Student Loan Forgiveness is Set to Expire: This is Going to be Painful for Many!

[evident]

I might be overly optimistic here, but I'd like to hope that demographic learned from that same mistake in 2016.

I sure as fuck hope so. For all of those bernie bros or Hillary is too "insert x here" that stayed home, this Supreme Court is all because of you!

 

[KMFJD]

what are the mental gymnastics used to be ok with forgiving ppp loans but not this, what is the strange difference?

 

[cmcartman]

what are the mental gymnastics used to be ok with forgiving ppp loans but not this, what is the strange difference?

I personally feel the same way about the SVB bank deposits, PPP, and Student loan forgiveness. The PPP loans were at least from legislation though if you want to argue a difference. I think the actual forgiveness on those loans should have been greatly limited. It should have had clawbacks built into the legislation if it was needed quicker than it could be given out with real financial scrutiny.

 

[fskimospy]

I personally feel the same way about the SVB bank deposits, PPP, and Student loan forgiveness. The PPP loans were at least from legislation though if you want to argue a difference. I think the actual forgiveness on those loans should have been greatly limited. It should have had clawbacks built into the legislation if it was needed quicker than it could be given out with real financial scrutiny.

This was authorized through legislation too, SCOTUS just decided that the plain meaning of the text led to things they didn’t like so they made up some bullshit.

 

[IronWing]

I personally feel the same way about the SVB bank deposits, PPP, and Student loan forgiveness. The PPP loans were at least from legislation though if you want to argue a difference. I think the actual forgiveness on those loans should have been greatly limited. It should have had clawbacks built into the legislation if it was needed quicker than it could be given out with real financial scrutiny.

Student loan forgiveness was also in black letter law. The Supremes simply lied when they coughed up their major questions doctrine nonsense. The Supremes have been doing that a lot lately.

 

[brycejones]

I personally feel the same way about the SVB bank deposits, PPP, and Student loan forgiveness. The PPP loans were at least from legislation though if you want to argue a difference. I think the actual forgiveness on those loans should have been greatly limited. It should have had clawbacks built into the legislation if it was needed quicker than it could be given out with real financial scrutiny.

Let me guess in 2008 you were for letting everyone go bust?

 

[fskimospy]

Student loan forgiveness was also in black letter law. The Supremes simply lied when they coughed up their major questions doctrine nonsense. The Supremes have been doing that a lot lately.

The ‘major questions doctrine’ is essentially ‘I know the law says this is ok but I don’t like it, therefore the law doesn’t count.’

 

[cmcartman]

Let me guess in 2008 you were for letting everyone go bust?

I think socialist capitalism happens way too often to corporations. Won't say in every case they should have gone bust. But the idea that companies can make stupid decisions when it's easy to make money and then have the government bail them out later when they bite them the ass is wrong. Doing so only strengthens the idea that next time it happens they're going to get bailed out too.

 

[cmcartman]

This was authorized through legislation too, SCOTUS just decided that the plain meaning of the text led to things they didn’t like so they made up some bullshit.

I haven't had time to read the decision other than very brief excerpts, working on that now hopefully if I have time. Are you referring to the ability to "modify" loans correct? That they can be modified to zero or something else?

Not disagreeing entirely but there is a difference between legislation written for a specific situation and legislation written for a prior one that is now being used in a similar but not exact situation that it was written for. One does often need more interpretation if the law isn't crystal clear. Sometimes laws are poorly written and the courts job is to interpret those laws.

 

[fskimospy]

I haven't had time to read the decision other than very brief excerpts, working on that now hopefully if I have time. Are you referring to the ability to "modify" loans correct? That they can be modified to zero or something else?

Not disagreeing entirely but there is a difference between legislation written for a specific situation and legislation written for a prior one that is now being used in a similar but not exact situation that it was written for. One does often need more interpretation if the law isn't crystal clear. Sometimes laws are poorly written and the courts job is to interpret those laws.

The law gave sweeping authority to change any and all terms of the loans. It was not ambiguous.

The main problem is that SCOTUS made up a ‘major questions doctrine’ which has no basis in the law or the constitution.

 

[fskimospy]

SCOTUS needs to be reminded that if they disagree with policy decisions they should run for office. Instead they have decided to be unelected legislators.

 

[cmcartman]

The law gave sweeping authority to change any and all terms of the loans. It was not ambiguous.

The main problem is that SCOTUS made up a ‘major questions doctrine’ which has no basis in the law or the constitution.

So if they decided to change the loan balances to be a million each you'd think that's legal under the law? Budget crisis solved in one fell swoop!

I tend to disagree with chevron deference doctrine so I imagine we're never going to see this eye to eye either.

 

[fskimospy]

So if they decided to change the loan balances to be a million each you'd think that's legal under the law? Budget crisis solved in one fell swoop!

I tend to disagree with chevron deference doctrine so I imagine we're never going to see this eye to eye either.

That would not be possible as that would violate the constitution’s takings clause.

Again, this is not a question as to if you think the policy is a good idea. (I don’t think it is). It has to do with the fact that it was plainly, obviously authorized by statute but SCOTUS is trying to take legislative authority away from the elected branches.

If they want to write laws they should run for office. It’s long past time to expand the court and give them a reminder of where their place is.

 

[fskimospy]

Also Chevron deference is a plain, common sense, conservative approach to jurisprudence. Courts are not experts in all these fields so it makes sense when confronted with ambiguity to defer to the experts. Otherwise you end up with the situation we have now where incompetent, amateur historians are writing laws. It’s basically like if your idiot uncle at thanksgiving were in charge of national policy.

