUS the de-facto controller of the vast majority of actions these agencies take (usually, by proxy). To say it's unconstitutional, requires that any Presidential action to affect regulation must be approved by Congress. Congress can craft a bill to override it. Unconstitutional usually means that it affects the rights of individuals unduly. This is not the case.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Yeah, thanks for assuming the best about me. Your last paragraph has lots of words, but completely misses the point. The ruling said that the President can't spend the money without Congressional authorization. That is what makes it unconstitutional - the President can't spend money by executive order unless it's previously authorized.
    - Supermancho 4y ago
      > but completely misses the point. It does not. You think the point is to reiterate what's already been said. > The ruling said that the President can't spend the money without Congressional authorization. The ruling is an interpretation that makes no sense on its face, which is not unusual for many courts. The President isn't spending money. He doesn't literally write a check. Direction (executive branch) has costs associated with actions. He certainly can direct from a written order. The line of thinking from the ruling is paradoxical. If congress was required to have an audit of the costs for any action POTUS (or any part of the executive) took, that would incur a cost, effectively removing the power of the Executive and miring the process in recursion hell without recourse. Currently, the legislative still has recourse, but the ruling directly mentions that the ruling is a critique about Constitutionality being breached between the branches without any relation to the case at hand. Note the ruling, in effect, was against the plaintiffs who were funded by people interested in challenging the law. All parties, being politically motivated, is what makes it a political ruling, which is not unusual, despite the reasoning.
rayiner 4y ago
The Spending Clause pretty clearly says that Congress, not the President, gets to spend the government's money. Forgiving a debt for previously paid money is not exactly the same as spending new money, but it seems pretty close. Contrast that with, for example, abortion. Was Roe a "legitimate legal finding" to you? Show me where in the Constitution it says there's a right to that? There's definitely Supreme Court decisions where conservatives act on a partisan basis rather than based on legal reasoning. Gonzales v. Raich, the homegrown cannabis case, is a good example. But it's quite bizarre to criticize conservative judges for being "partisan" when liberals don't even try to hide the fact that they read the Constitution according to "how they want it to be."
- krapp 4y ago
  Where is the Supreme Court's right of judicial review defined in the Constitution? I'll save you the trouble - it isn't. The court just made it up.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    This is a popular fringe argument that is flimsy enough to be practically disqualifying. Judicial review was established in the time of the framers, smack in the middle of the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, and is discussed in the Federalist Papers. It's as solid a component of the American system as anything else is.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      I don't know about "disqualifying" but it does dredge up a pretty old Federalist/Anti-Federalist beef: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._78 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._78.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        ... aligning with the Anti-Federalists more or less confirms that you're operating in an alternative universe, doesn't it? Not that they're wrong, but they're the opponents of the Constitution.
freejazz 4y ago
Texas AG suing other states on a flatly unconstitutional legal theory in order to try and stop the peaceful transition of power from the Trump to Biden admins
tristan957 4y ago
Partisan basis is becoming "what the other side of the aisle" disagrees/agrees with. What was your actual issue with the judge's ruling?
- humanistbot 4y ago
  The argument was that someone who took out private loans was denied benefits that were given to those who took out government loans. The judge completely ignored issues of whether the plaintiff had standing to sue, which they clearly did not. The plaintiff did receive over $40k in forgiven PPP loans for their business, which just adds to the hypocrisy.

by naet 4y ago

The Texas court system seems corrupt beyond belief. Same state that just blocked federal student loan debt relief on what appears to be a strictly partisan basis rather than legitimate legal finding.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

