What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 46.10: A New Hope

Status
Not open for further replies.
ScoobyDoo said:
It's probably fine that they ask people to conserve energy. But, just do not pull a Texas.
Click to expand...

Thats used to happen all the time in Maine during cold snaps, don't recall it happening in recent years probably as we haven't had a cold snap in many years.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
It's probably fine that they ask people to conserve energy. But, just do not pull a Texas.
Click to expand...

Fine? Most people I know are already doing it because of costs. And we’re colder here than just about anyone else and 40s sounds downright balmy.

im keeping house around 62. It’s called layers. And no I don’t have small kids or else maybe I’d have a different strategy.

there’s a war. People in America who want to buy cheap shit made in other nations by now should realize that what happens in those nations can affect us.

I don’t think conserving energy for those who can (like myself) is such a terrible thing to ask for.
 
SJHovey said:
Well, there are a lot of questions here. I will see if I can give you an answer to them, but part of it will just be an explanation of my view of cases like this, so you will understand my position.

First, when I think of the term "illegal," I think of a term that defines conduct for which you can be prosecuted. I understand that generally it just means contrary to law, but I tend to think of it more in terms of the criminal side to things, so no, I do not believe that Biden or his administration/agencies acted in an illegal fashion.

Next, the issue of "standing." Honestly, I've always assumed that judges sort of treat standing as Potter Stewart treated pornography. Not completely sure how you'd define it, but they know it when they see it. Now, is that right? Probably not. But I tend to think that if judges want to decide a case, they find a way to conclude the plaintiff has standing, and if they really don't want to decide a case, they find a way to determine there is no standing. Call me a cynic.

Finally, the issue of agency authority. People get hung up on things like the "major issues doctrine" or other names assigned by the courts or people to what they are doing. But, at the end of the day, it really boils down to these simple things:

Congress needs to be able to delegate authority to agencies. There is simply too much work to do, and they need agency expertise.
When Congress passes laws, they need to delegate that authority. By necessity, that delegation has to be somewhat general. But it can't be too general, otherwise we just basically have governing by non-elected government employees.

This need to be both specific, and general, necessarily always leads to court interpretation of the grant of authority. Since agency delegation was first used (yes, both before and after Chevron), the question has always basically been, is it reasonable to conclude that Congress granted the agency the authority to do what it is doing?

Those are the hard cases for courts to work with. Reading Congress' mind is not a simple task. I tend to believe that Court's are influenced by a lot of different things in making that determination, but one might certainly be the scope of what the agency proposes to do. I tend to think that the larger and more significant the impact on people and society, and in the absence of detailed delegation language in the law passed by Congress, the more likely it is that a court will question whether Congress really delegated that significant authority to just an agency. In other words, it isn't "reasonable" to conclude that Congress intended to simply pass along that much authority to an agency. Now, whether you want to call that a "major questions doctrine" or simply "unreasonable to assume authority was granted," I don't think it really matters that much.
Click to expand...

Assume that who you are debating with is as knowledgeable as you are on this particular topic. I skipped straight to the point because your pontification tells me that you think I need a lesson on what standing entails, what Congressional delegation to the executive looks like, and the difference between illegal and not allowed to do something is worthy of fleshing out instead of answering the questions, which you didn't. Furthermore, I never said Chevron was the start of anything.
So, I'll just guess you think it should be overturned because Congress wasn't explicit enough, in your opinion, of authorizing student debt cancellation, due to it being on such a large scale as to trigger the "vast economic and political significance" aka "biggy" major questions doctrine that Pittman used, and the Supreme Court may use as well in determining this case.*
*I realize it's an entirely separate student loan forgiveness case before the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
Handyman said:
If I had the temp that low my GF would have me sleeping in my car ;^)
Click to expand...

I thought I was being a little extreme but a recent Nextdoor thread proved me wrong. I think the cost of heating is just pushing people.

I will say, you get used to it
 
Dr. Mrs. would be happy if the house was the temperature of Sault Ste Marie. I am the one who insists on putting it up.

We compromised on 67 at night and 70 during the day, for obvious reasons.
 
psych said:
Assume that who you are debating with is as knowledgeable as you are on this particular topic. I skipped straight to the point because your pontification tells me that you think I need a lesson on what standing entails, what Congressional delegation to the executive looks like, and the difference between illegal and not allowed to do something is worthy of fleshing out instead of answering the questions, which you didn't. Furthermore, I never said Chevron was the start of anything.
So, I'll just guess you think it should be overturned because Congress wasn't explicit enough, in your opinion, of authorizing student debt cancellation, due to it being on such a large scale as to trigger the "vast economic and political significance" aka "biggy" major questions doctrine that Pittman used, and the Supreme Court may use as well in determining this case.*
*I realize it's an entirely separate student loan forgiveness case before the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I wasn't telling you what or how to think. As I stated in my post, I was writing what I think on the subject. You are free to disagree.

