Replies: 39
| visibility 551
|
Hall of Famer [24970]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42829
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Can anyone give an example of anything more criminal than openly defying a SC
4
Feb 23, 2024, 12:58 PM
|
|
ruling and then bragging about?
It seems as though JoeBi thinks Laws don't apply to him.
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [156260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65962
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Thinking about this as unbiased as I possibly can,
9
9
Feb 23, 2024, 1:01 PM
|
|
I don’t see how this isn’t a far bigger deal.
SC literally says “you can’t do this, it’s illegal and unconstitutional”, and he keeps doing it. This neuters the judicial branch for separating powers, and congress keeps looking up in the air and whistling while it happens.
I don’t expect the Dems to do much about it, but even the Pubs are barely giving it lip service.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24970]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42829
Joined: 7/31/10
|
An outside plaintiff has to bring suit (ie. a state AG or someone), but then it
3
Feb 23, 2024, 1:06 PM
|
|
would have to go back through the appeals process and potentially back to the SC... a merry-go-round endless loop.
DOJ should have a constitutional requirement to enforce SC rulings regardless of the adverse proponent. Maybe that could be a new amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [156260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65962
Joined: 5/6/13
|
An outside plaintiff did bring suit, which got
1
Feb 23, 2024, 1:08 PM
|
|
The initial ruling to be made. Why does it have to happen again?
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24970]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42829
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Biden has slightly altered the administration guidelines... No enforcement.***
2
Feb 23, 2024, 1:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [156260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65962
Joined: 5/6/13
|
It feels like the Dems pushing yet another boundary
6
6
Feb 23, 2024, 1:14 PM
|
|
That is terrible for the country and will undoubtedly bite them right in theass at some point in the future, at which point there will be much wailing about the demise of democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24362]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12390
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: It feels like the Dems pushing yet another boundary
4
Feb 23, 2024, 1:25 PM
|
|
You gotta keep people off the ballot to, you know, protect democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7269]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9823
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Biden has slightly altered the administration guidelines... No enforcement.***
Feb 23, 2024, 5:57 PM
[ in reply to Biden has slightly altered the administration guidelines... No enforcement.*** ] |
|
^^^ This.
DoJ can pretend to be enforcing something, but not actually doing anything. Example.
First step … wait for the Republicans to tell DoJ to take action to stop WH from forgiving the student loans. This won’t happen until after the election, because the Republicans can use this as another example to prove Biden’s lawlessness, and the Republicans won’t #### off the deadbeat ex-college students so that they actually GOTA (Get Off Their A _ _) and vote.
Second step … Republicans ask DoJ to take action; DoJ writes letter to WH.
Third step … refer to Second step.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27471]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15838
Joined: 1/26/22
|
If Pubs hadn't already shot their wad on impeachment, this would be a good
2
Feb 23, 2024, 1:06 PM
[ in reply to Thinking about this as unbiased as I possibly can, ] |
|
place to start. That, and smoke around the Biden White House's pressuring (or, impeachably, ordering) of social platforms to censor speech.
But alas, neither of those are catchy enough.
Kind of like how the original articles of impeachment against Clinton were for illegal foreign campaign contributions, but Ken Starr wanted to run instead with the dress.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24362]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12390
Joined: 9/1/14
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27471]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15838
Joined: 1/26/22
|
#DarkBrandon***
1
Feb 23, 2024, 1:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24362]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12390
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: #DarkBrandon***
3
Feb 23, 2024, 1:35 PM
|
|
Sometimes you need to flash a couple of Marines just to let Congress and the SC know who's boss.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24970]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42829
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Sometimes you just need to hide the 'flash'...***
1
Feb 23, 2024, 4:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30159
Joined: 9/9/06
|
They ruled the debt couldn't be forgiven under the HEROES ACT...
2
Feb 23, 2024, 5:15 PM
[ in reply to Thinking about this as unbiased as I possibly can, ] |
|
The new forgiveness is under the SAVE plan. A big reason for striking down the HEROES forgiveness was that it went "beyond modification" of the HEROES act and that the HEROES ACT didn't authorize debt-relief. (That's the majority's view at least)
The SAVE act is different in that it's specifically setup for repaying back loans and Biden just forgave any debt to those that have already paid for 10 years. It's narrower and considering there was very little standing for bringing the HEROES ACT case, I'm not sure how any will be found for this new action, but I could be wrong.
Anyways, the overall point is that the Supreme Court didn't tell Biden he couldn't forgive debt, they said he couldn't do it using the HEROES ACT. That's an important distinction and one that happens often.
