3 ms·

Kagan's dissent says everything that needs to be said. > That is why the Court is supposed to stick to its business—to decide only cases and controversies (bu

Kagan's dissent says everything that needs to be said. > That is why the Court is supposed to stick to its business—to decide only cases and controversies (but see supra, at 3–13), and to stay away from making this Nation’s policy about subjects like student-loan relief. The policy judgments, under our separation of powers, are supposed to come from Congress and the President. But they don’t when the Court refuses to respect the full scope of the delegations that Congress makes to the Executive Branch. When that happens, the Court becomes the arbiter—indeed, the maker—of national policy. See West Virginia, 597 U. S., at ___ (KAGAN, J., dis- senting) (slip op., at 32) (“The Court, rather than Congress, will decide how much regulation is too much”). That is no proper role for a court. And it is a danger to a democratic order.

jadamson 3y ago
If Congress wants to give the President the power to forgive student loans, they will surely do so explicitly.
- oofta-boofta 3y ago
  [dead]
- cogman10 3y ago
  Not what Kagen was saying. The court is only supposed to decide things when someone has been injured. Who was injured in this case? The issue here is one of standing. The litigant had no standing, this case shouldn't have been heard by the supreme court. Or the hearing should have literally been "you have no standing". Now, if congress feels like Joe Biden stepped out of line, THEY could have sued him. That would have been the proper course of action. Here, the court has issued an advisory opinion, which is not it's role nor power. The court is out of line here.
  - zeroonetwothree 3y ago
    Missouri would have been injured because repayment of loans would provides them with income, which will now decrease. It seems fairly straightforward.
  - jadamson 3y ago
    Kagan* explicitly references the court "[refusing] to respect the full scope of the delegations that Congress makes to the Executive Branch", which is simply not what happened. Congress did not delegate that power to the executive. It's odd to get something so fundamentally incorrect and go "trust me bro" when it comes to the issue of standing. Apart from anything else, has she never heard the maxim "stick to one lie at a time"?
  - slooonz 3y ago
    > The court is only supposed to decide things when someone has been injured. Who was injured in this case? It’s literally the first point held. "Here, as the Government concedes, the Secretary’s plan would cost MOHELA, a nonprofit government corporation created by Missouri to participate in the student loan market, an estimated $44 million a year in fees".
    - Drunk_Engineer 3y ago
      Actually, MOHELA specifically said it was not harmed by the loan forgiveness and wanted nothing to do with the case. This is why many are baffled by the Court's decision to ignore Standing.
      - jadamson 3y ago
        MOHELA said no such thing, although it's apparent that many of their employees were against the case. The case was filed by the Missouri AG, who doesn't require every (or indeed any) individual employee of MOHELA to agree in order to prove harm to the state of Missouri.
        Drunk_Engineer 3y ago
        "In Supreme Court oral arguments, it was revealed that MOHELA hasn’t made a contribution to that fund in 15 years...Furthermore, an analysis from the Roosevelt Institute and the Debt Collective shows that MOHELA stands to gain revenue if debt cancellation goes forward." The Student Loan Case’s Unwilling Participant (https://prospect.org/justice/2023-06-19-student-loan-cancellation-supreme-court-mohela https://prospect.org/justice/2023-06-19-student-loan-cancell...)
        jadamson 3y ago
        So they didn't say they were not harmed, not even in those internal emails (which are pearl-clutching about the optics of the situation). After that, what we have left is an analysis by a third party which has been ripped to shreds: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/06/new-report-on-state-state-standing-in-student-loan-case-comes-up-a-few-dollars-short/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/06/new-report-on-state-sta... When Adler says that the report is "carefully worded", what he means is that it is designed to mislead, and he's right. > The authors of the report are essentially trying to argue that because MOHELA revenues are higher than they used to be, it does not matter that, without loan cancellation, they would be higher still. Edit: Volokh -> Adler
potency 3y ago
It doesn't, because 6 justices agreed with the majority opinion rather than her interpretation.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  And surely THESE justices are the magically right ones! The supreme court is made up of people, and a significant amount of it's current people have very specific ideologies from very specific institutions. Why is it clear the opinion crafted by that institution is the "correct" one?
WalterBright 3y ago
> And it is a danger to a democratic order. Quite the reverse. Congress needs to vote on a spending bill that large. Biden is President, not King, and Congress cannot make him King. If you hire a plumber to fix your toilet, and said "bill me whatever for it", and the plumber charges you a million bucks, I bet that wouldn't hold up in court, either. IANAL, but laws never lay things down precisely (it's impossible), and the entire purpose of the Judiciary is to provide reasonable interpretations of it. “That may have been a good idea, or it may have been a bad idea. Either way, it was what Congress said” writes Justice Kagan, in dissent to this principle.
- cogman10 3y ago
  Congress should have sued biden. That's the problem here. Instead, here we have a bank suing because of government spending? How does that work? How was the bank harmed by loan forgiveness away from the bank? Congress can sue and if they feel like the president is misinterpreting the law it's their job to sue. Letting something like this get decided via an uninterested 3rd party is what's dangerous. What's next, can military contractors sue if we cut military spending? Can insurance agencies sue if we pass universal healthcare? Can they sue now over medicaid? What's happened here is you hired a plumber to fix your toilet. He did just that, but then when it came time for the bill he said "You know what, nm, I'm not going to charge you for that". However, karen next door got charged for her plumbing so obviously she took the plumber to court for not forgiving her plumbing bill. How does that make sense? The plumbing company has the power to fire the plumber or sue him and recover the cost of that bill. But they chose not to because forgiving bills looks good.
meragrin_ 3y ago
Yes she did: > The Secretary’s authority was bounded: He could do only what was “necessary” to alleviate the emergency’s impact on affected borrowers’ ability to repay their student loans. It was not "necessary" to forgive the loans.
- tracker1 3y ago
  Agreed, they well could have suspended interest and payments for a given time period to be revisited. It would have been difficult to combat such a relief with a given lifetime. That time could even have been as broad as say 5 years in order to get a more permanent solution in place. Likely still would have seen pushback, but at least a better legal footing. It isn't the SCOTUS role to give people what they want, it's to determine legality under the framework of the constitution.

