Activist judge gets thrown around a lot, but if the shoe fits....
cakeistheanswer 31 points 3 years ago
1chemistdown 30 points 3 years ago
The only reason activist judge gets thrown around a lot is because the fascists have been screaming it for several decades while they stack the courts with activist judges. There screams have also caused the other side to fill courts with moderates so they’re not seen as stacking the courts.
ivanafterall 2 points 3 years ago
You must acquit?
axolittl 31 points 3 years ago
It's corruption. This isn't a fluke, it's that the "justice" system revolves around what's best for the already powerful elites. It happened because the powerful wanted it to happen, the court just exists to provide the theater to control and placate the masses.
afraid_of_zombies2 19 points 3 years ago
What is also interesting to me is the Supreme Court has rejected pretty much all forms of standing for establishment clause violations.
You could be a religious Muslim rightfully upset that your local government is making public statements about Jesus being lord and you would have no standing since they wiped out offended observer standing.
LordofCandy 13 points 3 years ago
I am really getting tired of many of these cases where they are based on theoretical harm. It’s like my mother-in-law arguing about 5 things that haven’t happened yet. Possible. Probable. Reality.
afraid_of_zombies2 2 points 3 years ago
Meanwhile these were the same people who refused to mask up or vaccinate.
Rodsterlings_cig 5 points 3 years ago
I think they threw most of them out for standing, but of course they just needed one. The most bs was the other case they decided where a person pre sued the state since she couldn't even start a wedding service without the ability to discriminate due to their religious beliefs.
As others have noted with this court, standing is used when convenient.
Aesthesiaphilia -6 points 3 years ago
I'm against student loan forgiveness, but I agree. All evidence seems to say that the plaintiffs had no standing. The case should have been thrown out.
Although I'm happy with the result, the means are not worth the ends. This is a corrupt faction of judges ignoring and applying law where it suits their broader agenda.
deweydecibel 12 points 3 years ago
Fine. I'll bite.
Why are you against student loan forgiveness?
afraid_of_zombies2 14 points 3 years ago
5 bucks says it is either a half remembered article from an economist who works for the student loan people wailing about theoretical inflation or they knew someone with a degree that doesn't pay well and want to punish them for trying.
It is always one or the other.
No1 3 points 3 years ago
Let me preface this by saying I'm open to being wrong and that I don't expect others to share these views. I still owe on my student loans and am not excited to continue paying them. Also, I'm listing several reasons here, so even if someone pokes holes in one or two, I'd encourage to see if there are still one or two solid reasons to be opposed to the specific method of student loan payoffs that was ruled unconstitutional.
From the beginning, the Biden administration knew this wasn't a constitutional way of paying off loans. Their hope was that no one would have standing to bring a suit. In general, I'm not in favor of doing unconstitutional things in the hope we can get away with it. That's a door I don't want the Republicans to have access to either.
This program was initially proposed as COVID relief but does nothing to help those most impacted by COVID. It DOES however, help a huge class of potential voters. From the start this hasn't been about helping people, it's been about gaining votes.
Paying off existing student loans is an expensive measure that does nothing to address what got us here in the first place. We are paying too much for degrees that don't provide the benefits and opportunities they once did, and that's not going to change if we cancel existing debt. All it does is out us right back here in 5-10 years.
There's a right way to go about this stuff. Congress should be the ones doing this, not the president. Unfortunately we have a congress that would much rather assign their work out to other people to take care of and that's part of what has gotten us in the mess we're in in the first place. I prefer a weak Office of the President, as we don't always have who we want in that office. Sometimes this means things move slower than we'd like, but I'd rather that than letting whoever is president at the time take huge sweeping actions unchecked by Congress and the Judicial Branch.
Now, just to piss off anyone who wasn't already upset with me, I think Trump is a crook and I hope he goes to jail for a long time.
Anyway, I'm not trying to start a fight, just give some reasons why I personally am happy with this SC decision.
ElectricCattleman 5 points 3 years ago
I'm also against loan forgiveness and agree with all your points. Especially number 3. I want to add emphasis that I think forgiveness in this way will actually make the problem worse.
Yes, it would be a huge help to those who had debts forgiven. However if forgiven once, more people will be likely to go to price-gouging colleges, sign up for the huge student loans, and think there is some chance it will be forgiven later. Colleges will continue to raise tuition because people keep paying it.
We need to address the tuition cost problem. Colleges are out of control. Until we fix that, anything else will encourage them to keep going. Another way of looking at $500bn of loans forgiven... That's $500bn in the colleges pockets that they get to keep after tripling their tuition.
I think college is a great thing and important to be accessible. We need to make it cheap enough that students can afford it and not come out of it with $80k+ in loans (I as did).
afraid_of_zombies2 -3 points 3 years ago
Not true. The executive branch has the power to not collect a tax or debt. Don't like it? Then vote for a law change. Good luck with that since this has been the case since before the US even started. In fact what is now the UK waived the land tax on the colonies. It says a lot that to even get standing they had to legally force a corporation to claim damages.
Even if true who cares? Governments serve the population ideally. Would you rather they didn't give people what they want so things are "fair"? Plus I seriously doubt you were protesting when the banks were bailed out, or the airlines, or the farms, or the banks, or the "small" business owners, or the insurance companies, or the car makers.
When a patient is bleading out you don't give them a lecture on the importance of safety. You stop the bleeding. ER doctors are not useless because they don't address root causes.
Again. Congress authorizes the collection of taxes and debt they do not collect. Giving permission is not the same as an order to perform.
You know I used to be a test engineer which means I was lied to about 30% of my day by PMs who wanted to push things out. A trick I figured out pretty early. When someone is telling me the truth they only need one reason. When they know that they are wrong they give me multiple weak arguments.
