2 edits
@AverageJoe1
here's the issue of 'fairness' you constantly yammer about but never explain. why is it unconstitutional for a student loan to be forgiven by the government but a loan to finance a billionaires stadium is fine?
It sure sounds as if Sotomayor, along with Kagan and Jackson, is ready to give the Biden administration a total victory, while Barrett is poised to toss the cases on standing. That leaves the government one vote short. It’s far from clear which justice would provide it. Predictably, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch appeared ready to shoot down the plan. Like Kavanaugh, Roberts was obviously displeased with Biden’s program, repeatedly suggesting it was not “fair.”
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/02/student-debt-oral-arguments-better-than-expected.html
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidWhat was stopping the lawnmower man from becoming a student Joe and what debt has he incurred in order to make himself a benefit to the wider economy? Was it the cost of his lawnmower, surely that’s a tax deductible cost. I’m not sure how this guys life choices intersect with those of the student.
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??
The answer is to recoup the tuition fees from the corps and industries that profit from the students education but hey, that would be communism or some such, I expect millions would exit the US to seek freedom from the heavy boot of government.
@no1marauder saidWell, yes. I think you are saying that if it IS constitutional, that the Congress can make provisions for the debt to be waived.
Are 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.
I agree, so I don't get your argument.
@no1marauder saidYou are simply trying, as usual, to complicate this issue by thrown in tax cuts, capital gains fiddling, and maybe throwing in a few kitchen sinks, and abortion. Geez. This is not about any of those things, it is about one issue.
It's the same "problem" as when corporations get a tax cut or holders of stocks get a lower tax rate on capital gains.
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?
Now, your second paragraph questions the basis upon which judges make their rulings. I answer that question by pointing out that that was Exactly what was exhibited by Judge Roberts' comment......He said in effect that it is not fair to enrich these college grads and ignore people like a lawn mower man. Not fair. He said that.
@no1marauder said1). They passed a statute, yes, but SCOTUS says (I think) that it is not constitutional , so your comment is moot. I haven't seen anything about this case yet this morning.
I'll let the non-right wing justices on the SCOTUS answer that:
"“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 ...[text shortened]... -supposedly-elite-student-debtors/ar-AA183VEL?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=169e0010a83449cb83633749a7990f0b&ei=64
2)Judge Jackson does what you do, throwing in the Paycheck Program. I ain't about to pull up THAT law and start comparing. I am a one issue man. This one is so obvious that I am surprised they didn't go ahead and rule from the bench. I can see Judge Thomas saying 'slam dunk'!
The reference to 'emergency' in last para is laughable. What about others with same (pandemic, I guess) emergency. Geez. What about the kids in TRADE schools, who see these college grads, majoring in Gender Studies, making big bucks receiving all this benefit? But, I digress.
@wildgrass said"Good Idea"?????? You need a little more legal-eze to weigh in on this subject. I don't think that phrase has ever been uttered in those hallowed halls.
Joe - whether or not the loan forgiveness program is a good idea is completely and undeniably beyond the purview of the Supreme Court.
The purview of SCOTUS is to ensure 'equal justice under the law', so that phrase alone knocks the legs out from under all positions on this thread. Ain't nothing equal about it. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
@wildgrass saidYour first paragraph, in liberal form, segues off the issue. You compare this stand-alone issue with unrelated comparisons, as does Marauder, et al.
@AverageJoe1
here's the issue of 'fairness' you constantly yammer about but never explain. why is it unconstitutional for a student loan to be forgiven by the government but a loan to finance a billionaires stadium is fine?
[quote]It sure sounds as if Sotomayor, along with Kagan and Jackson, is ready to give the Biden administration a total victory, while Barrett is poise ...[text shortened]... ]
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/02/student-debt-oral-arguments-better-than-expected.html
And, truly, your sentence..'....unconstitutional for student loan to be forgiven by govt , but loan to finance stadium is fine..' does not make sense.
@kevcvs57 saidLawnmowerman could have been raised in the slums eating garbage and got a used lawnmower and went door to door. No windfall for him, man. And I doubt he has any debt. Truly, are all of you putting me on? Benefit to wider economy? The 'People"? You are the one sounding like a communist.
What was stopping the lawnmower man from becoming a student Joe and what debt has he incurred in order to make himself a benefit to the wider economy? Was it the cost of his lawnmower, surely that’s a tax deductible cost. I’m not sure how this guys life choices intersect with those of the student.
The answer is to recoup the tuition fees from the corps and industries that ...[text shortened]... or some such, I expect millions would exit the US to seek freedom from the heavy boot of government.
