|
From what I gather the entire legal issue for Republicans is that they can't find someone with standing.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
That's exactly the problem Republicans are having, and it's why the debt forgiveness was structured like it is. The first attempt at derailing the program was someone claiming standing because there wasn't a way to opt out, and when the government said "nope, here's how you do that", that case got dismissed. Part of why the Biden administration isn't really touching anything related to private loans is that the lenders (or their shareholders) would have standing to sue, but since it's all government loans, that avenue doesn't really work either. That said, when the GOP retakes the House in January, I fully expect all kinds of attempts to derail it there, but since House Republicans are staggeringly dumb, I also expect none of those to work either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 04:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ItsMattsLaw/status/1570943387335000067 https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1582861790039330817 A panel of 3 trump appointees are taking a run at the CFPB again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 05:59
|
|
|
Brute Squad posted:https://twitter.com/ItsMattsLaw/status/1570943387335000067 This is why I have issues with "congress can just pass a law and reinstate this". Apparently nope not if they're feeling sufficiently Federalist Societyish
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 06:05
|
|
|
I haven't read the decision, but the tweet seems to be implying that it's definitionally impossible for Congress to violate the separation of powers, which I don't think is right. Isn't that why SCOTUS took the line-item veto away from Clinton, back in the antediluvian times when we trusted them to reason based on sound principles?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 06:22
|
|
|
I read the most important parts of the decision. It is interesting, and if you didn't know how the Federal Reserve, FDIC, or Social Security worked then it may actually sound like a correct decision with a compelling argument. In the early days of the government if this was the first time we had something funded this way I would have been comfortable with a court declaring this to be unconstitutional. But those other things do exist, so this decision is just simply wrong. Either that or gigantic areas of the government that are outside the appropriations process are also unconstitutional, and this decision does not do a good job AT ALL of explaining why the CFPB is different from other programs or agencies funded outside the budget process. They just handwave it broadly saying the CFPB is different because it goes a step too far without explaining in detail what the gently caress that extra step too far was that makes it somehow unique from something like the Fed. edit: on a second glance through, the difference could possibly be that any money the Fed takes in but doesn't use has to be turned over to the Treasury, but any money the CFPB takes in but doesn't use, they just get to roll over to next year. If thats it and survives appeal, I guess congress could just fix it by passing a law saying that the CFPB has to hand over any money they don't use each year. (lol, they won't if the GOP wins) Rigel fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Oct 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 13:40
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Either that or gigantic areas of the government that are outside the appropriations process are also unconstitutional Not to be glib, but yes now you're getting it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Not to be glib, but yes now you're getting it. Quiet! barrett will hear!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
Anything that SCOTUS can define (plus some things they can't define) can be declared unconstitutional. Stare decisis , and the concept of reliance interests, are dead and buried. That's the power of political hacks controlling SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
Barrett denied it without referring it to the whole court. May just be a midterm decision that they pick up after. Maybe they realize that their ruling would mess with a poo poo ton of programs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Barrett denied it without referring it to the whole court. Conservatives have traditionally been big on standing, it is one of their favorite ways to say GTFO to a liberal group asking for some social wrong to be righted, since historically it had been the left trying to get the courts to do something when congress is broken. Its rare for a progressive program to really have no one who is harmed, they can usually find someone somewhere who was somehow harmed to sue. This is just a rare exception that shouldn't get them to change how strict they are on standing. Rigel fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Oct 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 22:58
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Barrett denied it without referring it to the whole court. The “tax payer standing” theory is going to be the last thing that the court lets go through because it’s just a mess and would create more work for the judiciary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
looking forward to getting an injuction against the DOD because I morally oppose my tax dollars being spent on predator drones
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
I've read the third amendment. You can't spend my property taxes on the army!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:That's exactly the problem Republicans are having, and it's why the debt forgiveness was structured like it is. Wait wait wait, someone tried to sue because they just wanted to keep making loan payments? Even if let's say they couldn't opt out, can you sue for that, like is this a harm, can you get a court to force someone to take your money? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Oct 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait wait wait, someone tried to sue because they just wanted to keep making loan payments? I might be misremembering but I think their case was part of a project run by Ted Cruz so it's likely that if they succeeded they would have been given more than enough money to cover their loans. zetamind2000 fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Oct 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 23:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait wait wait, someone tried to sue because they just wanted to keep making loan payments? I think the idea was that in some chud state, they'd owe income tax on the amount forgiven. Obviously it would be much less than the payment and the whole thing was certainly a stunt to derail Biden's program.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 23:53
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I think the idea was that in some chud state, they'd owe income tax on the amount forgiven. Obviously it would be much less than the payment and the whole thing was certainly a stunt to derail Biden's program. That's exactly what it was. I can't remember the exact state (Indiana maybe), but the argument was that the plaintiff would be harmed by the extra taxes, so the entire program was obviously unconstitutional because there wasn't a way to opt out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait wait wait, someone tried to sue because they just wanted to keep making loan payments? mobby_6kl posted:I think the idea was that in some chud state, they'd owe income tax on the amount forgiven. Obviously it would be much less than the payment and the whole thing was certainly a stunt to derail Biden's program. It is a good edge case they clearly put a lot of thought into. The student loan holder is enrolled in the public service forgiveness program and is close to the date that their loans would be forgiven under it. In their state forgiveness under the public service forgiveness program is specifically exempted from tax. So, if the state taxes owed are greater than the remaining payments until the forgiveness kicked in then that person would have damages equal to the difference. The Biden admin mooted that by requiring you to apply for forgiveness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
what r "diversity" me not understand? Sound like made up fairy tale durrrr - the wizard counseyl (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 03:08
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:A bunch of articles popped up this year about quiet quitting, as if not giving a poo poo about your job is some revolutionary concept. Introducing, the quiet felony. Even the articles that tried to decry "quiet quitting" couldn't help but make it clear that the term is referring to workers not just doing a bunch of extra poo poo outside their job description and/or not putting in a bunch of (unpaid) overtime to make their bosses happy/more money. Jaxyon posted:This is why I have issues with "congress can just pass a law and reinstate this". "Congress can just pass a law to reinstate this [and the courts will then rule that law is Unconstitutional because what the gently caress are you going to do about it?]" As much as I beat the drum that some blue states need to just reject the SCOTUS wholesale, the 5th circuit is so, so much worse and basically what we should expect the SCOTUS to morph into in the coming decades after the SCOTUS rule in the NCGOP's favor to allow for wholesale rigging of elections (or just ignoring them entirely).
