5 ms·
>“When the government does something good for citizens and you can’t make money, that should not be the basis for the standing to sue,” said Persis Yu, deputy e
by yanderekko 3y ago
>“When the government does something good for citizens and you can’t make money, that should not be the basis for the standing to sue,” said Persis Yu, deputy executive director and managing counsel at the Student Borrower Protection Center. “Corporations do not have a right to be profitable.”
Sadly, the predictably insufferable editorial bias of this article prevents the interesting questions from being asked/answered. It's unlikely that SoFi's lawsuit is premised on a "right to be profitable", but instead on actual legal arguments concerning the never-ending moratorium on loan repayment. What are these legal arguments? Guess I'll have to Google it.
[Edit] Looking to other sources, I guess there are actual legal questions regarding who has standing to sue the government for student loan extension. IANAL but having standing to sue and a "right to be profitable" is pretty different..
- lokar 3y agoNot different if their argument for standing is that they can’t get customers.
- yanderekko 3y agoNo, because proving that they can't get customers doesn't mean that they'll win the case. Just that it won't get tossed on standing grounds.
- lokar 3y agoBut that can’t be a cause for standing. Should oil companies have standing to prevent mass transit?
- yanderekko 3y agoI mean, maybe not "mass transit" in the abstract but a lot of specific mass transit policies that directly impact their business? Absolutely. If the lawsuits are frivolous, then there are targeted rules for this that should be invoked.
- wolverine876 3y agoWhat makes their business special that its status quo somehow must be preserved? The status quo isn't a right.
- yanderekko 3y agoAgain, having standing to sue does not mean they'll win the case. They will not win the case by saying "we have a right to profit and the government's policy is subverting this", and the fact that anyone could read the article and come away acting like this is actually their argument just shows what a disservice its bias is doing.
- wolverine876 3y agoSo I can't just think these things myself and have a valid opinion, you must dismiss my views as invalid and having been manipulated by the article. An ironic claim about bias. Also, do you have evidence of the bias you claim, or are you just biased?
- gaganyaan 3y agoReading this thread is bizarre. You're straight-facedly arguing for an absurd position, people point out how absurd it is, and then you double down and defend the absurdity.
- yanderekko 3y agoAlternatively, I'm right and many others are wrong, largely because they're systematically biased based on loosely-applied tribal sentiments about federal government good, private loans bad, and all specific arguments are ad hoc and downstream from this. If you feel like contributing, please bring some arguments to the table. Do you think that SoFi is grounding its legal arguments in a "right to profit"? Do you think a broadly agreed-upon "right to profit" is necessary to generate legal standing in this case? Why?
- 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wolverine876 3y ago> predictably insufferable editorial bias On the Internet, these are always ironic words.
- exabrial 3y ago> insufferable editorial bias well said.