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [156260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65962
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Read my comment below:
1
Feb 23, 2024, 6:08 PM
|
|
95% of the $51B in debt relief under SAVE went to people who would not have otherwise qualified before Biden put in a temporary waiver to change the rules of who qualified under SAVE.
So he took a legal congressional act, completely changed the parameters of it arbitrarily to make it something congress didn't intend it to be, and made a de facto new act in the process, bypassing the legislative branch altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30159
Joined: 9/9/06
|
The PSLF policy (from 2007) (and IDRs like SAVE plan)...
Feb 23, 2024, 7:27 PM
|
|
was passed by Congress and gave power to the Secretary of Education to deal with loan repayments. HEROES Act gave the Secretary of Education that power during times of emergency. On those grounds, the Supreme court mostly struck down Biden's more sweeping attempt at loan forgiveness using the HEROES act saying it went above and beyond the intention of the HEROES ACT. That's the basis for the difference between the two actions and why it's not correct to say the Supreme Court struck down Biden's right to forgive student debt. That's just not true.
There is more legal standing for the Biden Administration to use the powers granted through Congress with the PLSF and the Higher Education Act to modify and authorize the new forgiveness. The SAVE plan simply replaced the "REPAYE" IDR.
I would imagine going after the SAVE Plan at the Supreme Court, they'd have to first go after PSLF or someone says SAVE broadens authority too much to be overreach in comparison to REPAYE and/or PSLF authority allowance. In any case, it's a much tougher argument and narrower in scope than with HEROES.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13281]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14300
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Hes a dictator, period.***
Feb 23, 2024, 7:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30159
Joined: 9/9/06
|
okay.***
Feb 23, 2024, 7:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [156260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65962
Joined: 5/6/13
|
The rationales behind rejecting HEROES are exactly the same mechanisms employed
Feb 23, 2024, 11:50 PM
[ in reply to The PSLF policy (from 2007) (and IDRs like SAVE plan)... ] |
|
to alter the PSLF forgiveness terms. Again, fully 95% of the debt forgiven did not qualify prior to the "special waiver" issued by the Biden administration. That's a wholesale change by the executive branch to something passed by Congress, without being given the ability in the original act to make said wholesale changes. Read the rejection to HEROES for yourself. What was done in PSLF fits the exact same mold. They're just trying to force another plaintiff to be granted standing and then successfully sue, at which point the votes will have been bought and the debt forgiven will never be asked to be given back. It's a massive unconstitutional and unethical runaround.
From the HEROES ruling.
"In sum, the Secretary’s comprehensive debt cancellation plan is not a waiver because it augments and expands existing provisions dramat-ically. It is not a modification because it constitutes “effectively the introduction of a whole new regime.” MCI , 512 U. S., at 234. And it cannot be some combination of the two, because when the Secretary seeks to add to existing law, the fact that he has “waived” certain pro-visions does not give him a free pass to avoid the limits inherent in the power to “modify.” However broad the meaning of “waive or modify,” that language cannot authorize the kind of exhaustive rewriting of thestatute that has taken place here. Pp. 13–18.
(b) The Secretary also appeals to congressional purpose, arguing that Congress intended “to grant substantial discretion to the Secretary to respond to unforeseen emergencies.” On this view, the unprecedented nature of the Secretary’s debt cancellation plan is justified bythe pandemic’s unparalleled scope. But the question here is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it. As in the Court’s recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA , given the “‘history and the breadth of the authority’” asserted by the Executive and the “ ‘economic and political significance’ of that assertion,” the Court has “ ‘reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress’ meant to confer such authority.” 597 U. S. ___, ___ (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 529 U. S. 120, 159–160)"
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4855]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 4887
Joined: 1/8/19
|
Re: Can anyone give an example of anything more criminal than openly defying a SC
5
5
Feb 23, 2024, 1:04 PM
|
|
The left has decided that instead of packing the court it will just ignore it instead and continue to do whatever it wants. It's not like their voters give a crap about the rule of law or anything else other than their nine month abortions.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60240]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22555
Joined: 5/24/17
|
What Democrats scream that Trump will do
4
Feb 23, 2024, 1:14 PM
|
|
they have done time and time and time again. It’s amazing. Hats off to the Democrat machine, they are amazing at the spin.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7269]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9823
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: What Democrats scream that Trump will do
2
Feb 23, 2024, 5:59 PM
|
|
Not just amazing at spin, but also relentless and shameless.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17407]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14323
Joined: 12/14/98
|
So lets arrest Governor Abbott! Let the Border Patrol remove the razor wire!
Feb 23, 2024, 2:19 PM
|
|
And same for Joe and any others who defy court orders.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27471]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15838
Joined: 1/26/22
|
Game.***
Feb 23, 2024, 2:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [156260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65962
Joined: 5/6/13
|
How do you figure???
