Jump to content

Today we find out if you can refuse to serve gay weddings on religious grounds, and if up to $20k in student loans will be forgiven. UPDATE: 6-3 ruling in favor of religious business owner and against Biden's loan forgiveness

SaysWho?
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jason

Jason

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 Granting a president you like this level of power also grants presidents you don't like the same level of power.

 

Republicans will take whatever power they want regardless of what power Democrats have previously taken. 

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
b_m_b_m_b_m

b_m_b_m_b_m

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Why didn't the President waive all payments if he had that power? 

The heroes act gave the president to modify or waive provisions of loans during a national emergency. He could have. There’s no limiting factor other than the bullshit that Roberts pulled in his opinion by selectively deciding what the word “modify” means. And he ignores the word waive as Kagan points out in her dissent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
b_m_b_m_b_m

b_m_b_m_b_m

Posted
Posted
Quote

And in the HEROES Act, the dominant piece of context is that “modify” does not stand alone. It is one part of a couplet: “waive or modify.” The first verb, as discussed above, means eliminate—usually the most substantial kind of change. See supra, at 15; accord, ante, at 16. So the question becomes: Would Congress have given the Secretary power to wholly eliminate a requirement, as well as to relax it just a little bit, but nothing in between? The majority says yes. But the answer is no, because Congress would not have written so insane a law.

 

So to answer your question yes biden could apparently waive all loans per the interpretation of the majority opinion as given by Kagan in her dissent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mclumber1

mclumber1

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The heroes act gave the president to modify or waive provisions of loans during a national emergency. He could have. There’s no limiting factor other than the bullshit that Roberts pulled in his opinion by selectively deciding what the word “modify” means. And he ignores the word waive as Kagan points out in her dissent. 

 

Surely there has to be some limiting factor for the Heroes Act - could the President "modify" loans in such a way that it doesn't only wipe out some (or all) of the debt AND give cash payouts to everyone who had a federally backed loan?  The government argued during this case before SCOTUS that, people are not "placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial assistance because of” a national emergency."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ort

ort

Posted
Posted

The web developer woman who didn't want to make LGBT wedding sites doesn't even make wedding web sites and was never asked to create a gay wedding site. She just went to court because she really didn't want to just I case it ever came up.

 

This is a complicated topic... because I wouldn't want to make a website for something I didn't believe in either... but if you just change her complaint to her refusing to make a site for an interracial couple and it starts to become more clear why laws actually do need to be involved.

  • Halal 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jwheel86

Jwheel86

Posted
Posted

I didn't read the entire thing but this Robert's argument regarding waive:

 

Quote

Here, the Secretary does not identify any provision that he is actually waiving. No specific provision of the Education Act establishes an obligation on the part of student borrowers to pay back the Government. So as the Government concedes, “waiver”—as used in the HEROES Act—cannot refer to “waiv[ing] loan balances” or “waiving the obligation to repay” on the part of a borrower

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
finaljedi

finaljedi

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ort said:

The web developer woman who didn't want to make LGBT wedding sites doesn't even make wedding web sites and was never asked to create a gay wedding site. She just went to court because she really didn't want to just I case it ever came up.

 

This is a complicated topic... because I wouldn't want to make a website for something I didn't believe in either... but if you just change her complaint to her refusing to make a site for an interracial couple and it starts to become more clear why laws actually do need to be involved.

 

It's not that complicated a topic.  Businesses have less rights than people, they just do.  They have to follow anti-discrimination laws (or did I guess) along with significantly more strict health and safety laws and other regulations that don't apply to regular people.  They decided long ago that "whites only" was not an okay policy for a business to have.  It just kind of breaks down to the fact that if you can't serve the public then you might not have what it takes to be in business for yourself.

  • True 1
  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kal-El814

Kal-El814

Posted
Posted
Just now, TwinIon said:

It's pretty wild that the only thing that gave the plaintiff standing is a fake inquiry and SCOTUS ruled on the case before someone figured that out.

 

Conservatives care MUCH MUCH MORE about imagined, perceived, or hypothetical issues and slights than actual problems. Especially rich coming from the “facts don’t care about your feelings” crowd, but you know… YOLO

  • True 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outsida

outsida

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

It's pretty wild that the only thing that gave the plaintiff standing is a fake inquiry and SCOTUS ruled on the case before someone figured that out.

Checks out, they just needed some plausible pretext to rush this through the courts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
b_m_b_m_b_m

b_m_b_m_b_m

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Surely there has to be some limiting factor for the Heroes Act - could the President "modify" loans in such a way that it doesn't only wipe out some (or all) of the debt AND give cash payouts to everyone who had a federally backed loan?  The government argued during this case before SCOTUS that, people are not "placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial assistance because of” a national emergency."

congress wrote a 'bad' statute but is perfectly legal, this is nothing new, novel, or unique. there's no constitutional question if congress waived the balance, the difference here in congress gave the president the authority to do so in a national emergency. the 'correct' solution is for congress to change the statute and provide some limit or guidance on what it means to 'waive' or 'modify' if they so decide. either way it is in no way the place of the courts to determine or decide on what the limits are as there is a statutory authority for the president to act and there is not a constitutional issue with the statute itself other than under the wholly made up recent power grab by the judiciary that is the Major Questions Doctrine

 

8 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

I didn't read the entire thing but this Robert's argument regarding waive:

 

 

he's simply wrong on the obligation to pay the government back based on the non-dischargability of student debt during bankruptcy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ort

ort

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

So if the original complaint was falsified...what does that legally mean for the ruling?

 

It means if the left wingers did the same thing it would have been good for roughly 70,000 salacious Fox News Articles over the next few months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reputator

Reputator

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Ominous said:

So, since religion is just made up bullshit does that give me rights to just tell anyone I don't like to fuck off because of my strongly held beliefs? 

 

I'm just waiting for someone to say they won't serve blacks or hispanics because it's their religion.

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaysWho?

SaysWho?

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

Not in a place where I could watch this. What was said?


Summary of part of it: “New: President Biden says his admin is introducing a "new path" under the Higher Education Act that will still provide relief "to as many borrowers as possible, as quickly as possible."


The plan will allow Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to "compromise, waive or release loans under certain circumstances." The new approach, according to Biden, will be in a "different law than my original plan."

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...