Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) criticized Chief Justice John Roberts’ fixation on the “fairness” of the Biden administration’s student debt relief plan Thursday, which he and his right-wing peers brought up repeatedly during oral arguments earlier this week.
Is “fairness” a legal term?
INAL.
I guess I’m going to side with Roberts here. Can someone explain why the government can’t pay of my car loan or mortgage?
Because there’s no federal law currently on the books that authorizes it?
(Just guessing.)
The Govmnt can do that. If they are private loans that the Govmnt doesn’t hold, they won’t.
Can you declare bankruptcy and make your mortgage or car loan disappear? Absolutely. So why can’t you do the same with your student loan?
It’s also worth noting that your mortgage and car loan wasn’t foisted on you by on-campus scam artists when you were a teenager.
Fun Fact: The sum of all student debt is greater than the sum of all credit card debt in the US.
Both such loans are secured by the assets they financed. So those loans might be restructured or you might get foreclosed on, but they are not just going to disappear.
I understand that. And I agree it’s a bad example. I only used those for comparison purposes of reasonable debt relief.
Also, the forgiveness program doesn’t erase all the debt. Only up to $20,000.
Also too, a sizable percentage of student loans were generated at for-profit diploma mills, many of the same worth/value as Trump U.
Maybe because you didn’t get your car loan and mortgage from the government. Unless there’s some obscure bureau that sells used Yugos and Cortinas.
That doubles to $40k for Pell Grant recipients, IIRC.
Of course, Warren’s right here. But, politically speaking, it seems as though the administration should’ve just gone for something more robust if it was going to get swatted down anyway, and then take the credit for pushing the envelope. They’ll get some benefit from pushing a “commonsense” plan, true, and having even it torpedoed, but I can’t help thinking of the ACA as a rough and imperfect analogy here.
20k is the max for Pell Grant folks. People without Pell Grants would get 10k relief.
Yup.
I like the way Elena Kagan simplifies the arguments so that everyone understands, even non-lawyers and non-Supreme Court justices, since lawyers and SC justices seem to have a hard time with the logic.
Justice Roberts was thinking of his own front lawn and the cost of upkeep by hiring that guy who has a college degree in forestry and the meticulous care he provides or the young guy just starting out who is as yet unfamiliar with an edge trimmer but who will work for dirt cheap.
The only time legislation has to come from the Supreme Court is when Democrats control the Executive branch.
“the two plaintiffs — holders of student loan debt who are, in a convoluted argument, trying to knock down the plan to get more relief via a different law.”
“Convoluted” in straight talk is “bullshit.” The don’t want relief (nor do they want anyone else to get relief) because relief is a big gubmint handout to the lazy slackers who are trying to tear our country down.
Still, the recent cases are accumulating where “conservatives” are basically arguing “I insist on my god-given right to poke myself in the eye with a fork.” Social Security is the biggest gubmint handout of all
Roberts is just in there calling balls and strikes. And you know, sometimes you have to call something a strike even when it is way outside the zone because the other team is ahead and you want to be fair.
It is in Trump’s code.
And, to be clear, he never has or does benefit from it.
Note: IANAL
I’ve seen people walk away from some pretty significant credit card debt. Seems that acquiring possessions is more OK than education [if you want to call 50% of them that]. Perhaps there’s a way to pay off your loan with credit cards?