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.
@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.
