If a president had done what Biden did with student loans but instead for the wealthy

[marvin martian]

The supreme court would have OKed it. That is the court we will look at for the next 30 years unless we do something about it. I'm not just responding to the decisions that they have made already, I'm also including the decision that they, without a doubt, will be doing in the future. Any approach they use to correct the poison in the supreme court now is acceptable to me . Trump selected these people not in any way by merit, but by them being willing to be controlled by him. And when Trump is gone, these type of Justices will decide by the highest bidder. That's the court that the hate party wants , one that will perpetuate their ugliness and control. The courts fit into the right wing of today, adds them to the list of this countries biggest threat and enemy. The right exist for one reason now, and that is simply the transfer of all the new wealth to the golden few at the top

Cool story, bro.

 

[Billiejeens]

What a great day!!

This is why they hate President Trump

 

[Winston]

Yeah, like to see where you're getting those facts?

Kagan's dissent

As in other recent cases, the rules of the game change when Congress enacts broad delegations allowing agencies to take substantial regulatory measures. See, e.g., West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U. S. ___ (2022). Then, as in this case, the Court reads statutes unnaturally, seeking to cabin their evident scope. And the Court applies heightened-specificity requirements, thwarting Congress’s efforts to ensure adequate responses to unforeseen events. The result here is that the Court substitutes itself for Congress and the Executive Branch in making national policy about student-loan forgiveness. Congress authorized the forgiveness plan (among many other actions); the Secretary put it in place; and the President would have been accountable.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf

 

[22lcidw]

We forgave the debt of banks and auto companies after the Great Bush Recession of 2008

Banks are too big to fail……College Students are not

The people suffering the inflation need the help more. Increase the deductions and up the brackets along with inflation adjustment.

 

[Winston]

You and other libs lash out because you can't comprehend the constitution. You hate it.

That is horseshit. Understand the Constitution?

The Court’s first overreach in this case is deciding it at all. Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must have standing to challenge a government action. And that requires a personal stake—an injury in fact. We do not allow plaintiffs to bring suit just because they oppose a policy. Neither do we allow plaintiffs to rely on injuries suffered by others. Those rules may sound technical, but they enforce “fundamental limits on federal judicial power.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750 (1984). They keep courts acting like courts. Or stated the other way around, they prevent courts from acting like this Court does today. The plaintiffs in this case are six States that have no personal stake in the Secretary’s loan forgiveness plan. They are classic ideological plaintiffs: They think the plan a very bad idea, but they are no worse off because the Secretary differs. In giving those States a forum—in adjudicating their complaint— the Court forgets its proper role. The Court acts as though it is an arbiter of political and policy disputes, rather than of cases and controversies.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf

 

[LordBrownTrout]

That is horseshit. Understand the Constitution?

The Court’s first overreach in this case is deciding it at all. Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must have standing to challenge a government action. And that requires a personal stake—an injury in fact. We do not allow plaintiffs to bring suit just because they oppose a policy. Neither do we allow plaintiffs to rely on injuries suffered by others. Those rules may sound technical, but they enforce “fundamental limits on federal judicial power.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750 (1984). They keep courts acting like courts. Or stated the other way around, they prevent courts from acting like this Court does today. The plaintiffs in this case are six States that have no personal stake in the Secretary’s loan forgiveness plan. They are classic ideological plaintiffs: They think the plan a very bad idea, but they are no worse off because the Secretary differs. In giving those States a forum—in adjudicating their complaint— the Court forgets its proper role. The Court acts as though it is an arbiter of political and policy disputes, rather than of cases and controversies.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf

Uh no.

 

[Magnus]

Based on what evidence?

Accepting gifts and free trips on the company plane without reporting it doesn't really inspire confidence.

Billionaire Crow's gifts to Clarence Thomas:
1. $500,000 Indonesian vacation on a private jet and a superyacht.
2. Buying Thomas's mother's house and spending another few tens of thousands to fix it and let her live free

Neil Gorsuch - had been trying for some time in 2017 to unload a 40-acre property he co-owned in Colorado. Nine days after he was confirmed to the Supreme Court, the property was purchased by the CEO of a law firm that has had numerous cases before the court — and whose clients Gorsuch has sided with much more often than not.

Gorsuch disclosed that he made between $250,000 and $500,000 off of the sale, but he left blank the box that would have informed the public of the identity of the person who paid the money, and who had a lot of lucrative business that Gorsuch would preside over, Politico reported.

Samuel Alito accepted a seat on a private plane owned by the conservative billionaire Paul Singer, flying to Alaska for a luxury fishing trip hosted by another rightwing businessman, then did not declare such gifts or recuse himself when Singer had business before the court.

 

[Meister]

Kagan's dissent

As in other recent cases, the rules of the game change when Congress enacts broad delegations allowing agencies to take substantial regulatory measures. See, e.g., West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U. S. ___ (2022). Then, as in this case, the Court reads statutes unnaturally, seeking to cabin their evident scope. And the Court applies heightened-specificity requirements, thwarting Congress’s efforts to ensure adequate responses to unforeseen events. The result here is that the Court substitutes itself for Congress and the Executive Branch in making national policy about student-loan forgiveness. Congress authorized the forgiveness plan (among many other actions); the Secretary put it in place; and the President would have been accountable.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf

Well, once you wade through the BS, what the Court did was not allow Biden to be a dictator
and with a wave of a hand forgive at a minimum 400 billion dollars. That has to go through congress, and it should

 

[Richard-H]

We forgave the debt of banks and auto companies after the Great Bush Recession of 2008

Banks are too big to fail……College Students are not

While people that do not go to college are enslaved thru low pay and high cost of living, college grads must be kept in debt in order to ensure that they too are conformist slaves.