jadamson 3y ago

If Congress wants to give the President the power to forgive student loans, they will surely do so explicitly.

oofta-boofta 3y ago
[dead]
cogman10 3y ago
Not what Kagen was saying. The court is only supposed to decide things when someone has been injured. Who was injured in this case? The issue here is one of standing. The litigant had no standing, this case shouldn't have been heard by the supreme court. Or the hearing should have literally been "you have no standing". Now, if congress feels like Joe Biden stepped out of line, THEY could have sued him. That would have been the proper course of action. Here, the court has issued an advisory opinion, which is not it's role nor power. The court is out of line here.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  Missouri would have been injured because repayment of loans would provides them with income, which will now decrease. It seems fairly straightforward.
- jadamson 3y ago
  Kagan* explicitly references the court "[refusing] to respect the full scope of the delegations that Congress makes to the Executive Branch", which is simply not what happened. Congress did not delegate that power to the executive. It's odd to get something so fundamentally incorrect and go "trust me bro" when it comes to the issue of standing. Apart from anything else, has she never heard the maxim "stick to one lie at a time"?
- slooonz 3y ago
  > The court is only supposed to decide things when someone has been injured. Who was injured in this case? It’s literally the first point held. "Here, as the Government concedes, the Secretary’s plan would cost MOHELA, a nonprofit government corporation created by Missouri to participate in the student loan market, an estimated $44 million a year in fees".
  - Drunk_Engineer 3y ago
    Actually, MOHELA specifically said it was not harmed by the loan forgiveness and wanted nothing to do with the case. This is why many are baffled by the Court's decision to ignore Standing.
    - jadamson 3y ago
      MOHELA said no such thing, although it's apparent that many of their employees were against the case. The case was filed by the Missouri AG, who doesn't require every (or indeed any) individual employee of MOHELA to agree in order to prove harm to the state of Missouri.
      - Drunk_Engineer 3y ago
        "In Supreme Court oral arguments, it was revealed that MOHELA hasn’t made a contribution to that fund in 15 years...Furthermore, an analysis from the Roosevelt Institute and the Debt Collective shows that MOHELA stands to gain revenue if debt cancellation goes forward." The Student Loan Case’s Unwilling Participant (https://prospect.org/justice/2023-06-19-student-loan-cancellation-supreme-court-mohela https://prospect.org/justice/2023-06-19-student-loan-cancell...)
        jadamson 3y ago
        So they didn't say they were not harmed, not even in those internal emails (which are pearl-clutching about the optics of the situation). After that, what we have left is an analysis by a third party which has been ripped to shreds: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/06/new-report-on-state-state-standing-in-student-loan-case-comes-up-a-few-dollars-short/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/06/new-report-on-state-sta... When Adler says that the report is "carefully worded", what he means is that it is designed to mislead, and he's right. > The authors of the report are essentially trying to argue that because MOHELA revenues are higher than they used to be, it does not matter that, without loan cancellation, they would be higher still. Edit: Volokh -> Adler

potency 3y ago

It doesn't, because 6 justices agreed with the majority opinion rather than her interpretation.

mrguyorama 3y ago
And surely THESE justices are the magically right ones! The supreme court is made up of people, and a significant amount of it's current people have very specific ideologies from very specific institutions. Why is it clear the opinion crafted by that institution is the "correct" one?

WalterBright 3y ago

> And it is a danger to a democratic order. Quite the reverse. Congress needs to vote on a spending bill that large. Biden is President, not King, and Congress cannot make him King. If you hire a plumber to fix your toilet, and said "bill me whatever for it", and the plumber charges you a million bucks, I bet that wouldn't hold up in court, either. IANAL, but laws never lay things down precisely (it's impossible), and the entire purpose of the Judiciary is to provide reasonable interpretations of it. “That may have been a good idea, or it may have been a bad idea. Either way, it was what Congress said” writes Justice Kagan, in dissent to this principle.

cogman10 3y ago
Congress should have sued biden. That's the problem here. Instead, here we have a bank suing because of government spending? How does that work? How was the bank harmed by loan forgiveness away from the bank? Congress can sue and if they feel like the president is misinterpreting the law it's their job to sue. Letting something like this get decided via an uninterested 3rd party is what's dangerous. What's next, can military contractors sue if we cut military spending? Can insurance agencies sue if we pass universal healthcare? Can they sue now over medicaid? What's happened here is you hired a plumber to fix your toilet. He did just that, but then when it came time for the bill he said "You know what, nm, I'm not going to charge you for that". However, karen next door got charged for her plumbing so obviously she took the plumber to court for not forgiving her plumbing bill. How does that make sense? The plumbing company has the power to fire the plumber or sue him and recover the cost of that bill. But they chose not to because forgiving bills looks good.

meragrin_ 3y ago

Yes she did: > The Secretary’s authority was bounded: He could do only what was “necessary” to alleviate the emergency’s impact on affected borrowers’ ability to repay their student loans. It was not "necessary" to forgive the loans.

tracker1 3y ago
Agreed, they well could have suspended interest and payments for a given time period to be revisited. It would have been difficult to combat such a relief with a given lifetime. That time could even have been as broad as say 5 years in order to get a more permanent solution in place. Likely still would have seen pushback, but at least a better legal footing. It isn't the SCOTUS role to give people what they want, it's to determine legality under the framework of the constitution.