Aesthesiaphilia -1 points 3 years ago
Doesn't address the root problem, in fact it makes the root problem worse. It's just a one time payout to a lucky group of millenials who happen to qualify at the moment.
Also, it primarily benefits wealthier people who got college degrees. That money would do a lot more good going to poorer people.
nostalgicgamerz -1 points 3 years ago
We’re waiting for your reply
Aesthesiaphilia 1 point 3 years ago
I already replied
I think kbin and lemmy are still a little slow federating with each other. Your post here just hit my notifications even though it says you posted 15 hours ago.
BombOmOm -12 points 3 years ago
Missouri proved they have standing via direct injury:
"At least Missouri has standing to challenge the Secretary’s program. Article III requires a plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact—a concrete and imminent harm to a legally protected interest, like property or money—that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by the lawsuit. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561. Here, as the Government concedes, the Secretary’s plan would cost MOHELA, a nonprofit government corporation created by Missouri to participate in the student loan market, an estimated $44 million a year in fees. MOHELA is, by law and function, an instrumentality of Missouri: Labeled an “instrumentality” by the State, it was created by the State, is supervised by the State, and serves a public function. The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself. The Court reached a similar conclusion 70 years ago in Arkansas v. Texas, 346 U. S. 368."
CrazyDuck 31 points 3 years ago
Except that MOHELA didn't sue and didn't want to sue in the first place. No business has a constitutional right to make a profit. If all debtors transferred their loans to a different company tomorrow, MOHELA would go bankrupt and they'd have just as much standing then, I.e. none at all. Furthermore, as I said, MOHELA didn't sue, the state of Missouri did. MOHELA doesn't pay a single cent to the state of Missouri, so exactly how is Missouri being injured here? The fact that MOHELA would make less money changes nothing to the "public function" Missouri is supposed to provide here. It can still continue to offer student loans. So I ask again, where is the injury? None of this gives Missouri the state any standing
conditional_soup 10 points 3 years ago
Ah yes, red states, famous defenders of public institutions. Good grief. Thanks for clarifying!
xdre 10 points 3 years ago
Missouri proved no such thing.
Meanwhile, last October, MOHELA admitted in a letter to Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) that its executives “were not involved with the decision of the Missouri Attorney General’s Office to file for the preliminary injunction in federal court.” The Missouri attorney general had to obtain documents from MOHELA through state sunshine law requests in order to use them in the lawsuit. As I wrote last month, if this is successful, “the Supreme Court would be allowing the plaintiffs to win their case thanks to an unwilling conspirator.”
The internal documents from MOHELA reinforce this. They were obtained through those same state sunshine laws by the Student Borrower Protection Center.
afraid_of_zombies2 5 points 3 years ago
Like 180 million women in America and they all have less rights than my dead body will and they have no standing meanwhile a corporation that didn't want to go to court was forced to by parts of the government and they have standing for theoretical harm.
Crimfresh 3 points 3 years ago
"The Court’s first overreach in this case is deciding it at all. Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must have standing to challenge a government action. And that requires a personal stake—an injury in fact. We do not al-low plaintiffs to bring suit just because they oppose a policy.
Neither do we allow plaintiffs to rely on injuries suffered by others. Those rules may sound technical, but they enforce “fundamental limits on federal judicial power.” Allen v.
Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750 (1984). They keep courts acting like courts. Or stated the other way around, they prevent courts from acting like this Court does today. The plaintiffs in this case are six States that have no personal stake in the Secretary’s loan forgiveness plan. They are classic ide-ological plaintiffs: They think the plan a very bad idea, but they are no worse off because the Secretary differs. In giv-ing those States a forum—in adjudicating their complaint— the Court forgets its proper role. The Court acts as though it is an arbiter of political and policy disputes, rather than of cases and controversies."
They claimed they had standing. All the liberal justices disagree. This was a partisan lawsuit from the beginning and conservative activist judges on the SCOTUS are legislating from the bench with this ruling and ignoring decades of standing precedent.
Robocopsicle 100 points 3 years ago
This quote from Pence is so unbelievably infuriating.
Joe Biden’s massive trillion-dollar student loan bailout subsidizes the education of elites on the backs of hardworking Americans
Good to know all of the millennial and gen z college graduates earning less than $125,000 per year and struggling in an awful economy are "elites" and not "hardworking Americans."
Since I'm now apparently an elite, do I get a membership card in the mail?
Vynlovanth 23 points 3 years ago
Just another way the GOP is gaslighting the American public. American public distrusts the “elite” which the GOP represent or are part of themselves so they attempt to change what “elite” actually is. All of the lower and middle class people fight each other over a few thousand dollars while millionaires and billionaires siphon millions to billions from them through government handouts or record profits/“inflation”.
Viking_Hippie 16 points 3 years ago
Not to mention that this is coming from the guy who said that racism is over because his three white kids graduated college
afraid_of_zombies2 10 points 3 years ago
Vote vote vote.
Aesthesiaphilia 8 points 3 years ago
Yeah, it's called a diploma
diskmaster23 6 points 3 years ago
Hardworking Americans are rich people. It's a code. Poor people aren't hard working because they are poor. If they were, they would be rich. All of the mental gymnastics is just that, and it is ridiculous.
huge_clock -6 points 3 years ago
Although the language is very imprecise, a university graduate will make $720,000 more over a 20 year period than a non-university graduate, spend four years out of the labour force not paying taxes and then will also have a higher life expectancy drawing from the public pension longer.
Tell me why it’s reasonable for people who didn’t go to university to help foot the bill for people who did?
Robocopsicle 4 points 3 years ago
This is the exact type of resentment members of the GOP are trying to sow among marginally different income brackets to promote infighting rather than pointing the finger at the actual "elite" class. You shouldn't have to be saddled with massive amounts of debt to simply get an education. Adjusted for inflation, college tuition has increased nearly 750% since 1963. Source.