3
Feb 23, 2024, 2:55 PM
|
|
There was a ruling by the SC on loan forgiveness. They literally said Biden has no authority to do what he continues to do
In the border case there was no ruling at all. They just vacated the 5th district ruling while the challenge continues to play out. There was no direction from the court regarding what Abbott could and couldn’t do.
There’s nothing analogous between the two.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17407]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14323
Joined: 12/14/98
|
The SC ruling states that in the interim, the Border Patrol has jurisdiction
1
Feb 23, 2024, 3:19 PM
|
|
Not allowing the removal is defying that SC ruling. .
Biden probably has a technicality regarding administrative rules that allows changes to some student loan repayments.
Are both playing a game with legal technicalities. Sure but it’s the same game.
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [156260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65962
Joined: 5/6/13
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27471]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15838
Joined: 1/26/22
|
Oh I wasn't making any other point that I'd like to just start arresting people.***
Feb 23, 2024, 6:05 PM
[ in reply to How do you figure??? ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [156260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65962
Joined: 5/6/13
|
I'm ok with that.***
1
Feb 23, 2024, 6:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11651]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9803
Joined: 5/17/02
|
Can someone poast a link? I missed this issue.***
Feb 23, 2024, 4:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [329]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 705
Joined: 8/3/23
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [156260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65962
Joined: 5/6/13
|
That's quite an overly-vague synopsis.
2
Feb 23, 2024, 6:03 PM
|
|
For the "administrative errors" to the program cancelling debt after 20 years, he creatively included people in long-term forbearance who had been making no payments at all. Sweet gig that, not making any payments at all for 10 out of 20 years, but getting treated as if you'd made 20 years of payments. Illegal
For the 10 year govt worker forgiveness program, he actually expanded the criteria to include people that were never in the original rules of the program. From your own article:
"In 2021, Biden put a temporary waiver in place, expanding eligibility so that some borrowers could retroactively receive credit for past payments that did not otherwise qualify for PSLF. More than 95% of the borrowers who have been granted debt relief by the PSLF program ($51B in debt relief) qualified because of Biden’s temporary waiver." Illegal
It's absolutely illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17407]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14323
Joined: 12/14/98
|
No what the SC ruled was was that particular HEROES act forgiveness
Feb 23, 2024, 9:33 PM
|
|
For student loans was not proper not that all and any future student loan forgiveness was criminal. Most SC rulings are on particular legal questions not overarching policy decisions or restrictions on new legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [156260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65962
Joined: 5/6/13
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [329]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 705
Joined: 8/3/23
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [156260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65962
Joined: 5/6/13
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [156260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65962
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Some good thoughts from the WSJ ed board on the topic:
1
Feb 24, 2024, 12:00 AM
|
|
Biden’s Student Loan Boast: The Supreme Court ‘Didn’t Stop Me’ The President ignores the law again as he forgives more student debt. The total is now $138 billion and counting.
American Presidents may not like Supreme Court decisions, but most since Andrew Jackson haven’t bragged about defying its rulings. Not even Donald Trump. Then there’s President Biden, who, while canceling more student debt this week, boasted about ignoring the Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 ruling that his previous loan forgiveness plan was illegal. Speaking in Culver City, Calif., on Wednesday, Mr. Biden said his original plan to “provide millions of working families with debt relief for their college student debt” was derailed by “MAGA Republicans” and “special interests” who challenged the plan in court. “The Supreme Court blocked it,” Mr. Biden added, “but that didn’t stop me.” He apparently thinks defying the law is a virtue. On Wednesday Mr. Biden wrote off another $1.2 billion in student-loan debt, bringing the total amount he has canceled to some $138 billion. That’s not as much as the $400 billion debt cancellation a 6-3 Supreme Court majority struck down last summer, but it’s still a handout to 3.9 million borrowers. He’s not really cancelling anything because he’s transferring the debt from the borrowers it benefited to the taxpayers who will finance it with higher taxes or interest payments on the rising national debt. Under his Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, President Unstoppable is offering loan forgiveness through income-driven repayment plans. Borrowers used to be expected to pay 10% of the portion of their discretionary income that exceeds 150% of the federal poverty level ($22,590 for individuals) for 20 years after which their loans are forgiven. The Biden plan reduces the payments to 5% of their discretionary income above 225% of the poverty level. The Education Department says borrowers will also be eligible for loan forgiveness if they