|
Why steal power if you aren't going to abuse it?
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Calvin ball A lot of those were things that probably should have been expedited. If anything, it's a sign of how the executive has increasingly been engaging in sweeping stuff that treads on shaky legal ground while putting a bunch of people's rights and lives into question, as well as how the Supreme Court has increasingly become a battleground for basic rights with a bunch of obvious test cases being sent up. As one example, it's a good thing that the student loan debt case is getting expedited, because it won't matter what the Supreme Court thinks of it if right-wing lawyers manage to drag out the case until 2024 and Biden loses the election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
Naw, they just want to skip a potentially sane court lifting the injunction long enough for disbursement to happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Naw, they just want to skip a potentially sane court lifting the injunction long enough for disbursement to happen. There is no option for that left. The best Biden can hope for now is a circuit split, and that won't solve the problem, just make it worse. Supreme Court is probably going to kill the program on the merits under "Major Questions" doctrine, but at least it will be an answer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Naw, they just want to skip a potentially sane court lifting the injunction long enough for disbursement to happen. There's no other court. The appeals court has already issued an injunction, and the only court above that is the Supreme Court. This is just saying that instead of waiting for the appeals court to actually officially rule the debt relief unconstitutional (which they're likely to do, since courts don't give injunctions unless they think the suit has a real chance of succeeding), they're going to save everyone some time by skipping that step and taking the case early.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
Possibly due to Biden pausing all student loan payments until it is settled, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:Possibly due to Biden pausing all student loan payments until it is settled, right? There are plenty of good reasons to not want to leave all student debt totally in limbo until 2024, and I don't think there's much we can really read into it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
I'm extremely pro certiorari before judgement. One of the most maddening things about the federal courts is how long it takes for cases that are time-sensitive in nature to work their way up to a place where there can be a final judgement. In this current insane environment where every loving thing is endlessly litigated and dragged out for years, it's refreshing to get a "relatively speedy" resolution to this extremely important issue in less than a year. I would love to see a huge restructuring of the courts, massive expansion of SCOTUS, expansion of mandatory original jurisdiction, and shortening of timelines for certain types of cases. The way the rich and powerful drag everything out endlessly is not good for the country. The way Trump has used the rules to run roughshod over every single attempt to hold him accountable for anything should be a wakeup call for how hosed up the courts are in general. Congress had absolutely clear statutory authority to get his tax returns, and it took more than TWO YEARS to get a judgement on that fact. It's totally hosed up. Sub Par fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Dec 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 00:27
|
|
|
Sub Par posted:I'm extremely pro certiorari before judgement. One of the most maddening things about the federal courts is how long it takes for cases that are time-sensitive in nature to work their way up to a place where there can be a final judgement. In this current insane environment where every loving thing is endlessly litigated and dragged out for years, it's refreshing to get a "relatively speedy" resolution to this extremely important issue in less than a year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 03:00
|
|
|
What's the outlook for student loan forgiveness actually going through? Are we doomed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 03:09
|
|
|
Who even knows with this court
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 03:37
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:What's the outlook for student loan forgiveness actually going through? Are we doomed? The Supreme Court has already turned down a couple of other challenges to the debt forgiveness, so I think things aren't particularly bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 06:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The Supreme Court has already turned down a couple of other challenges to the debt forgiveness, so I think things aren't particularly bad. they've turned down a couple of cases where they ruled that there was a standing issue. that's very different. major questions doctrine is probably going to be used to kill the program and rip even more lawmaking capacity out of congress's hands
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:they've turned down a couple of cases where they ruled that there was a standing issue. that's very different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Education_Organization_Act Everything the administration wants to do has been vested to the administration by Congress. This is an attack on congressional lawmaking capacity that even Nancy Pelosi barefacedly lied about on camera earlier this year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Education_Organization_Act Which section of this is the administration relying on to give them the authority to forgive loans?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
