4 ms·
Who said anything about Roe? The student debt case: perfectly clear law passed by Congress and overturned by SCOTUS in very tenuous grounds with a plaintiff th
by eli 3y ago
Who said anything about Roe?
The student debt case: perfectly clear law passed by Congress and overturned by SCOTUS in very tenuous grounds with a plaintiff that never even had proper standing.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoIf Congress actually passed a law clearly forgiving student debt, it's very unlikely they'd have overturned it.
- eli 3y agoI see no reason to believe that. There is a law. It authorized the education dept to “waive or modify” loan provisions. But somehow the court ruled that that means only minor changes are permitted. Obviously this isn’t what Congress intended - waiving entire provisions could of course result in major changes. The entire “major questions” doctrine is a farce. It’s not in a law. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s an invention of the court. And again: the case never should have been heard. The litigant had no standing. The motivation here is SCOTUS striking down a policy they don’t like.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago> I see no reason to believe that. Conservatives don't really like the federal Department of Education, but there is no question that Congress passed a law creating it. Why do you think they would strike down this but not that? > There is a law. It authorized the education dept to “waive or modify” loan provisions. But somehow the court ruled that that means only minor changes are permitted. Obviously this isn’t what Congress intended - waiving entire provisions could of course result in major changes. Under that reading they could waive the entire law and forgive everybody's loans, making any other provisions moot. If that's what Congress wanted then why would they pass a law allowing them to "waive or modify" loan provisions, implying that they contemplated the continued existence of loans, rather than just passing a loan forgiveness bill to begin with? > The entire “major questions” doctrine is a farce. It’s not in a law. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s an invention of the court. The Court interprets the law. The "major questions" doctrine announces how they intend to interpret the laws Congress passes. It was already a thing when the bill in question was passed. Congress therefore knew that if they intended the law to grant the power to do something like that, they would have to spell it out explicitly, and then they didn't, implying that wasn't what they intended. Also, just think about it. If that bill had the words "including the power to forgive all student loans" appended to the bottom, do you think it would have passed? If not, it's because those words would have changed the expected consequence of the law, right?
- rpmisms 3y agoThat's absolute nonsense. Biden abused a law that did not say what he said it said. If you can't get Congress to pass a law, you don't get to do the thing. At the risk of a cliché, Biden's student debt forgiveness strategy was dangerous to democracy.
- eli 3y agoSorry but this is just plain wrong. Congress authorized the secretary of education to waive or modify any loan provision. If you are concerned about the rule of law you should be upset that the Supreme Court even heard a case so obviously lacking standing. Nobody was harmed by this policy so conservative groups had to invent a fictional harm just to get the case heard.
- baggy_trough 3y agoThe entire “standing” doctrine is a farce. It’s not in a law. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s an invention of the court.
- eli 3y agoIt’s in Article III. There’s debate as to where the line is for something to be a “controversy” but there’s no debate that there is a line.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago> Nobody was harmed by this policy If nobody is harmed then why do you suppose anyone wanted to prevent it? Why don't we just continuously forgive all debts of any kind?
- eli 3y agoPartisan politics, mostly. It was a Biden campaign promise. The party allegedly harmed, MOHELA, didn’t think they were harmed and didn’t want to participate in the case. The court let the state of Missouri stand in for them even though it’s even harder to see how they have standing. You tell me: who is harmed by students owing less is student loans?