Why not tax the rich to pay for programs to support the lower and middle classes? Or subsidize education?
a university graduate will make $720,000 more over a 20 year period than a non-university graduate
That $720,000 difference over 20 years is less than a one-year salary for thousands of CEOs. Based on this list, there are 2,721 CEOs who earned more than $720,000 in 2021 (you have to scroll all the way down to page 137 to find a CEO earning less than $720,000).
It's a drop in the bucket.
spend four years out of the labour force not paying taxes and then will also have a higher life expectancy drawing from the public pension longer.
If university grads earn more, wouldn't their higher tax contributions quickly make up for the four non-tax-paying years compared to someone earning less without a degree? Not to mention it isn't uncommon for students to also work while in college.
Regarding life expectancy, this is the same blame-game criticism. What impact would affordable healthcare have on life expectancy? Or a higher minimum wage?
Tell me why it’s reasonable for people who didn’t go to university to help foot the bill for people who did?
You could make the same argument for any type of program that distributes tax dollars to others. "Why should my hard-earned money go to someone sitting at home on welfare?"
The federal government clearly has no problem throwing obscene amounts of money at corporations, whether they need it or not, so why not divert some of that aid to the people?
When I took out my student loans, I knew what I was signing up for, and I never expected — or wanted – the government to step in and waive them. After seeing the massive amounts of money the government handed out in the form of PPP funds, including potentially $200 billion fraudulently (source), my view changed. If billionaires were getting PPP loans for millions of dollars, why shouldn't a bunch of college graduates get $20,000 each?
Would you rather your tax money go to reducing student debt or $2 million to $5 million to Kanye West's Yeezys? Or Tom Brady's TB12 getting nearly $1 million?
It's obviously not an actual either-or question, but ultimately, if the government is bailing out billionaires, banks, etc., then yeah, fuck it, help your middle class college graduates.
huge_clock -2 points 3 years ago
There aren’t enough CEOs to tax to make up the $400 billion it would cost for the student loan forgiveness.
tallwookie -9 points 3 years ago
$125k isnt even that much - but I suppose it depends on what degree you got and if you landed a job in your chosen field.
Robocopsicle 16 points 3 years ago
$125,000 seemed like a pretty fair cutoff for the loan forgiveness. If $124,999 is the maximum you could've earned to still be eligible, I feel like you're generally living pretty comfortably, but still not "elite." I mean, I make half that with a bachelor's degree in journalism, so I was thrilled my remaining $20k in loans could've been waived.
tallwookie -111 points 3 years ago
it's called communism. doesnt work.
TONKAHANAH 52 points 3 years ago
Thats not what communism is and even if it was, you literally just tried to say caring about other people is bad regardless of what its called. This is part of the problem.
Aesthesiaphilia 13 points 3 years ago
He said the quiet part out loud.
Republicans don't care about anyone except themselves, and they think EVERYONE is actually that self centered. They literally think progressives are just faking it to gain power.
diskmaster23 5 points 3 years ago
Let's be real, they don't even care about themselves. The real motivation is hurting others and punching down.
itsJoelleScott 44 points 3 years ago
Yikes man, as a gov't worker who gets paid less than my counter-parts in my industry: there are people who work for less in a capitalistic system for the betterment of others and are proud of it. You have no idea what you're talking about.
E: not every person has blinders about "what's in it for me." And it's not "communistic" to do so.
tallwookie 3 points 3 years ago
it isnt. a lot of folks dont know how language actually works
hootenannyshenanigan 31 points 3 years ago
Or take out a PPP loan.
acchariya 51 points 3 years ago
Now that student borrowers aren't getting a "free ride", I want PPP loan recipients to be required to pay back the full amount, plus say, 9% interest, retroactively. Why should my tax dollars pay for your free business loan?
FlyingSquid 46 points 3 years ago
SCOTUS is why we can't have nice things. Well, them and congress. And often the executive branch.
Basically we can't have nice things.
MustrumR 12 points 3 years ago
I'd say 70% if I had to guess (not a real stat) as someone watching outside of the US.
Dems, although not being neonazi bigots still have a lot of scum inside. For example undermining recent Right to Repair. Getting bought out by tech companies, especially ISPs locally. And let's not forget about them siding with railroad companies during strike.
Aesthesiaphilia -2 points 3 years ago
It's all relative. Y'all need to understand that. Compared to YOUR worldview, sure, moderate democrats are conservatives. Compared to centrists? No, they're not.
Your political views are abnormal. Compared to most.
Aesthesiaphilia 6 points 3 years ago
Every House Democrat and all Senate Democrats except Joe Manchin voted to give the striking railroad unions the sick days they were striking for.
Not sure what you mean by undermining right to repair, the Biden administration issued an executive order directing the FTC to punish companies that restrict the ability of independent shops to repair electronics.
ivanafterall -1 points 3 years ago
Don't forget state and local "leaders!" They're the worst, too!
HipHoboHarold 37 points 3 years ago
5 rich people sign a paper saying it's cool if they die in a shitty submarine, they do, and we spent millions trying to find them.
But people actually need help and we could improve our society and economy in numerous ways, and we can't do that.
I hate this place so God damn much.
nortorc 6 points 3 years ago
5 rich people sign a paper saying it’s cool if they die in a shitty submarine, they do, and we spent millions trying to find them.
Not that I don't agree with the sentiment, but this isn't exclusive to the rich. There have been numerous cave diving incidents where people intentionally do stupid things like ignoring warning signs or breaking past locked gates only to end up in trouble and require a huge rescue operation to get them out and/or recover their bodies.
tallwookie -34 points 3 years ago
we Americans are granted a lot of freedoms - not that many countries offer similar freedoms. you could try to leave & go elsewhere but just because the grass looks greener, it doesnt mean that it is.