I have mistakenly linked the Dept Edu act rather than the Higher Education Act and one of its amendments, which is inconvenient because I'm driving 35 hours across the country now The act directs (perhaps accidentally, admittedly, given how specific the 1984/1986--can't remember which year--predecessor amendment was about stipulating the exact terms by which issue, interest subsidy, and forgiveness of debt had to be administered on a per-program basis) broad discretionary powers to the secretary on administration of debt Importantly, the HEA 1965 is technically dead. its renewal in 08 was a wholesale roll-up and replacement Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Dec 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I have mistakenly linked the Dept Edu act rather than the Higher Education Act and one of its amendments, which is inconvenient because I'm driving 35 hours across the country now I can wait.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I can wait. coo. you can also Google this in the meantime, I won't say that this isn't a completely black and white legal issue, but those who are saying that the secretary specifically does not have this power are kidding themselves imo
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:coo. you can also Google this in the meantime, I won't say that this isn't a completely black and white legal issue, but those who are saying that the secretary specifically does not have this power are kidding themselves imo I'm guessing it's the HEROES act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Education_Relief_Opportunities_For_Students_Act
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
Oh that silly Alito! https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1599804428382371852
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 21:44
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Oh that silly Alito! What the absolute gently caress? ... covid derangement? Chemo brain?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 21:47
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I'm guessing it's the HEROES act That’s what the Biden admin used. This is the original bill as enacted: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ122/html/PLAW-107publ122.htm The congressional research service published a report on the statutory basis which may be of interest to everyone: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10818 One snippet: quote:OLC next concluded that a borrower’s obligation to pay a loan’s principal and interest arises from a “statutory or regulatory provision” that applies to Title IV loans. For example, regulations state that a “borrower is obligated to repay the full amount of a Direct Loan, including the principal balance, fees, any collection costs” and “any interest not subsidized by the Secretary.” Because a borrower’s payment obligation derives from statute and regulation, OLC concluded that the obligation was subject to waiver or modification under the HEROES Act.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 21:47
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:What the absolute gently caress? The knowledge that he can do and say whatever he wants and will never ever face consequences for it. He's been getting more blatant now that it's 6-3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:What the absolute gently caress? More like "I'm the king of America. What I say goes. I cannot be questioned and only death can remove me." He's really excited about the 6-3 majority and he's running with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 22:41
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:What the absolute gently caress? Altio's always been an rear end in a top hat and probably decided that since the GOP has effectively 'won' the SCOTUS for the foreseeable future, if not forever, he can just be himself. It'd be cool if Kagan smacked the poo poo out of him for his earlier comment but she's got more restraint than I would in her situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
Very strong 'elderly relative who doesn't give a gently caress' from Alito. He clearly doesn't give a gently caress whether anyone cares or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:What the absolute gently caress? It seems to be inspired by an earlier hypothetical offered by Jackson, in which she compared 303 Creative to a mall Santa refusing to take photos with non-white kids. https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1599789013958889477 It's probably meant to highlight that there's no First Amendment argument there, that there's no inherent content or compelled speech involved in providing the service. It's just discrimination, refusing to provide the service simply because they don't like the person's identity, with an extremely flimsy content justification to try to make a fake First Amendment argument. Presumably Alito was trying to twist that around and create a hypothetical situation in which it would be good for a mall Santa to refuse service to a kid simply because of that kid's identity. He just flubbed it badly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
Now could be the time for Chief Justice Roberts to resign his seat, let Biden appoint a new Chief Justice, and restore balance and integrity to the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Maybe if he drags Alito and/or Thomas out the door with him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
Is it customary for the the word “teaches” to be used regarding precedent such as “arizona teaches that the states have the authority…”
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 22:06
|
|
Proust Malone posted:Is it customary for the the word “teaches” to be used regarding precedent such as “arizona teaches that the states have the authority…” It's not common, but it's been done.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