What part of a "Defacto Global Monarchy" do people not understand?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

We forgave the debt of banks and auto companies after the Great Bush Recession of 2008

Banks are too big to fail……College Students are not

You mean the plan that Obama fervently supported and you all praised him for?

By the way, that was passed by an act of Congress, not Executive fiat.

 

[Papageorgio]

The supreme court would have OKed it. That is the court we will look at for the next 30 years unless we do something about it. I'm not just responding to the decisions that they have made already, I'm also including the decision that they, without a doubt, will be doing in the future. Any approach they use to correct the poison in the supreme court now is acceptable to me . Trump selected these people not in any way by merit, but by them being willing to be controlled by him. And when Trump is gone, these type of Justices will decide by the highest bidder. That's the court that the hate party wants , one that will perpetuate their ugliness and control. The courts fit into the right wing of today, adds them to the list of this countries biggest threat and enemy. The right exist for one reason now, and that is simply the transfer of all the new wealth to the golden few at the top

Got any proof? You can have your stupid small minded opinion but you have no facts to back up your limited opinion, not all affirmative action plans have been canceled, just the ones that Harvard and UNC because it was found to violate the 14th Amendment, others are still being used, these violated the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

That is horseshit. Understand the Constitution?

The Court’s first overreach in this case is deciding it at all. Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must have standing to challenge a government action. And that requires a personal stake—an injury in fact. We do not allow plaintiffs to bring suit just because they oppose a policy. Neither do we allow plaintiffs to rely on injuries suffered by others. Those rules may sound technical, but they enforce “fundamental limits on federal judicial power.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750 (1984). They keep courts acting like courts. Or stated the other way around, they prevent courts from acting like this Court does today. The plaintiffs in this case are six States that have no personal stake in the Secretary’s loan forgiveness plan. They are classic ideological plaintiffs: They think the plan a very bad idea, but they are no worse off because the Secretary differs. In giving those States a forum—in adjudicating their complaint— the Court forgets its proper role. The Court acts as though it is an arbiter of political and policy disputes, rather than of cases and controversies.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf

You believe no one is harmed when Biden let student borrowers free from their obligations? Every taxpayers is harmed, especially the ones who paid off their student loans.

You're a special kind of stupid.

 

[Winston]

Uh no.

Those states had no standing. And during the oral arguments not a single justice seemed to believe that the states could establish standing. Barrett seemed especially concerned.. The part of Kagan's dissent I quoted is spot on. The SCOTUS is now a complete joke, and a bad joke at that. Trump's nominees have tainted the court, they are rank amateurs that define judicial creationism.

 

[bripat9643]

While people that do not go to college are enslaved thru low pay and high cost of living, college grads must be kept in debt in order to ensure that they too are conformist slaves.

What part of a "Defacto Global Monarchy" do people not understand?

Who forced them to borrow the money, moron?

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

The supreme court would have OKed it. That is the court we will look at for the next 30 years unless we do something about it. I'm not just responding to the decisions that they have made already, I'm also including the decision that they, without a doubt, will be doing in the future. Any approach they use to correct the poison in the supreme court now is acceptable to me . Trump selected these people not in any way by merit, but by them being willing to be controlled by him. And when Trump is gone, these type of Justices will decide by the highest bidder. That's the court that the hate party wants , one that will perpetuate their ugliness and control. The courts fit into the right wing of today, adds them to the list of this countries biggest threat and enemy. The right exist for one reason now, and that is simply the transfer of all the new wealth to the golden few at the top

If your premise is true, I would think that you would be able to back it up with at least one specific example. I'll be patient. Thanks.

 

[Ralph Norton]

PPP loans are a perfect example.

No, they are not.
PPP loans were designed to be forgiven if used properly (to keep paying laid off employees).
The problem is the program was filled with abuses.

 

[Meister]

Those states had no standing. And during the oral arguments not a single justice seemed to believe that the states could establish standing. Barrett seemed especially concerned.. The part of Kagan's dissent I quoted is spot on. The SCOTUS is now a complete joke, and a bad joke at that. Trump's nominees have tainted the court, they are rank amateurs that define judicial creationism.

Yeah, Constitutionalist Justices are a joke? Oh stop.
The federal government was trying to overreach their authority again.

 

[Ralph Norton]

While people that do not go to college are enslaved thru low pay and high cost of living, college grads must be kept in debt in order to ensure that they too are conformist slaves.

What part of a "Defacto Global Monarchy" do people not understand?

Get a grip.
Dumb ass.

 

[Ordinary Guy]

The supreme court would have OKed it. That is the court we will look at for the next 30 years unless we do something about it. I'm not just responding to the decisions that they have made already, I'm also including the decision that they, without a doubt, will be doing in the future. Any approach they use to correct the poison in the supreme court now is acceptable to me . Trump selected these people not in any way by merit, but by them being willing to be controlled by him. And when Trump is gone, these type of Justices will decide by the highest bidder. That's the court that the hate party wants , one that will perpetuate their ugliness and control. The courts fit into the right wing of today, adds them to the list of this countries biggest threat and enemy. The right exist for one reason now, and that is simply the transfer of all the new wealth to the golden few at the top

they made the right decision on student loan debt, students borrowed it, they should pay it back. I am happy that lowlife cocksucking scum such as yourself does not like it

 

[bripat9643]

No, they are not.
PPP loans were designed to be forgiven if used properly (to keep paying laid off employees).
The problem is the program was filled with abuses.

Every government program is an abuse, especially the ones where it gives away money.