One thing that I didn't write in my post was an opinion that "it should be overturned because Congress wasn't explicit enough." I don't know whether it should be overturned or not. I haven't formed an opinion on it, and as I've stated repeatedly, I don't really care one way or the other.
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Fine? Most people I know are already doing it because of costs. And we’re colder here than just about anyone else and 40s sounds downright balmy.

im keeping house around 62. It’s called layers. And no I don’t have small kids or else maybe I’d have a different strategy.

there’s a war. People in America who want to buy cheap **** made in other nations by now should realize that what happens in those nations can affect us.

I don’t think conserving energy for those who can (like myself) is such a terrible thing to ask for.
Click to expand...

We leave it on 62 during the week and 70 on the weekend. It seems like it would be a massive waste to heat an empty house all week.
 
SJHovey said:
and as I've stated repeatedly, I don't really care one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Pretty much your entire raison d'etre on this board.

You've got yours, so the everyone else can just fuck right off. You're too into yourself to care.
 
Drew S. said:
We leave it on 62 during the week and 70 on the weekend. It seems like it would be a massive waste to heat an empty house all week.
Click to expand...
It’s why smart thermostats are so amazing. I’m home all day in 62, btw- I’m not out of the house when it’s that low.

my Nest tried to goad me into 59 overnight. Nope, I have a line and I manually adjusted up back to 62
 
Our house is 59 during the workday, 68 after 5:00 p, and 62 overnight. Mrs. b is a walking heater and would have it colder.
 
Speaking of turning up the heat: yesterday was a wonderful two-part christmas gift for Dump and his clan.
 
SJHovey said:
I wasn't telling you what or how to think. As I stated in my post, I was writing what I think on the subject. You are free to disagree.

One thing that I didn't write in my post was an opinion that "it should be overturned because Congress wasn't explicit enough." I don't know whether it should be overturned or not. I haven't formed an opinion on it, and as I've stated repeatedly, I don't really care one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Why even quote my post if you're not going to answer any of my questions? Clearly we're not having a conversation if your entire post had literally nothing to do with the specific questions I laid out for you about these particular cases. Not generalized conversation about standing, illegal versus not allowed to do something, and what agency authority looks like. I know about all of those things, albeit maybe with a different understanding of how they're applied than you. If you don't want to answer them, fine, but don't pretend like your response did anything other than beat around the bush.
Your last few sentences are hilarious. You've already explicitly stated that Biden can't do this, and that "this is not how government is supposed to work." So, you know, that explicit authorization of disagreement by you with how Biden went about cancelling student loans is why I'm asking you specific questions about how these particular cases are the ones that will prove Biden can't cancel student loans on such a 'biggy' level, as you've expressed support for other student loans being canceled, albeit on a more micro-level.
 
psych said:
Why even quote my post if you're not going to answer any of my questions? Clearly we're not having a conversation if your entire post had literally nothing to do with the specific questions I laid out for you about these particular cases. Not generalized conversation about standing, illegal versus not allowed to do something, and what agency authority looks like. I know about all of those things, albeit maybe with a different understanding of how they're applied than you. If you don't want to answer them, fine, but don't pretend like your response did anything other than beat around the bush.
Your last few sentences are hilarious. You've already explicitly stated that Biden can't do this, and that "this is not how government is supposed to work." So, you know, that explicit authorization of disagreement by you with how Biden went about cancelling student loans is why I'm asking you specific questions about how these particular cases are the ones that will prove Biden can't cancel student loans on such a 'biggy' level, as you've expressed support for other student loans being canceled, albeit on a more micro-level.
Click to expand...

I think I've answered your questions, but perhaps an illustration will work to show what I think the issue is, and why I think there is a chance the courts will say that the Secretary of Education lacked authority to forgive the loans.

Here is an example of a law, passed by Congress, explicitly granting authority to the Secretary to forgive student loans.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1087

As you can see by the plain language of the statute, authority is granted to the Secretary, if certain conditions are met, to forgive loans.

Here is what I think the Biden administration is relying on for the current blanket, forgiveness plan.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1098bb

In very general, non-specific language, the Secretary is granted the authority to waive or modify statutory requirements relating to student loans, if certain conditions are met.

I think we can agree that there is a significant difference in the specificity of delegation language in these two laws. The first one is unambiguous. The second, pretty broad and vague.

That's why, I believe, there is an open question as to whether the authority was granted. Now, which way will the courts go on this? No idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top