Life choices intersecting? How bout a level playing field, where we all intersect, my daddy would call you a slanthead! Equality under the law comes to mind. You really want to leave the slum-raised lawnmower man behind?
Are you actually entering corporations into this discussion about student loans. Y'all are making my fingers hurt! 😳
@averagejoe1 saidCases are supposed to be decided on legal principles. The "principle" you seem to be espousing is that judges can rule a law unconstitutional if in their subjective judgment they believe "it's not fair". Such a principle wouldn't just apply to "one issue" but would have to be applied to all government programs.
1). They passed a statute, yes, but SCOTUS says (I think) that it is not constitutional , so your comment is moot. I haven't seen anything about this case yet this morning.
2)Judge Jackson does what you do, throwing in the Paycheck Program. I ain't about to pull up THAT law and start comparing. I am a one issue man. This one is so obvious that I am surprised they di ...[text shortened]... ege grads, majoring in Gender Studies, making big bucks receiving all this benefit? But, I digress.
There is certainly no wording in the Constitution nor in any legal precedent for such a doctrine. Justice Jackson is clearly correct that this would be an extraordinary usurpation of Legislative and Executive power by the Judiciary.
@averagejoe1 saidYes, Chief Justice Robert's said that and it is a shocking thing for a judge to say during oral argument regarding a government program's constitutionality. It is, quite frankly, none of a judge's business whether a program is "fair" in his mind when deciding whether it complies with Constitutional requirements.
You are simply trying, as usual, to complicate this issue by thrown in tax cuts, capital gains fiddling, and maybe throwing in a few kitchen sinks, and abortion. Geez. This is not about any of those things, it is about one issue.
Now, your second paragraph questions the basis upon which judges make their rulings. I answer that question by pointing out that that was ...[text shortened]... air to enrich these college grads and ignore people like a lawn mower man. Not fair. He said that.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYour comments here do not relate to my post. Anyway, they do not consider subjectively ,but they SURE must consider equality under the law, Marauder, …..your cloudiness-oriented comments do not work. The word ‘fair’ Equates to the concept of equality under the law. I thought you fellers loved equality.
Cases are supposed to be decided on legal principles. The "principle" you seem to be espousing is that judges can rule a law unconstitutional if in their subjective judgment they believe "it's not fair". Such a principle wouldn't just apply to "one issue" but would have to be applied to all government programs.
There is certainly no wording in the Constitution nor in a ...[text shortened]... that this would be an extraordinary usurpation of Legislative and Executive power by the Judiciary.
Equality under the law. Plain and simple. Is it equality to, in effect, give money to these college grads who will make $1 million, and not give any money to the lawn mower manThis is a rough one for liberals to wrestle with, thus, the practice of changing issues.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidAgain, there may be12 ways to say fair when discussing the overriding principle of equality under the law. Why don’t you stipulate to equality under the law and get us over a lot of these hurdles in this discussion.
Yes, Chief Justice Robert's said that and it is a shocking thing for a judge to say during oral argument regarding a government program's constitutionality. It is, quite frankly, none of a judge's business whether a program is "fair" in his mind when deciding whether it complies with Constitutional requirements.
Suggestion: Type …..”whether a program meets the test of equality under the law”, instead of whether it is fair.
AHA! Now it is more understandable, when discussing constitutional issues.
@averagejoe1 saidJesus, you're a stubborn idiot.
Your comments here do not relate to my post. Anyway, they do not consider subjectively ,but they SURE must consider equality under the law, Marauder, …..your cloudiness-oriented comments do not work. The word ‘fair’ Equates to the concept of equality under the law. I thought you fellers loved equality.
Equality under the law. Plain and simple. Is it equality to, in ...[text shortened]... wn mower manThis is a rough one for liberals to wrestle with, thus, the practice of changing issues.
There is no requirement in law that every government program or law treat everyone exactly the same. People over 65 get Medicare; people under 65 don't as one example among thousands.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidThat one you can start a separate thread on. So you are saying that people over 65 I have an advantage of people over 65. What a laugh that premise is, you really are a Marxist… everybody exactly the same.
Jesus, you're a stubborn idiot.
There is no requirement in law that every government program or law treat everyone exactly the same. People over 65 get Medicare; people under 65 don't as one example among thousands.
I get your Saying that no program or law should treat everyone exactly the same. But the elephant in the room with those programs and laws is called ‘equality under the law’, which I guess trumps everything you just wrote. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you are saying that the loan forgiveness is OK because no one in the country should expect to be treated the same. Absolutely unbelievable, it is amazing. Wonder what your life influences have been, just a rhetorical question, not meaning to be personal. You need not answer rhetorical questions..