Endlessvoid 16 points 3 years ago
You may have been exposed to a bit too much propoganda my guy. The USA doesn't even crack the top 20 in most major freedom indices.
afraid_of_zombies2 15 points 3 years ago
Yeah the freedom to have your womb owned by the Catholic Church, the freedom to die of an easily treatment condition, the freedom to spend your life in debt.
Cronch 11 points 3 years ago
"America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you've lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn't belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don't care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve"
-Tom Morello, Rage Against the Machine
HipHoboHarold 2 points 3 years ago
So if I want my freedoms as a gay man I should just move? Rather than us just being better? It's cool to praise the US and our freedoms, but the second we see the opposite we just tell people to leave, and yet we are supposed to be the good guys? Lol
TheVampireSaga 36 points 3 years ago
I do not like the SCOTUS
tallwookie -7 points 3 years ago
that's ok, our opinion doesnt matter.
nortorc 33 points 3 years ago
Student loan forgiveness doesn't go far enough. We need to overhaul the higher education system to rein in the cost of tuition. I mean, regardless of where you stand on student loan forgiveness, can we at least all agree that a bachelor's degree costing anywhere near six figures is absurd?
HulkSmashBurgers 30 points 3 years ago
Eehh fuck the conseritives on the supreme court.
cryptosporidium140 26 points 3 years ago path: 0 657567, hotness: undefined, score: 26, children: 5
afraid_of_zombies2 3 points 3 years ago
Disown them. I stopped all voluntary association outside of work with rightwingers.
My family and friends are a packaged deal. If you don't like them then you don't like me. My wife is an immigrant non-white non-christian. My sister-in-law is trans. My children are biracial. I have Muslim friends, Hindu friends, Jewish friends, Gay friends. I won't associate with anyone who doesn't support their right to exist and flourish. My parents (and the rest of my birth family) decided to not support the people I love so I decided to protect their grandchildren from them.
Blood means nothing.
afraid_of_zombies2 2 points 3 years ago
They will just say it wasn't personal bankruptcy.
You can't argue with prostudent debt people. The answers and excuses keep changing and morphing. You might as well try to convince a theist out of God.
BraveSirZaphod 1 point 3 years ago
SCOTUS goes into summer recess in July, so they get through a big batch of cases at the end of June.
KingSnorky 30 points 3 years ago
American here. I can explain: Republicans.
afraid_of_zombies2 1 point 3 years ago
You have a point but inefficiency in a system doesn't mean the people who use it should be punished. I agree that the cost has gotten out of control and a large part of it is the dirty money river for construction. I have been involved in government contracts off and on for 15 years now and yes it is a shit show. I am proud to say that I have done my part to make it a bit better but that part is small.
Put it another way. I am fairly confident that the giant corp I work for made some infrastructure for your city or town if you live in the Anglosphere. I am also fairly confident that it was a far from perfect project in terms of who got paid for very little to no work or even negative work. Should you be punished for that? Should you have dirty sewage and trash in your streets and stop lights out because someone in the process skimmed some off the top?
Vynlovanth 0 points 3 years ago
Republicans are the ones who cut state funding for public universities leading to universities charging more money, the federal government offered loans to help offset that, and universities saw that and charged more money because the government continues to provide increasing amounts of loans. So yeah the universities are making out like bandits but Republicans definitely are not without blame. Cost of university would get reigned in if student loans were not a thing and the government was funding universities appropriately.
SmurfDotSee -9 points 3 years ago
Dumb.
This didn't do anything to curtail the cost of higher ed. Got nothing to do with republicans.
tallwookie -6 points 3 years ago
SCOTUS is an appointment, based on experience - as compared to politicians who are elected based on what amounts to a popularity contest.
if I had to choose between someone who actually knows what they're doing and the popular kid of the cycle, I know which I'd pick in a heartbeat.
tallwookie -5 points 3 years ago
what exactly do you think campaigning for an elected office is? it's not based on merit or experience, it's based on convincing other people that "I'm the best choice". why else do you think politicians need to advertise how awesome they are?
if getting elected was based on actual merit then the populace would just elect the most qualified person... but that's not how it works.
conditional_soup 6 points 3 years ago
Basically, we're forty years deep into supply side economics, sometimes referred to as Reaganomics, Trickle Down economics, or Horse and Sparrow economics (the latter two are generally considered derisive by proponents of this model). The idea is that if we set our policies so that outcomes are optimized for capital holders (business owners, investors, etc), then they can generate more wealth faster, and increasing the sum total of available wealth will improve life for everyone; somebody please correct me if I have it wrong. Of course, how this has actually played out is that money's just being funneled from everywhere into a handful of pockets to the detriment of everyone and everything else, and it's never enough.
I'm not a Marxist, but I do appreciate his view as a historical determinist. What I think is interesting is that if you look at what Marx said would be done to fight the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, we're doing basically everything on that list. I think Reagan was a true believer and honestly thought he was doing the best for his country that he could, even if he was incredibly wrong at practically every turn. It seems to me that supply side economics is really just a fancy way to run an extractive economy under the pretense of free markets.
R51 0 points 3 years ago
Sorry but I'm having difficulty piecing what you said with why knocking 20 grand off student loans got shot down. How does it tie into a tendency for profits to fall? And targeting policies such that our business leaders generate wealth faster? If we're to target e.g. tax deductions towards benefiting these wealth-bringers, shouldn't we be offering tax credits to our education system to increase the total wealth of the nation? Math and Science should be absolutely FREE, and if economics courses were free I'd probably have an easier time having this conversation with you instead of trying to figure out what you're even saying so that I could respond lol
conditional_soup 3 points 3 years ago
Sorry, my dude. I just browse when I don't have much going on, and those periods never last long. That sometimes results in kind of mangled thoughts.
