POTUS 46.10: A New Hope

[SJHovey]

And while you will get all pedantic and say "Congress passed that" that isn't even the point nor is it even relevant to the discussion and you know it.

It is exactly the point, and you know it.

There are two things that I find really funny about the your position.

First, you and many others on here are constantly running around shrieking that we're heading towards some sort of autocratic, fascist dictatorship in this country, 1930's and '40's Germany and Italy. While I don't tend to share your hysterics, I do agree that I prefer a more democratic form of government as opposed to governing by decree of our dear leader. If a President came in and unilaterally declared that because of a national emergency we're delaying elections, everyone would agree that's bad and illegal. But if the same President came in and declared that everyone who would like $10,000 from the government should get it, you'd be all fine with that.

That gets to the second point. These legal challenges would have all been moot had you guys just done your ****ing jobs. For two years you controlled Congress and the White House. Pass a bill that expressly authorizes the Secretary of Education to forgive student loans and we wouldn't be having this conversation. In fact, Joe literally begged Nancy and Chuck to do exactly that. Ah, but they didn't want the political backlash from it, so they did what you guys do best. Promise the world, then sit on your ****ing hands.

Personally, I don't really care which way the case turns out. In the grand scheme of things it's a relatively small amount of federal money, and I think it's actually something that will come back to bite Democrats in the a s s because it doesn't solve the underlying problem, it's going to cause future borrowers to be less likely to pay back their loans, and the Democrats are going to have a steady stream of future college attendees standing on their doorstep demanding that they too have their loans forgiven, people who are going to be a little bitter when the same isn't done for them.

But notwithstanding my lack of any real interest in this lawsuit, I couldn't resist a snarky response to Kepler when he gets all offended that someone should dare suggest that a promise be kept.

[Swansong]

So not a peep about the 220 EOs that Trump signed (a record for a 1-termer... a record with a bullet). But now... NOW it's a problem.


Ok. Noted. Dismissed.

[dxmnkd316]

So not a peep about the 220 EOs that Trump signed (a record for a 1-termer... a record with a bullet). But now... NOW it's a problem.


Ok. Noted. Dismissed.

"Oh, but I generally always oppose them. I shouldn't have to vocally oppose all of them. Do ou want me to disavow every EO ever? That seems like a lot of work."
-Hovey, probably

[SJHovey]

So not a peep about the 220 EOs that Trump signed (a record for a 1-termer... a record with a bullet). But now... NOW it's a problem.


Ok. Noted. Dismissed.

Long before Trump ever set foot in the White House I posted, maybe a couple of different times, that I thought the practice of EO's was bad, and criticized the Bush's, Clinton, etc..., for the practice. Unlike others around here, I tend not to come in and post the same thing every day.

[MichVandal]

Hovey
You are doing the exact same deflection that Sic did with security. Because you can hide behind *something*, you completely ignore the hypocrisy of your position, especially noting that the people you defend get far, far more support than the people who you think should pay up.

Worse, you propose that hiding behind that excuse is just as good as paying the loan off, which it hardly is.

Really, you are just another radical republican- make laws that people who don't really need massive government benefits get them, complain about the ones who have been massively impacted by tax cuts to the rich by having to take huge student loans- and then justify your position because some "conservative" group of people passed a law.

Mind you, it's even worse that the people getting the benefit are the loudest in complaining about government help to pretty much anyone else in the country. Hilarious.

Stop standing behind silly laws that your fellow radical repubicans passed and stand up the policy that you pretend to hate. You are very much not conservative if you are ok with farmers getting that much of your tax dollars.

[SJHovey]

If you’re paying any attention at all, you’d know that if student loan forgiveness gets thrown out in these conservative-leaning courts, it’ll have nothing to do with the underlying legal soundness of the law passed by a Republican trifecta in 2003 to make waiving or modifying student loans during national emergencies an option in the first place.

I don't know what's going to happen in this case. A lot of times they seem to get decided on something like standing or something other that what all of the rest of us might think is the real issue.

As for the "legal soundness" of the law passed in 2003, I don't know if that'll even be the issue. The law in 2003 was passed and signed into law, and I don't think anyone questions whether that was a legally passed piece of legislation.

As I understand it, I think a lot of it will have to do with interpreting how broad was the power extended by Congress to the Secretary of Education. That is always open for interpretation.

Unlike most posters here, I actually still believe that Courts make decisions on non-politically partisan basis. Hence, Trump's repeated losses with his frivolous election lawsuits before judges he appointed, or even the recent decision by the Supreme's compelling him to produce his tax returns. In fact, I think repeated and public proclamations that the courts decide things only on a partisan basis, as are made repeated here in Cafe, do more to harm the Republic than anything any of our elected clowns ever dreamed of doing.