Its always a little bit dangerous to read anything into oral arguments because sometimes justices will explore arguments and theories that they don't really agree with, perhaps to get an idea on how they will later attack that theory, but with that caveat in mind, the court seems to be equally divided on ISL into 3 different camps, 3-3-3. ISL is completely correct in every way, and no one else in the state ever has any say over Federal elections at all: Alito, Thomas, and probably Gorsuch. ISL is loving stupid: All 3 liberals. Ruling for ISL would be a huge mess that would wreck a lot of precedent and create a lot of work for ourselves..... buuuuut maybe there's some merit to the theory and a compromise can be found: CJ Roberts, justice I Like Beer, and ACB. It sounds like the court is going to say that governors can veto, period. (unless a state doesn't allow a veto) There doesn't seem to be 5 votes in favor of cutting out the governor. The 3rd group seems to pretty much say that a governor's veto is part of the legislative process and there's a very old decision that point-blank said a governor could veto a map. With state courts its more vague, and it sounds like they might go with some kind of unclear hand-wavey ruling saying that by default we should assume courts can make rulings on how maps are drawn and how federal elections are run based on their own state constitution, but if it looks like a court is departing too far from very clear and very obvious black and white things that a court can easily discern and is wading into policy areas that should have been left up to state legislatures, then we can step in and second-guess the state court's interpretation of their own constitution in this one area (where usually we don't). Rigel fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Dec 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
ISL is, to my understanding, a somewhat special legal theory in not merely being logically wrong but actually, no room for error or "opinion" style factually wrong, being based on a forgery of an constitution draft and explicitly wrong definitions i know they had to kick out all talk of the uncertain science of "mathematics" when the debate over gerrymandering was had, but im excited to see the court just make up precedent Tiler Kiwi fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Dec 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
I am now a lot more pessimistic about the ISL case, because this half-assed compromise seems to be the absolute very worst of all possibilities. I'd rather just go with Alito's plan than what ACB and Roberts are toying around with. It keeps in place the ability for legislatures to try to be undemocratic shits since if they try to pass a law saying, say "every county gets only 2 early voting locations and yes we should treat counties with 1 million voters the same as counties with only 1,000 voters exactly the same, why do you ask". If a state court steps in saying "no that's loving stupid, our constitution requiring fair elections doesn't allow that", the SCOTUS can say "woah, where does it say in clear unambiguous plain language that cities have to have lots of voting locations, sounds like you are making a policy judgment and legislating from the bench here" On the other hand, the bright side of ISL (blue states can now be freed from their self-imposed handcuffs and start gerrymandering to hell and back), the Supreme Court can say "uhh, no your constitution in California says in plain clear language that maps are only drawn by your redistricting commission. You can't just ignore that".
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
I don't think blue states are going to stop handcuffing themselves when no one was making them do it in the first place
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
Blue states will keep doing "what is right" while the GOP will immediately lock in permanent control for their party in every state they control and continue to do so any time they get into power in another state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
If the three liberal justices are smart, they should find a way to reject this compromise and just go all or nothing. They might not be able to do it all in one go here because they probably first have to vote what they believe and can't just sign on to ISL right away, but after they lose once and then another ISL case reaches them for any reason at all, they should say "the original case was wrongfully decided, but we lost and this compromise that handcuffs only the Dems is horseshit. So at the state level legislatures can do whatever they want now. Either the state courts can enforce what their constitution says on federal elections when it doesn't directly conflict with Federal law, or they can't at all"
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
The only thing i can imagine going well is the court insisting that judicial review does indeed exist. As crazy as this court is, I can’t imagine them writing that legislatures alone can determine things like separate slates of electors after the fact. What concerns me is that they will insist on federal court jurisdiction now that circuit in the south and the appeals path on up is safely paved by the federalist society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
Proust Malone posted:The only thing i can imagine going well is the court insisting that judicial review does indeed exist. As crazy as this court is, I can’t imagine them writing that legislatures alone can determine things like separate slates of electors after the fact. What concerns me is that they will insist on federal court jurisdiction now that circuit in the south and the appeals path on up is safely paved by the federalist society. That is not really at stake here, we're mostly talking about maps and how elections are run. There's a lot of doomsday panic going on about legislatures ignoring election results and choosing a slate, but ISL won't suddenly allow them to do that. If they can do that (they can't if the election result is clear and decisive, especially after the electoral count reform is passed later this month), then they could already do that now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2022 18:25
|
|