POTUS 46.10: A New Hope

[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?

 

[Handyman]

The only thing better than Hovey getting roasted in here is how much the White House Press Corp is being roasted on Twitter for whining about not being invited to the Biden Wedding.

Of course, had they been there they likely would have whined about how divisive it is to have a non-political event at the WH...but hey the press stopped caring about facts years ago!

 

[SJHovey]

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?

I'm not sure you're reading what I post.

Again, I am not against loan forgiveness per se. For instance, I have always supported the federal loan programs where people who go into public service, teaching, etc..., get a break on their loans. I think that's an excellent idea and should be continued. I also thought the PPP loan idea was good, if the government insisted on basically closing everyone down on two days notice. It was ripe for fraud, but that didn't make the idea itself terrible.

Also, I am not equating or trying to equate the societal value of forgiving a student loan versus forgiving an ag loan, or any other type of loan. That ain't my job. That's Congress' job to figure out where to best spend our money.

What I disagree with is how Biden chose to go about forgiving the student loans. He couldn't get enough legislative support for reasons that apparently only rufus and I know about, so he just went ahead and did it himself. That's not how government is supposed to work.

 

[dxmnkd316]

The only thing better than Hovey getting roasted in here is how much the White House Press Corp is being roasted on Twitter for whining about not being invited to the Biden Wedding.

Of course, had they been there they likely would have whined about how divisive it is to have a non-political event at the WH...but hey the press stopped caring about facts years ago!

The WHPC can get fucking bent. They whip their entitlement out and swing it at the public every time they feel even moderately slighted. It's sad and it's pathetic.

We don't demand access to the private quarters for a reason. It's where the President is allowed to be a regular citizen for meager minutes every day. I'm generally ok with the President using the private functions. But they need to remain private, apolitical, and obviously not used for fundraising. And I think that generally requires it being closed to the press, or even very limited.

 

[dxmnkd316]

he just went ahead and did it himself. That's not how government is supposed to work.

Except it is. Congress passed a law. The White House interpreted it and it's up to Congress and the courts to determine if that's an acceptable interpretation.

 

[dxmnkd316]

I remember uno's (apparently, series of) posts on this topic

Again, executive orders fill in the gaps left by Congress.

The pecking order is:
Constitution
Statutory law
Executive actions

Laws cannot violate the Constitution, and executive actions cannot contradict the Constitution or statutory law. But if the law says "people wearing red are banned," the President can define what constitutes red if Congress didn't. Maybe it includes maroon, or pink, or orange, or anything that includes a bit of red in the digital color scale.

The judiciary gives wide berths on immigration and national security issues, but if this doesn't count as enacting a law respecting religion (as brent argues) or violating the national origin provision of the 1965 law, then the court is simply being a rubber stamp at this point.

Judges can interpret ambiguous laws. They can't fix crystal clear but poorly drafted laws.

If a law says "red things are banned," a judge can interpret "red" as narrowly or broadly as he deems appropriate, subject to appellate review. Maybe it includes pink, maybe anything with a touch of red dye, or maybe just things that are solid red. The judge could also find that banning red things is unconstitutional.

But he can't say "red" also means "blue," even if the intent is clear that blue should be included.

If one federal statute conflicts with another federal statute, judges are to attempt to interpret them in a way so that both will survive. Where that is impossible (law X says red things are banned, law Y says red things cannot be banned), there have been entire forests that have been killed to try to determine which survives and which doesn't.

More to the point, though, there may not have been a conflict here. This is likely the workplace safety law applicable to truckers, and it just happened to have a gap in coverage, at least as far as Gorsuch saw it. That may be a flaw in the law, but it's not necessarily in conflict with anything else.

 

[rufus]

What I disagree with is how Biden chose to go about forgiving the student loans. He couldn't get enough legislative support for reasons that apparently only rufus and I know about, so he just went ahead and did it himself. That's not how government is supposed to work.

As I said, willfully ignorant.

Not a good look for you, to play willfully stupid just to try to make your point.

 

[SJHovey]

Except it is. Congress passed a law. The White House interpreted it and it's up to Congress and the courts to determine if that's an acceptable interpretation.

And if the Courts determine that it was an acceptable interpretation, I'm perfectly fine with it.

If it goes the other way, and the Court's say it was an incorrect interpretation, will everyone else here be ok with it?