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Lolol

[dxmnkd316]

"Oh, but I generally always oppose them. I shouldn't have to vocally oppose all of them. Do ou want me to disavow every EO ever? That seems like a lot of work."
-Hovey, probably

Long before Trump ever set foot in the White House I posted, maybe a couple of different times, that I thought the practice of EO's was bad, and criticized the Bush's, Clinton, etc..., for the practice. Unlike others around here, I tend not to come in and post the same thing every day.

.

[psych]

I don't know what's going to happen in this case. A lot of times they seem to get decided on something like standing or something other that what all of the rest of us might think is the real issue.

As for the "legal soundness" of the law passed in 2003, I don't know if that'll even be the issue. The law in 2003 was passed and signed into law, and I don't think anyone questions whether that was a legally passed piece of legislation.

As I understand it, I think a lot of it will have to do with interpreting how broad was the power extended by Congress to the Secretary of Education. That is always open for interpretation.

Unlike most posters here, I actually still believe that Courts make decisions on non-politically partisan basis. Hence, Trump's repeated losses with his frivolous election lawsuits before judges he appointed, or even the recent decision by the Supreme's compelling him to produce his tax returns. In fact, I think repeated and public proclamations that the courts decide things only on a partisan basis, as are made repeated here in Cafe, do more to harm the Republic than anything any of our elected clowns ever dreamed of doing.

Bless your heart.

[Swansong]

What about the legal victory granted by the judge he appointed to his own district? The one that requires being slapped down over and over?

Or by any of the others? Like Dobbs. Or the decision to overturn the OSHA vaccine mandates? Or, like, all of the past few years of "jurisprudence"?

[SJHovey]

Hovey
You are doing the exact same deflection that Sic did with security. Because you can hide behind *something*, you completely ignore the hypocrisy of your position, especially noting that the people you defend get far, far more support than the people who you think should pay up.

Worse, you propose that hiding behind that excuse is just as good as paying the loan off, which it hardly is.

Really, you are just another radical republican- make laws that people who don't really need massive government benefits get them, complain about the ones who have been massively impacted by tax cuts to the rich by having to take huge student loans- and then justify your position because some "conservative" group of people passed a law.

Mind you, it's even worse that the people getting the benefit are the loudest in complaining about government help to pretty much anyone else in the country. Hilarious.

Stop standing behind silly laws that your fellow radical repubicans passed and stand up the policy that you pretend to hate. You are very much not conservative if you are ok with farmers getting that much of your tax dollars.

I am 100% in agreement that all government expenditures, whether they are farm subsidies, military spending, forgiving student loans, etc..., need to be made public, subject to public debate, and determined by our legislative process. That's why we elect these idiots. They are supposed to go to Washington and figure out where we should, collectively, spend our money, and how much. I have no problem at all with our elected officials having a vigorous debate over whether we should better spend our money on farm subsidies or a new aircraft carrier or to house the homeless. I think those are important debates to have as a society.

I will also admit that in this country those that have the best lobbyists tend to get the best results, and honestly, the lobbyists for the homeless and poor suck (because they don't exist). I don't necessarily think that's right, but that is what's going on.

For some reason, people seem to think that I'm some sort farm subsidy advocate. Not sure where that came from, other than the fact that I'm originally from North Dakota.

[psych]

Hovey’s argument fits in perfectly with the major questions doctrine used by the Texas judge to, at the moment, render student loan forgiveness completely illegal. It basically allows mainly conservative judges to sidestep the question of legality entirely, which Biden’s student loan forgiveness program is, and instead consider whether an executive, in this case Biden, was allowed to even carry out the program in the first place as their reason to strike the law down. The major questions doctrine was created by conservative judges and is found nowhere in any kind of documents of importance to the judicial system, much less serving as a backbone to override the explicit authorization of Congress to allow the executive to waive or modify student loans in the time of a national emergency, such as Covid-19.
The experts following this stuff for months have been saying this would happen. The forgiveness was legally sound but conservative judges and eventually SCOTUS would grant questionable standing and use the major questions doctrine to strike student loan forgiveness down. It’s not over yet, but it’s currently not looking good.

[rufus]

And the troll knows exactly why the Congress wasn't able to pass a bill doing that. But he will just play willfully ignorant, and continue on his soapbox.

BTW, why did those farmers all go into farming if they knew they couldn't make a buck at it? See what I did there?

[MichVandal]

For some reason, people seem to think that I'm some sort farm subsidy advocate. Not sure where that came from, other than the fact that I'm originally from North Dakota.

Because you have been repeatedly pointed out that it's far greater than the loan forgiveness for students, but you hide behind the excuse that congress did it. If you are going to condemn student loan forgiveness, you should condemn farm loan forgiveness to the exact same amount- it's the same thing (although worse for your taxes for farmers).

Not being against one form of loan forgiveness and being against another is just accepting one over the other- meaning you at least condone it, like a good hypocrite republican.

Do you not read what you post?

[ScoobyDoo]

jfc. The government picks winners and losers. When it picks people who aren't winning (millions or better) in the economic arena the courts and the Repubs cry foul and ask for more tax cuts for rich people. Has anyone been paying attention since 1980? Anyone?