Debates
28 Feb 23
28 Feb 23
Hopefully, one of the arguments should be that while the pandemic has made it hard for these college graduates to pay their debts, that it has made it hard for EVERYONE to pay their debts. How could Biden single out only young college grads, but ignore middle age people with children and REAL debt?
How do y'all think they would deal with that conundrum of an issue?
28 Feb 23
@averagejoe1 saidMany, many cases have established the principle that government action can try to correct one problem without correcting every single one.
Hopefully, one of the arguments should be that while the pandemic has made it hard for these college graduates to pay their debts, that it has made it hard for EVERYONE to pay their debts. How could Biden single out only young college grads, but ignore middle age people with children and REAL debt?
How do y'all think they would deal with that conundrum of an issue?
28 Feb 23
@no1marauder saidYes, but I am speaking to the curious action which selects one group over other groups, likely more needy, groups.
Many, many cases have established the principle that government action can try to correct one problem without correcting every single one.
S, once again we are off issue. Stay with me here, how does one justify one group over another?
28 Feb 23
@averagejoe1 saidThat's not a legal argument.
Yes, but I am speaking to the curious action which selects one group over other groups, likely more needy, groups.
S, once again we are off issue. Stay with me here, how does one justify one group over another?
28 Feb 23
1 edit
@no1marauder saidThe arbitrary nature of the forgiiiiiiivveness plan should be deemed unconstitutional. You know it I know it everybody knows it. I have to assume that the judges would have to hear the point that I make above, as evidence of such arbitrary.-ness.
That's not a legal argument.
It would be impossible to argue this case, without showing this random nature of selectivity, exercised by Joe Biden. My point that I show shows that.
We shall see. It would not surprise me if a question came from the bench with this very point. Why did President Biden select this group of people?. Are there not other groups of people?.with debt up to rheir eyeballs? If you were president, would you have selected this group to get this windfall? No. I know it, you know it, everybody knows it.
28 Feb 23
@averagejoe1 saidYou don't know crap.
The arbitrary nature of the forgiiiiiiivveness plan should be deemed unconstitutional. You know it I know it everybody knows it. I have to assume that the judges would have to hear the point that I make above, as evidence of such arbitrary.-ness.
It would be impossible to argue this case, without showing this random nature of selectivity, exercised by Joe Biden. My ...[text shortened]... d you have selected this group to get this windfall? No. I know it, you know it, everybody knows it.
"The government should have helped Group A, which we deem more deserving than the Group B it did help" is a political argument that has no place in a courtroom.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147482
28 Feb 23
1 edit
@no1marauder saidbuying votes isnt either
That's not a legal argument.
the president have the authority
28 Feb 23
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYou may be right. They will deny crappy lib-grab anyway, so let's stop writing about it. I love it. My premise is correct, and I think it could be used when showing that the statute, or whatever it is , is unconstituional. That is but one way to prove their point. You may be right, but it will soon be moot.
You don't know crap.
"The government should have helped Group A, which we deem more deserving than the Group B it did help" is a political argument that has no place in a courtroom.
I love our judge-jockeys!!!!
Hey, I like my 'lib-grab' and 'judge jockeys'. You a lawyer, can you patent those phrases for me?
28 Feb 23
@averagejoe1 saidJoe, I owe you a cookie. Chief Justice Roberts rambled on about how a guy who owned a lawn mowing company didn't get his loan forgiven and Justice Alioto kept saying it wasn't "fair" as if either had anything to do with Congressional intent.
You may be right. They will deny crappy lib-grab anyway, so let's stop writing about it. I love it. My premise is correct, and I think it could be used when showing that the statute, or whatever it is , is unconstituional. That is but one way to prove their point. You may be right, but it will soon be moot.
I love our judge-jockeys!!!!
Hey, I like my 'lib-grab' and 'judge jockeys'. You a lawyer, can you patent those phrases for me?
These guys acted like they were interviewing for a job on Fox News rather than deciding a case on established legal principles.