It's that pesky Constitution again. The court ruled that Biden can't just spend that kind of money on his own executive order; Congress has to do it. And, you know, reading the Constitution sure makes it look like the court is right on this one.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
krapp 4y ago
It's weird how the court is always correct in its reading of the Constitution when its interpretation favors the ideology one party, and always wrong when it favors the other.
dataflow 4y ago
I would love to see a legal analysis of this: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10818#page=2 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10818#pag...
lovich 4y ago
Is Congress not allowed to delegate out their power over specific issues?
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  The line item veto was ruled unconstitutional -- congress passed a law to allow the president to veto portions of spending bills but not the entire bill. This was ostensibly done to reduce "pork" spending stuffed into bills. So this is an example of congress trying to delegate a specific, narrow power, but the court basically said "If you want to change separation of powers, then this requires a constitutional amendment. Separation of powers can't be reduced due to one branch voluntarily delegating power to another" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996
  - dataflow 4y ago
    I disagree on that power being "narrow". Being able to veto individual portions of all spending bills in the future (until/unless the Act is repealed) is a pretty broad power as I see it. "Narrow" would have been something like "this bill authorizes spending $X on Y", leaving the executive branch to decide which of those specific authorizations to take advantage of in that specific Act.
    - rsj_hn 4y ago
      > "Narrow" would have been something like "this bill authorizes spending $X on Y", leaving the executive branch to decide which of those specific authorizations to take advantage of in that specific Act. What you describe is how things are generally done, and there is no legal issue here, nor would it be challenged in court. If you are referring to executive order on student loans, then IIRC, some amounts were authorized for student debt forgiveness, but they were not in the same timezone as what the executive order was trying to spend (which was $430 Billion). I know this is an emotional issue for many people and hits their personal finances, but that's a lot of money to spend by executive order. One can even say that the fact that so many people would have their finances improved by this EO is kinda proof that it involves spending a lot of money, it's more than the budgets of the US Airforce and the US Navy added together.
      - dataflow 4y ago
        I'm confused. If generally the spending is just an authorization and not mandatory, then what would be the point of a line item veto on that spending? Couldn't the executive avoid that expenditure regardless? (I'm not asking about the student debt issue - I'm asking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996)
        rsj_hn 4y ago
        The President is not a dictator of the executive branch, he is there to execute the law, not set policy that contradicts congressional authorizations, so there are limits on what an EO can do. * First, many agencies are (by law) independent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un... This is now a huge fight, as the administration is trying to also direct independent agencies. See https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/competition-eo-further-blurs-independence-of-agencies/ https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/competition-eo-f... * Second, if the money is given to the states as a grant, there isn't much the Federal government can do to restrict the funds. There were attempts, for example by the Trump administration to withhold money to states that don't cooperate with INS, but those were struck down. There were also attempts by the Biden administration to deprioritize farm aid to white farmers, but these were also struck down. * Third, as the job of the President is to carry out the law rather than set his own policy, if the EO appears to contradict the founding charter of the agency or specific legislation passed by congress, then it can also be struck down. The role of the president in setting policy should be limited to signing or vetoing legislation, not trying to tip a federal agency to go one way or another. Of course no President honors this ideal, they are always trying to affect policy, and the courts are constantly striking down EOs that go too far in that direction. As to pork barrel spending, it's generally money given to states, negotiated by congressmen. It's really hard to stop that kind of spending via executive order. Some of it you can, most you can't. One of the litigants of the line item veto was Robert Byrd, famous for successfully routing huge quantities of pork to Virginia, primarily by relocating every federal office to Virginia, and funding lots of programs for virginia schools, parks, etc. Here are some examples: * Bill to move FBI headquarters to Virginia, building a new office there -- spend up to $X (How will you stop the spending with an EO? Move the headquarters but only build half of the new HQ? The FBI will not like this) * Bill to build a new post office in Virginia, spend up to $X (USPS is supposed to be independent, so hard to block with an EO) * Bill to create a cancer research fund to be given to some Virginia university, that can spend up to $X. Again, you are going to tell the grant review board to turn down all those proposals? That's hard to do, especially if the review board works for an independent agency. But here is stuff that you could do more easily with an EO * Bill to provide up to $X in hurricane relief to qualified home owners. Now maybe you don't spend the full $X. You can set the requirement to screen applicants to be stricter as FEMA is not an independent agency (it used to be, but now under DHS). You have to be careful how you word the EO, but you could get away with spending less. So while there are things the President can do to spend less, it's often quite difficult to do once the legislation is passed.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Maybe they are. Did they? Did Congress pass something saying that the President can forgive student loans at his discretion? More to the point, did Congress say that the President can spend the money to do so?
Supermancho 4y ago
> The court ruled that Biden can't I think you should read about the case, which you haven't. The ruling was over someone who wanted in on the forgiveness, not challenging the ability to prescribe it. Laws do not solely reside in the Constitution, even after including Congressional bills. In the USA, laws are only one class of rules that people are subject to. POTUS oversees (directs execution) of various agencies that have their own rules and regulations. These are also, ultimately, controlled by Congress as fast as bills can be passed (which isn't very fast) making POTUS the de-facto controller of the vast majority of actions these agencies take (usually, by proxy). To say it's unconstitutional, requires that any Presidential action to affect regulation must be approved by Congress. Congress can craft a bill to override it. Unconstitutional usually means that it affects the rights of individuals unduly. This is not the case.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Yeah, thanks for assuming the best about me. Your last paragraph has lots of words, but completely misses the point. The ruling said that the President can't spend the money without Congressional authorization. That is what makes it unconstitutional - the President can't spend money by executive order unless it's previously authorized.
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    > but completely misses the point. It does not. You think the point is to reiterate what's already been said. > The ruling said that the President can't spend the money without Congressional authorization. The ruling is an interpretation that makes no sense on its face, which is not unusual for many courts. The President isn't spending money. He doesn't literally write a check. Direction (executive branch) has costs associated with actions. He certainly can direct from a written order. The line of thinking from the ruling is paradoxical. If congress was required to have an audit of the costs for any action POTUS (or any part of the executive) took, that would incur a cost, effectively removing the power of the Executive and miring the process in recursion hell without recourse. Currently, the legislative still has recourse, but the ruling directly mentions that the ruling is a critique about Constitutionality being breached between the branches without any relation to the case at hand. Note the ruling, in effect, was against the plaintiffs who were funded by people interested in challenging the law. All parties, being politically motivated, is what makes it a political ruling, which is not unusual, despite the reasoning.

