A number of conservative justices weighed a question more at home at a political roundtable than a court of law during Tuesday’s oral arguments on the Biden administration’s student debt relief plan: Is the President’s initiative really fair?
Voting Matters
“I just don’t know how far we can go with this notion to the extent that if the government is providing much needed assistance during an emergency, it’s going to be unfair to those who don’t get the same benefit.”
Being a “city dweller” I’ve never been given “Farm Aid” to grow or not grow produce in my yard. Is that fair???
I don’t own a company. I missed out on the Paycheck Protection Lamborghini I could have gotten by laying off my employees LOL.
In April 2020 small businesses that didn’t close still received TAX FREE PPP funds for just paying payroll. This went directly into the owners pocket. This wasn’t fair to the right wing supremes I guess.
Help me out here - what exactly does fairness have to do with the constitutionality of Biden’s action? The justices are suddenly going to start considering fairness? If that’s the case, I have a shit load of decisions they need to re-visit.
As a NYC renter, I have yet to see a share of the hurricane, earthquake and wildfire relief funds doled out by the government.
Is it really fair of that government to limit access to these monies on the basis of class and location?
Unfair? Just off the top of my head.
Fairness is just the latest ad hoc fallacy they’ve mobilized to justify doing what they want.
If it’s challenged, they’ll fashion another out of whole cloth to defend themselves.
I have the sense that the wingnuts in robes only asked these questions to give their political compatriots fodder for the culture war. They know it’s not a legitimate legal or even equitable argument. They know they are gonna have to uphold the constitutionality of the program, but they really don’t like it, so they’re throwing a performative temper tantrum.
this notion to the extent that if the government is providing much needed assistance during an emergency, it’s going to be unfair to those who don’t get the same benefit.
Darn near sounds like socialism, if you ask me.
The person who starts a lawn care business is able to deduct every business related expense when calculating taxable income. To be fair, people who invest in their educations ought to be able to deduct those expenses from their incomes when they join the workforce. As with the lawn care person’s equipment purchases, the tuition costs would be amortized over a suitable number of years.
People ask me why I quit practicing law at the relatively young age of 55 and I just wave frantically at the endless river of hypocrisy that is conservative jurisprudence.
student debt relief would be “unfair” to people who don’t have any student loans. Roberts conjured up a person who forewent college in favor of starting up a lawn service.
As others have noted above, the Gang Of Five have no problem with the lawn service that received a $500,000 PPP loan GRANT that didn’t have to be paid back.
The way these bastards twist themselves into pretzels is a pretty good indication their healthcare plans have very generous chiropractic benefits.
Once again, Judge Jackson proving her extreme value to the court. The clarity of her arguments brings me joy. I wish we had three or four such sharp minds on the court.
It’s also nice to live a world as some of these Justices do where “student debt” is as foreign as something written in Sanskrit.
They should also be allowed to wipe away those loans in bankruptcy court, but they can’t. Why? Because Guardians Of Plutocrats in Congress made a special carve-out forbidding it.
Rates right up there with forbidding Medicaid from negotiating drug prices.
I didn’t get any federal loans forgiven (same as most Americans) like the current Indiana AG did. Where are you Supreme Court on that injustice?
The word resounded through the oral arguments, with the right-wing justices fixated on the idea that student debt relief would be “unfair” to people who don’t have any student loans. Roberts conjured up a person who forewent college in favor of starting up a lawn service.
In other words, it would be “unfair” to those without college educations and to those who were wealthy enough not to require any financial assistance to attend college.
I wonder who those people vote for and why the conservative justices are so concerned about them.