What I mean to say is that ensuring your student debtors are on the hook is par for the course for how we've been realizing supply side economics. We're maximizing outcomes for capital holders at the expense of consumers. Reducing student debt means that student debtors pay less to the loan servicing companies, which would not be maximizing the outcome for the capital holders.
Yes, you're right, if we really wanted to generate wealth, we would optimize outcomes for consumers and workers, not for capital holders. You'll find no disagreement with me there. Our economy is heavily dependent on the trading of consumer goods and services, so consumers not being able to afford goods and services is kind of dumb af. What I'm saying is that supply side economics (which I think is a steaming crock of crap) is a school of economic thought and policy that takes the view that if you maximize the outcomes for the capital holders (business owners, investors, etc), then you'll generate more wealth than you would have under some other strategy, and that excess wealth makes everyone better off. We've had forty years of optimizing outcomes for asset and capital holders now, and I'm still waiting to see the cup overflow (spoiler alert: it won't).
R51 1 point 3 years ago
Thanks for the elaboration. Sounds like the supply economics is less of the issue, and forcing people into debt is an extra step on top of helping wealthy people amass wealth. And that alone has the presumption of trust and good faith embedded within in. Convincing people to vote for that is a stranger saying "trust me bro i'll pay you back" behavior. If laws and regulations are geared towards making rich people more rich then that's all the law is meant for, nothing else. That's the point of taxes (allegedly) so that we can point the nation's wealth to what we want for the good of everyone. scam/10
toxic 1 point 3 years ago
To be fair, while this would cancel a lot of debt (up to $10,000) for most people, it actually does nothing to cut the cost of college for future students.
I say this as someone who has about $5,000 in student debt left and a wife who has over $20,000. It would have been fantastic for us, but in the end it doesn’t do a single thing to help reduce the cost of education.
toxic 1 point 3 years ago
To be fair, while this would cancel a lot of debt (up to $10,000) for most people, it actually does nothing to cut the cost of college for future students.
I say this as someone who has about $5,000 in student debt left and a wife who has over $20,000. It would have been fantastic for us, but in the end it doesn’t do a single thing to help reduce the cost of education.
toxic 1 point 3 years ago
To be fair, while this would cancel a lot of debt (up to $10,000) for most people, it actually does nothing to cut the cost of college for future students.
I say this as someone who has about $5,000 in student debt left and a wife who has over $20,000. It would have been fantastic for us, but in the end it doesn’t do a single thing to help reduce the cost of education.
SmurfDotSee -2 points 3 years ago
Well, for one, forgiving student loans wouldn't "reduce the cost of education."
It would increase it. It's just a windfall for universities and loan holders. It did nothing to curtail costs, or address the way student loans are handed out, and their nondischargeable status.
We'd be right back here in 10 years, regardless, because "forgiveness" doesn't do anything to address the underlying problems of student loans, which will continue to be handed out, guaranteed by the gvt, and nondischargeable.
Aesthesiaphilia -1 points 3 years ago
Yeah but fuck future generations, I got mine.
- Millenials taking a leaf from the boomers
BombOmOm -21 points 3 years ago
America, can you explain?
This plan required an act of Congress, the president acted unilaterally and illegally in instituting the plan. The president isn't a dictator, he must go through congress for quite a number of things.
FinnFooted 35 points 3 years ago
Except this wasn't enacted by the president but by the Secretary of Education under the Biden administration and the power was given to them by congress as part of the HEROES act.
If the supreme court wasn't corrupt, they might have still struck this down but not under the cases that reached the supreme court. The fact that they found the original cases to have standing is actually insane and it's likely to open a can of worms because they were basically:
"it's not fair for only certain groups to benefit from government programs."
Do you know how many things are going to be challenged now? And, for it not to create chaos, these new challenges will have to go to the supreme court again where they will have to do mental gymnastics to backpedal on why their decision applies here but not on whatever weird future cases. Jesus what a circus.
BombOmOm 1 point 3 years ago
the power was given to them by congress as part of the HEROES act
It very specifically was not, and that is the issue.
" The HEROES Act … does not allow the Secretary to rewrite that statute to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal."
FinnFooted 22 points 3 years ago
The extent of the power of the HEROES act is debatable and thus why this has reached the supreme court. If you read it, the HEROES act was very vague the begin with, as these things often out in our messed up legal system. Like I said. They could argue against or for the HEROES ability to grant this power and they could easily argue it either way because that's how our legal system works. But, that they did it with these cases is still insane because the sanding for these cases is wacko.
GillyGumbo 1 point 3 years ago
The decision is ridiculously ambiguous. The law is garbage, but the ruling is basically "well yeah, you can technically change loans, but not that much!" Congress should immediately repeal the law if it can just be used by the judicial to only implement what THEY want.
CrazyDuck 23 points 3 years ago
Strange though how the previous president doing the exact same thing but with ppp loans for businesses was all fine and dandy. Yes, yes, totally not a political judgement at all, nothing to see here
PenguinJuice 2 points 3 years ago
Hopefully congress figures something out because having the entire working class occupied with paying exorbitant interest on rediculous loans is about to fuck our economy up big time.
BraveSirZaphod 1 point 3 years ago
Good to see that actual facts are as poorly received here as they were on Reddit.
UtiAnimi 0 points 3 years ago
Sure, but we shouldn't forget the context here. Why didn't they go through congress? Because republicans will shoot it down immediately.
