We need affirmative action for friendships with #SCOTUS judges.
How come they're good friends with all the billionaires but don't know any regular folks, like students who need loan forgiveness or women who like making their own healthcare choices?
Well it doesn't really matter because by law they don't have the authority to make such determinations.
It's up to Congress to pass those laws. SCOTUS is required to follow the law.
So if students need loan forgiveness, that's up to congresspeople to hear and to pass new legislation addressing it.
The Supreme Court has no business overriding democratically passed law on account of their friends.
@volkris well, actually, Congress did do exactly that. And then this Court decided to take a case with a plaintiff that didn't know why it was even involved (true fact, look it up) because it was used as a sock puppet for ideological state AGs to create a question that didn't exist. Hence, why it would be nice if the justices weren't friends with billionaire zealots who dream this shit up.
Look it up? No, if you're looking to make a convincing argument, then present the factual basis for what you're trying to convince others of.
Or else, why bother?
If you can't lay your argument on the table, why bother handwaving at it?
You say Congress did exactly that, ok, *where* did they do that?
There was a plaintiff that didn't know why it was even involved? Who?
It's pretty out there to expect other people to support your own out there claims if you're not interested in doing so.
If that's what you're basing your claim on, well the Court explicitly addressed that, so where exactly do you say the Court went wrong in countering this argument?
@volkris you apparently haven't read anything about this case...get informed before jumping into public discourse.
I think the issue is that I've read the actual opinion that addressed and refuted this sort of argument head on!
I mean, I'm not going to let some Politico clickbait set up a strawman when the SCOTUS ruling headed off this claim.
It'd be one thing if the Court let this go, but no, it went out of its way to explain why this perspective is incorrect, both factually and as a matter of law.
So like I said, feel free to say exactly where you believe the SCOTUS refutation of this claim is faulty. Otherwise, the opinion speaks for itself, and Politico is just off the mark.
@volkris the Politico piece predates the ruling, duh. The court just ignored those known facts. It's not like these facts weren't well known to the Court--it just didn't care. Funny, it didn't have the same view of plaintiffs challenging environmental enforcement issues. See,.e.g. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, for example.
@volkris and you're making my point for me...these justices went out of their way to rule against a lawful policy because the billionaire benefactors wanted them to, ignoring the Court's standing jurisprudence -- a conservative legal invention -- in the process. It's truly mind boggling if one follows SCoTUS at all.
Going out of their way to say why an argument doesn't hold water doesn't mean it was a lawful policy. It means they've dotted their is, closing out various arguments that it is lawful.
It's really twisting things, saying that being careful to get it right is proof that they're wrong.
It's foolish in the extreme that anyone would be taking that position.
@volkris
Per Politico: Seizing on the harm to loan servicers that work for the Education Department, like MOHELA, was “the best opportunity to bring a successful lawsuit,” said Phil Kerpen, a conservative political organizer who leads American Commitment and was an early proponent of the strategy and circulated the idea in conservative circles.
@volkris But per Politico: MOHELA responded to Bush’s criticism last month by appearing to distance itself from the lawsuit. The company explained in a letter to Bush that its “executives were not involved” with the Missouri attorney general’s decision to file a lawsuit.
@volkris Sounds like they haven't been injured, which is the bedrock test for standing. But what's ideological consistency when a billionaire's private plane is waiting, amiright?
... they spelled out the standing in the opinion, but never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory, huh?
Again, feel free to lay out exactly where you disagree with the ruling. I'm BEGGING you at this point to actually address the ruling instead of handwaving about matters they actually did address and settle.
@volkris you ought to read the dissent and then read the cases. You act like cuz the majority said it, it's right. You ought to read the standing cases the conservatives wrote when they were trying to throw out plaintiffs--they sound a whole lot different than this one. And that's my point. If you can't square the prior precedent with this-- and the Court doesn't even try--then we know what's really going on, don't we?
That's not at all what I am saying, so if that's what you think I have said, I assure you you have misunderstood.
@volkris the opinion's efforts to distinguish prior precedent are a joke. They don't even really make an effort...the hand-waving is in that passage. It reeks of: "Don't look too long here, we can't really justify this outcome"
At this point I just really note that you continue to refrain from siding any particular passage from the opinion that you might disagree with.
Again: hand waving
@volkris it took me 2 seconds to find it...https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/17/student-loan-bidens-debt-relief-plan-00074197