 

[cmcartman]

That would not be possible as that would violate the constitution’s takings clause.

Again, this is not a question as to if you think the policy is a good idea. (I don’t think it is). It has to do with the fact that it was plainly, obviously authorized by statute but SCOTUS is trying to take legislative authority away from the elected branches.

If they want to write laws they should run for office. It’s long past time to expand the court and give them a reminder of where their place is.

That's fair, and I haven't really come to a decision what I think when it concerns the "major questions doctrine" decision here. I can point out a recent SC case that directly impacted me. I felt like they did get it wrong and seemed to ignore the intent of the law by ruling with the verbiage of the law.

I have also seen Federal judges make decisions for both sides In which I felt they weren't following the law but following their heart. Not conceding yet that this is the same case. But I do agree broadly with the concern that court decisions are becoming more political in general.

 

[Pens1566]

This "major questions doctrine" bullshit is a perfect opportunity for Dark Brandon to pull an FDR and just fucking ignore it completely. The executive implements/enforces the laws. There should be at least some way to blow this off.

 

[kt]

I haven't had time to read the decision other than very brief excerpts, working on that now hopefully if I have time. Are you referring to the ability to "modify" loans correct? That they can be modified to zero or something else?

Not disagreeing entirely but there is a difference between legislation written for a specific situation and legislation written for a prior one that is now being used in a similar but not exact situation that it was written for. One does often need more interpretation if the law isn't crystal clear. Sometimes laws are poorly written and the courts job is to interpret those laws.

Let me tell you how stupid your argument is with an example. Say I wrote you a message that says, "Fire him!" Do you go back to me to clarify, or do you go to some random stranger asking them to interpret what I meant by that?

 

[fskimospy]

That's fair, and I haven't really come to a decision what I think when it concerns the "major questions doctrine" decision here. I can point out a recent SC case that directly impacted me. I felt like they did get it wrong and seemed to ignore the intent of the law by ruling with the verbiage of the law.

I have also seen Federal judges make decisions for both sides In which I felt they weren't following the law but following their heart. Not conceding yet that this is the same case. But I do agree broadly with the concern that court decisions are becoming more political in general.

If the courts want to rule on the intent of a law as opposed to the text that’s fine, the issue is the shifting standard. Sometimes they say the plain text controls, other times it’s a ‘major question’ (based on nothing).

The courts have gotten out of control. It’s long past time to put them back in their place.

 

[cmcartman]

If the courts want to rule on the intent of a law as opposed to the text that’s fine, the issue is the shifting standard. Sometimes they say the plain text controls, other times it’s a ‘major question’ (based on nothing).

The courts have gotten out of control. It’s long past time to put them back in their place.

I agree with the "shifting standard" argument here. If you're going to go one way or the other depending on the case you really need to be able to support the reason. Or just pick one and stick with it like you're suggesting. I think more of the disagreement boils down to how conservatives and liberals literally process subjective thoughts and is not necessarily about pushing politics.

 

[Jaskalas]

I am rather confused.
Was this Student Loan Forgiveness the explicit part of the bill as called out for here, or was it some other action separate from that?

*edit
It did not become law?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6800/text#H5D4068E8918643599C92941A13AE08FD

(b) Relief For Private Student Loan Borrowers As A Result Of The COVID–19 National Emergency.—
(1) STUDENT LOAN RELIEF AS A RESULT OF THE COVID–19 NATIONAL EMERGENCY.—Not later than 90 days after September 30, 2021, the Secretary of the Treasury shall carry out a program under which a borrower, with respect to the private education loans of such borrower, shall receive in accordance with paragraph (3) an amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the total amount of each private education loan of the borrower; or
(B) $10,000
....

 

[akugami]

If somebody ever comes up with a good explanation of why you can't discharge student debt in bankruptcy like all other debt I'll listen to it. Haven't heard anything remotely convincing yet.

Can't have people edumacated. They may learn how we keep them enslaved. Sure, they're not called slaves, but it's the next best thing to actual slavery. They work for peanuts. We get all the phat lewts.

Anyone who can get over the hump of the soul crushing obstacles we put in place are clearly part of the elite. They may join our ranks.

 

[akugami]

Biden, and frankly everyone should just ignore these high court rulings because they are obviously influenced by money peddling and wealthy donors. Biden needs to burn the court down to the ground by refusing to abide, and with also instructing the nation to simply ignore the rulings, and just pretend the high court never had the power in the first place.
I guess one might call that a civil war, well...... need I say more???
Its been a long time coming, and personally I don't want anything to so with these bigoted hypocritical religious fanatic destroyers of democracy. I don't want anything to do with them and never to be ruled by them.

The high court has caused its own illegitimacy by allowing corruption to find its way in and denying a black president his justice. Both entirely unconstitutional. So in short, we have no court. And as a republican would say, the high court rulings of late will open the pandoras box of what is to come. Hell, some maga could file a lawsuit insisting Biden be ousted simply because Biden goes against their religious beliefs, and Gorsuch would agree.

I agree with this.

It's what Trump did. For example, when funding his wall. Just say fuck-it, and steal money from other places. In Trump's case, that wall was built with money that was mean for our armed forces.

 

[KMFJD]

the only fair and equitable thing to do is to make everyone repay their ppp loans with interest if students are to be made to repay their loans, i think everyone can agree on this simple compromise right? Wait why not? Is it because who owes who?

 

[Zorba]

Couldn't Congress pass a law that banned the major questions bullshit?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Doesn't it also say that all debts are to be forgiven every seven years?

Jesus had a thing about Money Lenders. He didn’t like the profession at all.