I think this is important to explicitly spell this out everytime when someone says that they don't understand how PPP loans where no problem but student loans forgiveness is unable to pass: The problem are the conservative and republicans. They will rather forgive loans for companies than for their citizens!
tallwookie -3 points 3 years ago
the executive branch of the government isnt allowed to do what he tried to do. it is, by definition, an illegal action.
per the judicial branch, the legislative branch alone has that power. it's been that way for a long time.
SmurfDotSee -4 points 3 years ago
I mean, he's literally not. That's the whole point of the ruling.
What he did was deemed "illegal" by the court, which means he can't do it...
FinnFooted 4 points 3 years ago
The amount of mental gymnastics this court has used to strike down years of precedent is insane. Can anyone actually still look at their rulings anymore and genuinely say that they aren't just making rulings based on their personal beliefs and bias? Tomorrow it will be illegal to own gold fish if they decided that was in the bible.
TempleSquare 13 points 3 years ago
You join like six people I personally know, either is a close friend or family member.
For some reason this one feels so deeply personal, that I feel motivated to vote like hell. I'm so over being held hostage by maniac Boomers who are losing their minds. We are the bigger generation now. Let's go kick their asses!
Aesthesiaphilia 3 points 3 years ago
Wasn't your degree supposed to be a lifeline out of poverty? How much do you make?
Vynlovanth 5 points 3 years ago
There are a lot of variables there. Adding interest-bearing debt to someone with no income is a great way to put them behind, they’ll still have rent and other necessities to buy in addition to the student loan payments. That debt can quickly snowball if other problems come up, especially if you’re unlucky (hospital bill in the US?). Generally when you start your career after graduating, you aren’t making the average salary for your position. You have no experience so you have to take what you can get. You also aren’t owed a job, college degree in hand or not. I say this with personal experience - a bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering from an accredited university, and research experience and internship experience from while I was in university.
tallwookie -6 points 3 years ago
what degree did you get? are there a lot of jobs in that field?
SmurfDotSee -13 points 3 years ago
You planned poorly.
BombOmOm 12 points 3 years ago
The decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/...
BombOmOm 9 points 3 years ago
Core holding:
The HEROES Act ... does not allow the Secretary to rewrite that statute to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal.
The authority to “modify” statutes and regulations allows the Secretary to make modest adjustments and additions to existing provisions, not transform them.
FinnFooted 24 points 3 years ago
This is the exact wishy washy stuff that would let one supreme court uphold and another strike down. You can modify it, but not that much! Stuck down! Lol our legal system is a joke.
CrazyDuck 11 points 3 years ago
Especially since the language of the HEROES act explicitly states that they can waive or modify. According to the majority forgiveness is clearly not equal to waiving, since you know, they're different words and it's impossible for different words to have the same meaning. If congress wanted to give the secretary the power to forgive, they should've written forgive instead of waive in the act /s
Hildegarde 0 points 3 years ago
So is biden about to announce student loan waving?
tallwookie -4 points 3 years ago
nah
tallwookie -6 points 3 years ago
eh, the people that are affected who are talented and capable wont be affected (aka STEM graduates) - it's the people who decided to pursue "useless" degrees like liberal arts, journalism, education, etc and cant find a job in their field (because they dont exist in numbers like STEM jobs do) who are adversely affected.
those degrees are popular because they're easy to get - but these days you need to have a useful degree and be good at it in order to be competitive. otherwise you work at a Starbucks and whine about student loan repayment options.
phaedrux_pharo 10 points 3 years ago
ITT: A bunch of people "WELL ACKSHUALLY-ing" technical justifications for this decision. Pretty gross.
Aesthesiaphilia 1 point 3 years ago
The courts are ALL ABOUT technical justification dude. You can't just "it's the right thing to do" in court.
Ackshually the president didn't have standing to make this ruling.
ACKTUALLY ACKTUALLY the states didn't even have standing to bring the case.
The problem is that the Supreme Court followed the rules when it came to something that fit their agenda, but ignored it when it didn't.
If the SC had followed the technical details like they should have, then the Presidential ruling would have stood until or unless an injured party brought suit.
phaedrux_pharo -2 points 3 years ago
You can’t just “it’s the right thing to do” in court.
How about outside the court? How about in discussions about the ruling? People are using those technicalities to justify the "rightness" of the decision and its effects. That's the bullshit bad faith I'm talking about.
tallwookie -3 points 3 years ago
technically correct is the best kind of correct.
Robocopsicle 4 points 3 years ago
I feel the same way. My job was exempt during the 2020 shutdowns, so I actually tried to resume my monthly payments. If I recall, I tried re-enabling automatic payments 3x, and they kept getting paused again. After manually making payments for a few months, I just gave up and decided to see how everything would pan out.
tallwookie -8 points 3 years ago
eh... I can see where you're coming from but not making any payments on a loan that you knew was due is really dumb. you could have just made the minimum payments on the loan.
sputtersalt 4 points 3 years ago
So this completely shuts the door for potential federal student loan forgiveness, right? Man, I was actually still holding out hope. I didn't understand what I was agreeing to at 18. Loan forgiveness would've had such a significant positive impact on my life (+ those of my family and friends). I'm not sure why I thought something like this ever could've passed :')
Aeoneir 1 point 3 years ago
I was 16 when I took mine out. My dad was also a dipshit qanon conspiracy theorist who thought the government would have collapsed by now so he coerced me into taking out max loans. Funnily enough, 20k worth, the exact amount that would have been wiped
scottywh 0 points 3 years ago
This doesn't shut the door at all.
RGB3x3 4 points 3 years ago
I'm so pissed that it seems like Congress doesn't do jack shit and when the president wants to do anything good for people the supreme court can just shut it down.
The supreme court is legislating from the bench and it just shows how broken our system is.
