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.
Spartanforlife4 said:
Anything you’re hooking up to the internet is. Thermostat, fridge, the pet treat dispenser with an app to give one when you’re out.
Click to expand...
God I could not believe the crap on fridges now last time I shopped. I do not need a camera for godsakes nor Bluetooth or Wi-Fi. Just another thing to break
 
SJHovey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for returning to the actual disagreement between us. No, obviously I don’t agree with you on the specificity of delegation language. If I did, this conversation wouldn’t be happening, right?
I think the HEROES Act explicitly authorized what Biden did. I think Biden has the legal authority under it. If you agreed with me, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, right? Thus why I asked particular questions about this case.
I think we all know if the Supreme Court has ruled like it has in recent, similar cases, like West Virginia v. EPA, explicitly using the major questions doctrine in that case, I think explicitly for the first time, they’ll likely rule the same way here. I remember unofan posting something back when the West Virginia/EPA case ruling came out this year calling the major questions doctrine a run-around or end-around or something like that. I think that’ll apply here.
 
Slap Shot said:
Set ours to 22 when we're home, 25 when we're not, 24 at night if we can't have the windows open.
Click to expand...

maxresdefault.jpg
 
Handyman said:
I know you do :^)

I won't lie I am not a fan of the Griner deal.
Click to expand...

We gave up too much? Given moscows ability to wage a war, the arms dealer they are getting back isn’t as valuable as a wnba player.

And give some kudos to the WNBA, they quickly pivoted from relief to advocating for the other Americans in custody abroad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top