are enrolled in the SAVE plan, have been making payments for 10 years, and had total original debt of less than $12,000. Those with larger loan amounts will also be eligible for forgiveness on a sliding scale. Missouri had standing to challenge the first Biden loan forgiveness plan because its loan servicer would be adversely affected if borrowers stopped paying their loans. In overturning that Biden diktat, the Court said Mr. Biden had acted without proper Congressional authority and thus violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. Mr. Biden’s method of loan forgiveness has changed, but the same legal principles apply. We hope states and other plaintiffs harmed by Mr. Biden’s debt transfer to taxpayers are already looking to sue. Mr. Biden is boasting about his debt forgiveness because he is desperate to get young voters to support him again in November. His 2020 coalition is splintering, and younger voters aren’t thrilled with his leadership or the results of his economic policies. His debt forgiveness scheme is as flagrant a vote-buying ploy as we can remember. But the costs are high, and they aren’t merely to the federal fisc. The forgiveness skews to upper-income borrowers who have attended college at the expense of those who don’t. It is grossly unfair. It also punishes parents and students who have saved to pay for college without loans, or who sacrificed consumption after college to repay them. Mr. Biden’s scheme does nothing to reform student lending, so it increases the incentive for students to borrow more and colleges to raise tuition knowing all or nearly all will be forgiven eventually. But worst of all is Mr. Biden’s blatant rejection of the law, even after the Supreme Court called him out. Is it any wonder that GOP voters don’t take Democratic alarms about losing democracy seriously? Mr. Biden doesn’t take his own warnings seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30159
Joined: 9/9/06
|
They make good political points, but not legal ones....
Feb 24, 2024, 6:20 PM
|
|
They don't go into why they think the "same legal principles apply" with the SAVE plan (or any of PSLF modifications) versus the HEROES ACT's modification when the reasoning given in Biden v. Nebraska will not apply to the SAVE ACT or PSLF (Biden Admin didn't modify the plan outside of their legal authority). In fact...
This is from "Biden v. Nebraska":
""So too here, where the Secretary of Education claims the authority, on his own, to release 43 million borrowers from their obligations to repay $430 billion in student loans. The Secretary has never previously claimed powers of this mag- nitude under the HEROES Act. As we have already noted, past waivers and modifications issued under the Act have been extremely modest and narrow in scope. The Act has been used only once before to waive or modify a provision related to debt cancellation: In 2003, the Secretary waived the requirement that borrowers seeking loan forgiveness under the Education Act’s public service discharge provi- sions “perform uninterrupted, otherwise qualifying service for a specified length of time (for example, one year) or for consecutive periods of time, such as 5 consecutive years.” 68 Fed. Reg. 69317. That waiver simply eased the require- ment that service be uninterrupted to qualify for the public service loan forgiveness program. In sum, “[n]o regulation premised on” the HEROES Act “has even begun to ap- proach the size or scope” of the Secretary’s program.""
They are citing similar modifications to PSLF (similar in scale to the SAVE plan) to show the difference in scope as being the main contributing factor in why they are striking it down. New reasoning will have to be applied or at least narrowed down to apply to striking down SAVE or PSLF.
Also from Biden v. Nebraska:
""Specifically, the Secretary can cancel a set amount of loans held by some public servants—including teachers, members of the Armed Forces, Peace Corps volunteers, law enforce- ment and corrections officers, firefighters, nurses, and li- brarians—who work in their professions for a minimum number of years. 3Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) Opinion of the Court""
For the other PSLF savings Biden has forgiven, The 95% you bring up comes from counting money paid through other loan programs (that are now defunct), and other administrative obstructions that have clogged the system. It's not a "rewriting" but a clearing up of issues already in the code. To fix things like this from happening:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-government-loan-forgiveness-program-has-rejected-99-of-borrowers-so-far-2018-09-20?mod=article_inline
**Clearly the writer of that Op-ed is not the same one as the one who wrote in favor of the Immigration Bill or if it is, they are trying to regain favor. The continued use of "Mr. Biden" instead of "President Biden," "handout," "President Unstoppable," and "diktat" as examples are red flags of partisan thinking that should give anyone reading that with non-partisan eyes pause.
I do think some of the political points are right though that it's clearly a vote-getting attempt and doesn't do anything to reform student lending. Though for the most flagrant "vote-getting attempt" I'm reminded of Trump putting his signature on stimulus checks.
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [152]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 155
Joined: 1/8/16
|
Re: They make good political points, but not legal ones....
Feb 28, 2024, 2:55 PM
|
|
You do realize that the CARES Act passed the Senate with 96 yays to 0 nays, right? I guess you think it would be smart for a President to not sign into action a 100% all-partisan proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11000]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15150
Joined: 8/6/10
|
he's right***
1
Feb 28, 2024, 5:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 39
| visibility 551
|
|
|