The proposed debt cancellation of more than $400 billion would have been one of the most expensive executive actions in U.S. history and affects tens of millions of borrowers.
Doesn’t this set the precedent that you don’t have to be directly or indirectly harmed? I feel like this is the most dangerous part of the ruling and I haven’t seen much discussion about it.
Imagine someone gets injured at a restaurant, so they could file a suit for negligence. But instead, I sue the restaurant, even though I wasn’t there and I’m not related or involved. Isn’t that what they just opened up?
It definitely opens the door for a lot more frivolous litigation, though you could state that Texas kicked that door open with their vigilante abortion laws…
Doesn’t this set the precedent that you don’t have to be directly or indirectly harmed? I feel like this is the most dangerous part of the ruling and I haven’t seen much discussion about it.
Imagine someone gets injured at a restaurant, so they could file a suit for negligence. But instead, I sue the restaurant, even though I wasn’t there and I’m not related or involved. Isn’t that what they just opened up?
It definitely opens the door for a lot more frivolous litigation, though you could state that Texas kicked that door open with their vigilante abortion laws…