Cankles. Pantsuits.
1 Like
Nonsense. They’ll all be blaming Biden today. Count on it.
11 Likes
The Supreme Court refused to let Biden manage his student loan program with a modest forgiveness program after allowing Trump a much larger forgiveness program. They have taken his scalpel, but he still has an axe. Biden can pause loan payments with any emergency declaration. He should be ready at the next hurricane, forest fire, or whatever. There is some smoke billowing in from Canada right now. The Court has exercised its political power. Now for Biden to exercise his.
30 Likes
Seems simple to me. If we can’t bail out students drowning in debt, then we can’t bail out Wall Street scumbags who gambled and lost.
It’s either equal or it’s not, and it’s motherfucking clear how not equal this shit is.
21 Likes
re jackofalltirades’ comment: “It needs to be more than a talking point - we need to start talking about expanding the court.”
Agreed. I’d like to add 16-year term limits for all justices as well. Longshot, but I need a dream.
8 Likes
4 Likes
I know who I’m blaming - the fauxgressives who were willing to bern it all down because those who actually voted weren’t that into the one they anointed as their savior. And this is what they wrought.
12 Likes
Good for state schools. Bad for private ones like Notre Dame Amy.
1 Like
Yesterday: Let them eat cake.
Today: …that they buy at a healthy markup.
Are we great again yet?
3 Likes
Another “ignore what the law says, we reject it because we don’t like it” precedence rears its Fed Soc. head with this corrupt Roberts majority.
18 Likes
The amount of money to pay off student loans is much less than the trillions to cut taxes for those who are extremely wealthy. My granddaughter must be upset to hear about this ruling
26 Likes
Let the Robert’s court go down as the worst and most corrupt court in US history.
23 Likes
So if they can’t forgive the debt and just modify it, how about making it 0 percent interest for 100 years.
16 Likes
In the same way that the right wing of the court has read “a well-regulated militia being necessary” right out of the Constitution, they just read the word “waive” right out of the statute that gave the SOE this power. “Waive or modify” means just what it says — the SOE was empowered to modify (change) or waive (do away with) the terms/regs.
Kagan is exactly correct -/ the right wing of the Court is substituting itself for Congress’ clear language.
So much for strict construction — just another right-wing myth.
22 Likes
“The Secretary’s plan has ‘modified’ the cited provisions only in the same sense that ‘the French Revolution ‘modified’ the status of the French nobility’—it has abolished them and supplanted them with a new regime entirely,” Roberts writes with a flourish"
Typically American. I doubt Robert’s knows much about that REVOLUTION. Of course it abolished ( executed ) the French Monarchy as it had become tyrannical and indifferent to its people. Storming the Bastille is hardly the same as relieving student debt. Biden’s not hauling folks down to the Place de la Révolution and chopping their heads off. What an asshole Roberts is.
16 Likes
It’s not going to happen without a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
6 Likes
For anyone who thought this SC cares about its legitimacy, the decisions this week prove that wrong. The so-called conservative majority on this Court could care less about how any of their decisions reflect on their legitimacy. They have the power now and are using it against Americans. It is the stench that Justice Sotomayor wrote about in her Dobbs dissent.
21 Likes
Joe can’t say those words in public. Most folks don’t follow the courts closely enough to understand what court reform means, but the Grand Fascist Party and their news outlets will pound him for his Tyrannical Power Grab™ and the MSMs will report “both sides” (aka “one side”) because something something horserace something profits.
What Joe does need to say is that we got here because people didn’t vote in 2016 and it will get worse if people choose not to do so again in 2024.
8 Likes
For anyone wondering, the “major questions” doctrine just means courts can just invalidate whatever congressionally-authorized regulatory activity they don’t like.
If Congress gives EPA the authority to ensure drinking water is safe for human consumption, SCOTUS can decide that the question of whether lead should be regulated in drinking water is a “major question” that can only be addressed by legislation, not regulation.
If Congress gives the Department of Education authority to ensure that state educational curricula meet defined minimum standards, SCOTUS can decide that it is a “major question” whether children should be taught to read.
Etc.
27 Likes
Also the senate was lost…
Hillary winning, but Republicans holding the senate, would have held up any appointment to the courts.
Hard to think we’d have gained seats in '18 being the first midterm is usually a bloodbath.
So A bunch of 4-4 verdicts until RBG died.
Then HRC would have had to win reelection w/ senate coatails during covid, after 12 years of a democratic president. That’s tough for anyone regardless of one’s opinion on HRC’s political skills specifically.
Would we still have been better off? Yes.
Would it have effected where we are with the court today? Not really, other than the damage would be behind a couple years.
2 Likes