They'll give unlimited tax breaks to the rich but deny any sort of help to people struggling to pay bills.
tallwookie -6 points 3 years ago
things that pass in Congress are often referred to as "having bipartisan support" for a reason - it's because the balance of power is usually split between the ideological factions.
absolutely nothing is preventing you from running for Congress right now, though it's a bit early and you'd have to qualify (age and residency requirements). YOU could be the instrument of the change you desire.
gillrmn 2 points 3 years ago
Lets be honest - the plan was an overreach. This had to pass through congress. So SC is not wrong.
But it couldn't pass through congress because of lobbying. Which was bribery made legal by SC. Which was a very controversial decision. But if Roe could be overturned, we should focus on getting Citizen United overturned. And America will be great again.
But for that US should be united. And that will not happen because all the oligarchs domestic and abroad make sure of that and they lobby secretly and hard. You have Saudis, Chinese buying corporations influencing US decision making. You have Russian interference. European banks also service these oligarchs, so its in their interest too. Now other countries with oligarchs are jumping in too. And they put smokes and mirrors in front of you to keep you off from the real goal - creating issues where there should be none. To keep America divided.
So its a long attrition based slug war which can only be fought when we love our fellow Americans and stop listening to hate everywhere around us. And realize that all politicians are evil, so you have to keep them pressed. They will not share power, we the people have to be strong and take the power from them.
No one can destroy US. Only US can destroy US.
nameless_prole 0 points 3 years ago
This is the most lukewarm, wishy washy, "enlightened centrist" shit I have ever read. Like,
So its a long attrition based slug war which can only be fought when we love our fellow Americans and stop listening to hate everywhere around us.
???
What are you fucking talking about? This is some next level naivety.
cryptosporidium140 1 point 3 years ago path: 0 663692 665021 665935, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
Aesthesiaphilia 0 points 3 years ago path: 0 663692 665021 665935 674824, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
HuddaBudda 2 points 3 years ago
Tim Scott
The South Carolina senator praised the ruling as "a victory for common sense."
"You take out a loan, you pay it back. This decision frees taxpayers from shouldering debt they never signed up for," he tweeted.
Weird, I didn't get a decision to shoulder the bad debt these companies that got their PPP loans forgiven.
Or the 2008 Financial bailout on my future.
Or the 200 billion in medicare/covid fraud
VanillaGorilla 2 points 3 years ago
But what's good for the economy is good for the people. You know, trickle down and stuff. Totally works, trust me bro. Just give us a few billion more, this time it'll rain down gold on you. Absolutely sure!
nameless_prole 1 point 3 years ago
These people are incapable of not being disingenuous. They're allergic to good faith. The hypocrisy has become so ingrained in these people that calling it out hasn't been an effective counter to them for years, if not decades. They simply do not care.
Turkey_Titty_city 1 point 3 years ago
They care. They care about making sure that the benefits of socialism is exclusively for the elite and wealthy and totally denied to the average citizen.
nameless_prole 2 points 3 years ago
I look forward to them clawing back all of those forgiven ppp loans... Hahahahahaha
genoxidedev1 1 point 3 years ago
"Fuck students, hail corporate! Hail Hydra!" - no one in their right mind, ever
Silverseren 1 point 3 years ago
Biden suspected this would happen, hence why he was previously doing student loan forgiveness in smaller increments. But people kept pushing him to do the entire thing and claiming that he was actively against students because he wasn't. No, he knew this happening was a high possibility.
And this case sets much bigger precedents than the specific subject, precedents in two areas.
The specific claim that the Secretary was "transforming" the law rather than tweaking things is asinine, especially since the HEROES Act was incredibly vague in the first place. So this sets precedent that any usage of a law outside of explicitly what it says (difficult to even determine when a bill is so vague) gives leverage to reverse any executive action in enacting the law. Which will just allow massive conservative obstructionism even more on everything.
The entire case having standing as it is. Why do 6 states have standing to sue on something done in regards to federal loans? The idea that states can sue on any federal issue now is concerning to the extreme.
AlteredStateBlob 1 point 3 years ago
Student debt cannot be simply expunged through bankruptcy, it requires extra steps.
After the 2008 sub-prime mortage crisis, Hedgefunds and Banks didn't stop with their predatory behaviour, they simply shifted it around. Student loans were a prime target for that. As well as commercial mortage backed securities (CMBS) rather than the mortage backed securities (MBS) from that bubble popping in 2008.
With COVID making work from home inevitable and CMBS becoming a huge risk factor as well as student loans possibly being forgiven, the financial elites have been rotating to survive another day until they can resume squeezing your pennies out of you again so they don't have to go under.
Just a piece of the shit pie that the US financial markets are. It's just a huge rackateering ring. I'd be immensely surprised if student loans were ever forgiven or university costs socialized again in the future. It's just too lucrative to fuck young people.
nameless_prole 1 point 3 years ago
Capitalism has robbed us of more than we could ever even imagine. To the point where most people don't even realize they've been robbed. It's tragic.
We live in a society where amoral, faceless corporations are more valued than actual human life. And those corporations have so much power over people, and their cognition, that the majority have been tricked into consenting to this perverted system against all of their interests. And I would love for someone to explain to me why there should ever be a distinction between the people producing something, and the people/corporations that own the means of that production. Why should these be two different groups, and why in the FUCK would the class that doesn't do any actual goddamn work, make 300x more money? It's fucking disgusting.
But on the other hand, they said they were going to lower taxes. And also, trans people exist, so........
JasSmith -2 points 3 years ago
Capitalism has robbed us of more than we could ever even imagine. To the point where most people don't even realize they've been robbed. It's tragic.
Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it’s the reason our standard of living is higher than ever. Every time we try anything else, millions of people die. I’m not sure how many more people need to die for people like you to accept reality. We need to improve capitalism, not turn to authoritarianism.