rayiner 4y ago

The Spending Clause pretty clearly says that Congress, not the President, gets to spend the government's money. Forgiving a debt for previously paid money is not exactly the same as spending new money, but it seems pretty close. Contrast that with, for example, abortion. Was Roe a "legitimate legal finding" to you? Show me where in the Constitution it says there's a right to that? There's definitely Supreme Court decisions where conservatives act on a partisan basis rather than based on legal reasoning. Gonzales v. Raich, the homegrown cannabis case, is a good example. But it's quite bizarre to criticize conservative judges for being "partisan" when liberals don't even try to hide the fact that they read the Constitution according to "how they want it to be."

krapp 4y ago
Where is the Supreme Court's right of judicial review defined in the Constitution? I'll save you the trouble - it isn't. The court just made it up.
- tptacek 4y ago
  This is a popular fringe argument that is flimsy enough to be practically disqualifying. Judicial review was established in the time of the framers, smack in the middle of the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, and is discussed in the Federalist Papers. It's as solid a component of the American system as anything else is.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    I don't know about "disqualifying" but it does dredge up a pretty old Federalist/Anti-Federalist beef: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._78 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._78.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      ... aligning with the Anti-Federalists more or less confirms that you're operating in an alternative universe, doesn't it? Not that they're wrong, but they're the opponents of the Constitution.

freejazz 4y ago

Texas AG suing other states on a flatly unconstitutional legal theory in order to try and stop the peaceful transition of power from the Trump to Biden admins

tristan957 4y ago

Partisan basis is becoming "what the other side of the aisle" disagrees/agrees with. What was your actual issue with the judge's ruling?

humanistbot 4y ago
The argument was that someone who took out private loans was denied benefits that were given to those who took out government loans. The judge completely ignored issues of whether the plaintiff had standing to sue, which they clearly did not. The plaintiff did receive over $40k in forgiven PPP loans for their business, which just adds to the hypocrisy.