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 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.