GataZapata 2 points 3 years ago
Millions people starve under capitalism every year in a completely preventable fashion. Yes, other systems have been broken, but that doesn't mean capitalism is not
HelixDab 2 points 3 years ago
Here's a pro-tip for you: the opposite of capitalism isn't authoritarianism. That's where we already are.
The opposite of capitalism is socialism. Socialism is not an inherently authoritarian economic system.
And, food for thought: how many people in 3rd world countries have been killed by capitalism, hmmm?
Crimfresh 1 point 3 years ago
No, that argument is a complete lie. Technology is why we have a higher standard of living. Technological advancements have taken place in communist countries. They experience the same increases of quality of living as capitalist countries. This proves that argument false. Capitalism isn't responsible for technology. That's just wealthy people pushing a narrative to protect the system that consolidates wealth in their hands. Consolidated wealth at the top of the economic ladder is a well known and documented side effect of capitalism. That's why capitalism requires strong regulations, not free market dogma.
Aesthesiaphilia 0 points 3 years ago
Technological advancements have taken place in communist countries.
rofl
regulated capitalism is very different than communism
Kbin_space_program 1 point 3 years ago
Fun fact, one of the major reasons the elite of the 13 colonies wanted to separate from the British Empire is that a lot of them would get huge loans from banks in London under the name of a fictitious company in a given colony, close up shop, move to a different colony and repeat.
It's why the original astroturfed riots were organized in Boston and well as why the Sons of Liberty were created. Because among other things, the Stamp act would have prevented the main method they used to execute the fraud.
See the book: Crucible of War by Fred Anderson. It starts dry but is absolutely worth it.
GataZapata 1 point 3 years ago
The prohibitive cost of higher education and the factual uselessness of high school diploma keep young warm bodies going into the military. This is important for the nation that spends the most on its military, globally, and secures its global hegemony in large part through said military (but also of course cultural 'coca-colonialism')
Thekingoflorda 0 points 3 years ago
Please be civil, and report any comments that break the rules of this community.
SmurfDotSee 0 points 3 years ago path: 0 662969 673066, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
PenguinJuice 0 points 3 years ago
Well something needs to be done then because I am not looking forward to yet another financial crisis this fall when payment resumes....
tallwookie -3 points 3 years ago
might want to get a side job or two, eh?
3425asdfqwer4 -1 points 3 years ago
Loan forgiveness would have been a terrible policy. You guys are behaving like boomers. Broken systems and advocating for handouts instead of fixes.
Neato 2 points 3 years ago
We're also advocating for fixes. Like free public college.
This was a bandaid because the executive can't simply do that without a law. Some aid is better than no aid especially to young people already in enormous debt.
3425asdfqwer4 2 points 3 years ago
Free college is not a fix, that is another handout. Unless the underlying mechanisms are controlled then costs will continue to inflate. The only thing you people are advocating for is to get yours and fuck everyone else....like the boomers. Be better people.
Aesthesiaphilia 0 points 3 years ago
Free college implies a single payer system which will also likely bring down costs. If the auditing is there.
Aesthesiaphilia 2 points 3 years ago
We're also advocating for fixes. Like free public college.
Bullshit. I've never seen this as part of the conversation around loan forgiveness. Ever.
hypelightfly -1 points 3 years ago
That's irrelevant to the question of legality. Being a terrible policy (it's not) doesn't make it illegal to implement.
3425asdfqwer4 3 points 3 years ago
Very relevant to the political positions of the idiots in this thread though.
nameless_prole -1 points 3 years ago
AKA, "I don't like this program. If I can't benefit from it, then nobody can."
Turkey_Titty_city -1 points 3 years ago
a generation crippled by loan debt is a terrible policy.
Aesthesiaphilia 0 points 3 years ago
So fix the cause, instead of stealing from poor people and future generations to fix it for yourself
tallwookie -3 points 3 years ago
how is repaying a loan "stealing from poor people"? honestly curious.
tallwookie -2 points 3 years ago
probably should have thought about that before agreeing to take on debt for a degree that isnt worth the paper it's printed on.
woops!
Netrunner -4 points 3 years ago
Honestly the public has no business financing private tuition debt. If it was cancelling only state tuition debt or enhancing the funding for those programs, I’d be ok. Otherwise, as a mostly liberal individual, this doesn’t bother me.
MasterSlave 0 points 3 years ago path: 0 661860 662072 662299, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 1
n0cturnali 3 points 3 years ago
Your folk are on kbin
private_ruffles 0 points 3 years ago
Nah man, I'm coming from kbin and I think this dude's a racist fuck.
Aesthesiaphilia 2 points 3 years ago
this was an attempt to at least address one of the symptoms
It's wouldn't address ANY of the symptoms, only relieve one group of lucky people from the consequences. This actually makes the disease itself worse for future generations.
MasterSlave 1 point 3 years ago path: 0 661148 661739 661772, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
Alpagu 1 point 3 years ago
I'm not living in usa. I think good decision. What is the fault of those who do not take out loans? If the loan debt is to be forgiven, other people should be paid as much as the debt to be forgiven. That's justice.
MasterSlave 0 points 3 years ago path: 0 661148 661561 661638 661677, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 1
Aesthesiaphilia 0 points 3 years ago
Not necessarily. It could also mean making it cost less, like socialized healthcare and education has done in every other country. Yes, the costs are on the taxpayers instead of the individual, but that cost is dramatically less.
news
@lemmy.world
38073
38649
9388
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
news
@lemmy.world
38073
38649
9388
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
I simply cannot grasp how a judicial system that's entirely based on standing, suddenly decides that 6 random states that have 0 stake in this whole FEDERAL student loan thing have standing to sue over this forgiveness plan
save