Kavanaugh did concede the language of the statute regarding the Executive Branch's authority to modify student loan debt was extremely broad and Barrett did correctly point out that the States had no standing to challenge the program under the rules conservative justices have imposed over the last four decades, but I'd be surprised if both let a little thing like the law get in the way of the ideological imperative of nixing the program.
01 Mar 23
@no1marauder saidBut.....what if the law which you refer to in your last sentence is, well, unconstitutional ? You do refer to congressional intent in the first paragraph, but gloss on by it without so much as a by-your-leave.
Joe, I owe you a cookie. Chief Justice Roberts rambled on about how a guy who owned a lawn mowing company didn't get his loan forgiven and Justice Alioto kept saying it wasn't "fair" as if either had anything to do with Congressional intent.
These guys acted like they were interviewing for a job on Fox News rather than deciding a case on established legal principles. ...[text shortened]... let a little thing like the law get in the way of the ideological imperative of nixing the program.
Congressional intent has always been to avoid such crap as the Biden administration, (Obama, Susan Rice, Soros ,brrrrrrrr) riding dictatorial over us all.
But fret not, you will all win in the end. Like a pack of hyenas that keeps pouncing in and out on a huge zebra which is bigger than they are. He can only hold out so long. You will flip the USA. Ahhh, President Marauder. It has a nice ring to it. But I plan to be on the top of the hill with you. Pity the wretches who will live under socialism. Not you and me.
01 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidAre you saying the student loan program is "unconstitutional"? If not, then Congress can make provisions for the debt to be waived and/or modified like it did in the HEROES Act.
But.....what if the law which you refer to in your last sentence is, well, unconstitutional ? You do refer to congressional intent in the first paragraph, but gloss on by it without so much as a by-your-leave.
Congressional intent has always been to avoid such crap as the Biden administration, (Obama, Susan Rice, Soros ,brrrrrrrr) riding dictatorial over us all.
...[text shortened]... on the top of the hill with you. Pity the wretches who will live under socialism. Not you and me.
01 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidIt's the same "problem" as when corporations get a tax cut or holders of stocks get a lower tax rate on capital gains.
I am amazed that not one of you libs sees the problem of the lawn mower man with debt getting nothing, but the college grads getting everything. Amazed indeed. It is telling, but, alas, telling what??
It is really your intention to claim that all such laws have their "constitutionality" decided on whether certain judges think those distinctions are "fair" or not?
01 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidI'll let the non-right wing justices on the SCOTUS answer that:
I am amazed that not one of you libs sees the problem of the lawn mower man with debt getting nothing, but the college grads getting everything. Amazed indeed. It is telling, but, alas, telling what??
"“Congress passed a statute that dealt with loan repayment for colleges and it didn’t pass a statute that dealt with loan repayment for lawn businesses — so Congress made a choice,” Justice Elena Kagan said.
“You’re saying that the secretary implemented his powers under Congress’ choice, which gave him authority over loan repayment — it definitely did not give him authority over loans for lawn care,” she added.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was even more pointed, alluding to funds given through programs like the Paycheck Protection Program to companies during the pandemic.
“I’m wondering whether that would be unfair to people who didn’t own a company or somebody who didn’t have a nonprofit and wasn’t getting that money,” she mused. “I just don’t know how far we can go with this notion to the extent that if the government is providing much needed assistance during an emergency, it’s going to be unfair to those who don’t get the same benefit.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/right-wing-justices-conjure-up-lawn-care-strawman-to-juxtapose-with-supposedly-elite-student-debtors/ar-AA183VEL?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=169e0010a83449cb83633749a7990f0b&ei=64
01 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidJoe - whether or not the loan forgiveness program is a good idea is completely and undeniably beyond the purview of the Supreme Court.
I am amazed that not one of you libs sees the problem of the lawn mower man with debt getting nothing, but the college grads getting everything. Amazed indeed. It is telling, but, alas, telling what??