 

[dxmnkd316]

And if the Courts determine that it was an acceptable interpretation, I'm perfectly fine with it.

If it goes the other way, and the Court's say it was an incorrect interpretation, will everyone else here be ok with it?

Ok with it? No, I'll continue to voice my opinion and push for alternative pathways. But I will accept that I'm helpless to do anything about it short of voting and pushing for legislation that would allow it.

 

[SJHovey]

Ok with it? No, I'll continue to voice my opinion and push for alternative pathways. But I will accept that I'm helpless to do anything about it short of voting and pushing for legislation that would allow it.

That's fair.

 

[psych]

And if the Courts determine that it was an acceptable interpretation, I'm perfectly fine with it.

If it goes the other way, and the Court's say it was an incorrect interpretation, will everyone else here be ok with it?

No. Standing should have never been granted. For those of us paying attention to the legal experts, we knew standing being granted would likely be the ballgame for the student loan forgiveness, as judges would use the judicially-created major questions to shoot it down. Congress gave explicit consent for the POTUS to unilaterally utilize the Sec of Education to waive or modify student loans in times of national emergency in the HEROES Act of 2003.
I’ve read Pittman’s opinion. The HEROES Act refutes all of it. It’s a disgusting breach of any sort of impartiality you so claim to desire in judges. His opinion rests on the major questions doctrine, same as yours. It’s a farce.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

You know, I started to list off all the reasons why student debt relief makes sense and why it's largely Boomers who created this mess for their own profit, but Hovey's heard it before and he obviously hasn't changed his mind. So I'm going to save us both the time and move on.

 

[Swansong]

No. Standing should have never been granted. For those of us paying attention to the legal experts, we knew standing being granted would likely be the ballgame for the student loan forgiveness, as judges would use the judicially-created major questions to shoot it down. Congress gave explicit consent for the POTUS to unilaterally utilize the Sec of Education to waive or modify student loans in times of national emergency in the HEROES Act of 2003.
I’ve read Pittman’s opinion. The HEROES Act refutes all of it. It’s a disgusting breach of any sort of impartiality you so claim to desire in judges. His opinion rests on the major questions doctrine, same as yours. It’s a farce.

Yes. They granted standing and even acknowledged that the plaintiff was not an aggrieved party (unsure of correct legal term for this), which is counter to the very concept of standing.

 

[Handyman]

The WHPC can get fucking bent. They whip their entitlement out and swing it at the public every time they feel even moderately slighted. It's sad and it's pathetic.

We don't demand access to the private quarters for a reason. It's where the President is allowed to be a regular citizen for meager minutes every day. I'm generally ok with the President using the private functions. But they need to remain private, apolitical, and obviously not used for fundraising. And I think that generally requires it being closed to the press, or even very limited.

It boggles my mind they are upset. Even better, they are butthurt a photo was released by the Bidens taken by a wedding photographer despite it being "private". It's like these fuckers never sent to a wedding before.

 

[dxmnkd316]

It boggles my mind they are upset. Even better, they are butthurt a photo was released by the Bidens taken by a wedding photographer despite it being "private". It's like these fuckers never sent to a wedding before.

Because journalists have stopped thinking of themselves as documentarians and instead they are part of the story.

The fundamental question: If we treat the universe and the events that take place in four dimensions as a physical book, what do journalists represent? Are they the narrator? The pages? A character written about in the book? A character that exists but isn't written about? The author?

I'd argue they're none of them. The concept of their existence isn't written in books. They're the net that captures a finite collection of written observations of the characters that exist in the world. Characters that may or may not even exist on the pages. The reporters aren't necessary for the story to exist. The story just is, they just happen to capture observations and document them. Maybe 'preserve' or 'temporarily preserve' is the better choice instead of 'document'.

 

[SJHovey]

You know, I started to list off all the reasons why student debt relief makes sense and why it's largely Boomers who created this mess for their own profit, but Hovey's heard it before and he obviously hasn't changed his mind. So I'm going to save us both the time and move on.

Student debt is not the mess. The mess is the exorbitant cost of higher education. For reasons that I've posted about earlier, it's a mess with which I am intimately familiar.

Student debt relief doesn't even start to address that problem. In fact, there are arguments that can be made that it worsens the problem. All it does is take a group of people within a given snapshot in time and give them financial relief from their debts.

I am all in favor of any solution that will reduce the cost of higher education. You come up with a plan that will work, I'm 100% with you.