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 05:11
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Even the articles that tried to decry "quiet quitting" couldn't help but make it clear that the term is referring to workers not just doing a bunch of extra poo poo outside their job description and/or not putting in a bunch of (unpaid) overtime to make their bosses happy/more money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah goofing off on the clock already has a name it's called poor performance and they can just fire you and deny you unemployment for that. Nah quiet quitting isn't about doing less than your job duties require, it is about doing exactly and only what was/is stated in your employment contract and what will then keep you from being fired if you need to. Of course, to your point, worker protections are just a spooky story capitalists tell to their management teams at night to give them a little scare. So you'll get capriciously fired for anything that isn't a protected class reason. But then again, that's why you stick to doing the bare minimum to not get fired.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
I was kind of shocked when I found out what quiet quitting was, having read a few headlines in my news feed. In Europe I'd describe working within your job description and contracted work hours working, not some insidious form of leaving employment. Like seriously, I was expecting it to be a term for remote workers just pretending to be online and finding more and more ingenious ways of not actually working but seeking like they're still in. Or taking new jobs before handing in your notice. Or something that wasn't just doing your job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 23:22
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I was kind of shocked when I found out what quiet quitting was, having read a few headlines in my news feed. In Europe I'd describe working within your job description and contracted work hours working, not some insidious form of leaving employment. yeah US companies are built on employees doing poo poo that's not their job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I was kind of shocked when I found out what quiet quitting was, having read a few headlines in my news feed. In Europe I'd describe working within your job description and contracted work hours working, not some insidious form of leaving employment. There was already a term for this in North America anyway, which is "work-to-rule" or working to the minimum requirements in an employment contract and following all rules to the letter even if it results in work slowing down. It's been used as a form of labour protest short of striking, especially in response to bosses making unreasonable demands of their employees. "Quiet quitting" seems to just be a new term for people spontaneously deciding that work-to-rule is all the effort they're willing to put into their job, rather than it being a coordinated labour action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:There was already a term for this in North America anyway, which is "work-to-rule" or working to the minimum requirements in an employment contract and following all rules to the letter even if it results in work slowing down. It's been used as a form of labour protest short of striking, especially in response to bosses making unreasonable demands of their employees. "Quiet quitting" seems to just be a new term for people spontaneously deciding that work-to-rule is all the effort they're willing to put into their job, rather than it being a coordinated labour action. It's not even work to rule, it's just not going above and beyond. If you don't volunteer for extra work for free they call it "quiet quitting"
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I was kind of shocked when I found out what quiet quitting was, having read a few headlines in my news feed. In Europe I'd describe working within your job description and contracted work hours working, not some insidious form of leaving employment. I mean, we're talking about a work culture that penalizes you for taking too many sick or vacation days, even if you are within your legally contracted amount per year. there is nothing reasonable or healthy about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 23:49
|
|
|
Quiet quitting has been entirely invented by the management class It’s not an organized thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
Clearance Thomas arguably quiet quit decades ago, but it's a lifetime appointment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
moths posted:Clearance Thomas arguably quiet quit decades ago, but it's a lifetime appointment. The dude is actively destroying the country while pretending to be asleep to act coy. Don’t demean the fine art of quiet quitting with his filth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
Supreme Court oral arguments are just the judicial equivalent of a meeting which should be an email.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 21:48
|
|
|
q_k posted:Supreme Court oral arguments are just the judicial equivalent of a meeting which should be an email. Certainly in the view of Justice Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Certainly in the view of Justice Thomas. You know he’s been asking questions again for a few years now, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 22:42
|
|
|
I've always wondered how often the oral arguments have any effect on the outcome of the decisions, if ever. When I used to listen to the arguments on occasion, it sometimes felt like they were trying to ask questions to poke at their fellow justices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
Rakeris posted:I've always wondered how often the oral arguments have any effect on the outcome of the decisions, if ever. When I used to listen to the arguments on occasion, it sometimes felt like they were trying to ask questions to poke at their fellow justices. That's essentially it. It's cover for some justices to seem reasonable to the public by asking questions against their norm, for others to needle other justices and overall make the public see the court as more normal and politically responsive. All the real questions are answered by the various written briefs and amicus curiae docs, and the justices just go "lol what I say goes" if they can't find anything particularly good to base their opinion off of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
Rakeris posted:I've always wondered how often the oral arguments have any effect on the outcome of the decisions, if ever. When I used to listen to the arguments on occasion, it sometimes felt like they were trying to ask questions to poke at their fellow justices. This is most of it - it’s a way for them to try to convince the other justices to take their position, rather than an opportunity for the lawyers to convince the justices.* *the saying amongst lawyers is “you can’t win a case at oral argument but you can definitely lose one.” So you can convince a justice… but probably not in your favor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2022 23:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You know he’s been asking questions again for a few years now, right? I'm owned
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 00:05
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:I'm owned
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
I thought "malicious compliance" already described "quiet quitting." Is quiet quitting slightly more passive?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2022 17:37
|
|
