The U.S Supreme Court on Friday was set to rule on the legality of President Joe Biden’s plan to cancel $430 billion in student loan debt - a move intended to benefit up to 43 million Americans and fulfill a campaign promise.

  • bedrooms
    link
    fedilink
    28
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    In no other country would anyone wonder if it’s unconstitutional. It’s not the judges’ business to forgive school loans. You US guys have to stop try EVERY DAMN THING at Supreme Court. They’re just permanent unelected lawmakers at this point.

    • BraveSirZaphod
      link
      fedilink
      111 year ago

      It’s a genuine legal question that’s being decided, because the legal foundation of the loan forgiveness is shaky, at best. Biden had openly said as much.

      You’re correct that it’s not the judges’ business to forgive loans, and that’s not what’s happening. They’re deciding whether the Executive actually has the legal authority to do it or not. You’re only hearing about a bunch of cases in the past few days because SCOTUS releases decisions in batches, with a large wave coming each June.

      • jon
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        The problem is that this should be the job of congress to pass a student debt relief bill. But congress can’t come together to decide what color the sky is much less major economic reform.

    • @BioDriver
      link
      English
      161 year ago

      This point is being grossly overlooked. If the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs it will set a very irresponsible precedent and will open Pandora’s box of lawsuits

      • LegendofDragoon
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Can student loan borrowers file a class action against Missouri and Nebraska? We have more standing than they had after all. Had they not filed their lawsuit we would all have up to 20k less in debt.

    • @xHoudek
      link
      101 year ago

      So if they vote to cancel the student debt forgiveness, that means I can sue to cancel PPP loan forgiveness, right?

      Right??

      • @BioDriver
        link
        English
        31 year ago

        Or he’ll, just sue to cancel all debt

    • ninjirate
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      As a non american last I heard about this some business owners are suing because they didn’t take out any students loans and thus wouldn’t be eligible for the forgiveness right?

      Does that mean if the SCOTUS sides against the forgiveness then others would be able to sue to get the forgiven business loans to be paid back?

    • deaconblue
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      And it was. I have heard that the phrase, “May you live in interesting times” was at one time used as a curse. Can sorta see why

  • Ragnell
    link
    fedilink
    141 year ago

    Anyone else notice they always front-load the good decisions like protecting the ICWA, and wait on stuff like killing Roe until the last releases of their session? I don’t have high hopes for this.

  • Haus
    link
    fedilink
    121 year ago

    Anybody else feel like they’re in the middle of a high-stakes craps game?

  • Yewb
    link
    fedilink
    12
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “SoRrY GuYS wE tRiEd!”

    Its all political theater at this point.

  • @Countmacula
    link
    8
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sadly with a conservative majority in the court, this is a done deal :(

    Edit: Called it

    • starstough
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      UGH. Missouri has standing int eh second case. fuck. Welp. Screwed.

      • admiralteal
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The 6 Republican states had even less actual standing. They were suing on behalf of a private company that did not have the legal right to sue. A private company that was not harmed by student loan forgiveness. Based on the idea that, if this private company is harmed, it MAY harm the states.

        It would be like a Bank suing Mcdonald’s for firing someone who owed money to the bank. “You can’t fire him! That will hurt his ability to repay the loan he has to us!” Ignoring the fact that the guy hadn’t worked a shift in over a year and had another job. Not to even mention that none of the relevant states had made any substantial effort to collect payments on those loans prior to this. It’s utterly preposterous. It doesn’t even pass a common sense test, much less any reasonable definition of legal standing. It’s wholly illegitimate and partisan to allow that case to proceed.