Jumped into the comments to pose that very question
Right-Wing Justices Conjure Up Lawn Care Strawman To Juxtapose With Supposedly Elite Student Debtors
2 Likes
This is problematic on the individual level but the motivation for doing this is more utilitarian and macroeconomic. In theory, we all benefit if some people are left with more money to put back into the economy.
6 Likes
Six Grisons’ Total Landscaping
(grison: a weasellike carnivore)
3 Likes
Because numbers matter. Only about 17% of adults have current student loan debt, a smaller number will actually meet the criteria.
Since it’s using emergency authorities rooted in the declared state of emergency, the more people you wrap up in a relief package the more likely it’s going to qualify as a legitimate use of the emergency authorities.
Those weren’t intended to be authorities to “do whatever you like, just declare a state of emergency first”.
Sure, their phrasing may be much more in lay terms, but it’s likely they’ll touch on that when determining (as they’re inevitably going to) that this was an overreach of emergency authorities in part because the vast majority of the population didn’t qualify.
Congress could (and did) choose to bail out businesses via law. Similarly exclusionary if you don’t own a business, but our system is based on statute passed into law.
If Congress wanted to wipe out student loan debts, there wouldn’t be a case in front of the Supremes.
1 Like
shrug Maybe. That’s certainly a possible. You’ve got your opinion about what’s gonna happen, I have mine. Neither of us actually knows the future.
1 Like
Agreed. So I’ll propose we give $20k to everyone who doesn’t have a degree. That’ll exclude me, so I don’t have an advantage.
But that’ll include both most of the folks that really need the help on their loans, the folks who couldn’t complete a degree therefore aren’t seeing higher salaries. Also the blue collar folks who went right into the workforce.
Help a ton more people and have much more of an economic impact.
Giving a doctor a year or two of his Maserati payments just doesn’t go down well.
2 Likes
8 Likes
Win!
4 Likes
The statute in question and what it actually says was passed in 2003 by a republican congress. The Alito court is arguing the plain language doesn’t say what it clearly says.
2 Likes
Well, you see, an action is “fair” if a conservative approves of it, and it is “unfair” if a conservative disapproves of it. Just like how 100 years of “standing” jurisprudence is about to be wiped out in favor of “all butthurt conservatives have standing for whatever bullshit case they want to bring.”
6 Likes
“I was denied federal emergency aid to rebuild my house simply because it was never destroyed by a hurricane. It’s so unfair!”
8 Likes
Based on this collective head up their ass logic, this court would rule that heart, liver and kidney transplants should not be made available - because not everyone is able to get one when needed … a of course that is not fair - so forbid it across the board.
3 Likes
Maybe they’ll use that argument to bolster their abortion stance.
I don’t pay federal income taxes. How is it fair that those who pay federal income taxes are eligible for tax refunds?
1 Like
BUILD THAT WALL
BUILD THAT WALL
3 Likes
Just how delusional does one have to be to remain unaware of the ludicrousness of that ‘hair’.
2 Likes
Perfect example, actually. Used the same state of emergency powers to do so.
Pretty much everyone cheering on student loan relief also opposed The Wall.
Consistency in application of the law would say you have to either support both or oppose both, not be okay with one but not the other.
It sounds like Trump. He’s always whining that things he doesn’t like are not fair. Which, so far as I know, has nothing at all to do with the law.
2 Likes
I work hard not to be unemployed, where’s my money.
I work hard to pay for insurance, where’s my medicaid?
There was no covid when dumpster declared his “national emergency” no one lost jobs because their work closed.
Thank you, come again!