|
PostNouveau posted:A reporter saying his sources in the administration are telling him the administration wanted this weak case tossed is the evidence that the administration wanted this weak case tossed. That's not what he's saying. Main Painframe actually explained that pretty well in the part of their post that you must have accidentally cut out when you responded to them: Main Paineframe posted:That's not quite what he's saying. He's saying that the executive doing it unilaterally was likely to be tossed by the courts, so administration officials that opposed it weren't inclined to push as hard against it because they figured it would die in the courts no matter what legal justification was used.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
It is mind-boggling how every step of the way, Republicans are alienating young voters. Like, what tiny percentage of Gen Z and millennials actually consider themselves religious? How many carry student loan debt? How many have LGBTQ+ friends & family members directly affected by all these new laws (which keep getting struck down). It's the most bafflingly short-sighted political strategy I could imagine, yet they keep doubling down. The vitriol this morning has been basically "Good, gently caress those kids for taking out loans, woke elite shitbirds!" and that's a generation of voters. The housing/homeless crisis, anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ laws, and climate change are clearly wreaking havoc across this country, and Republicans are reveling in it. The one voice of reason, if you can call it that, is a dude like Chris Christie and he gets booed for stating the obvious. It's such a mindfuck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
Star Man posted:I'm not understanding something. If Biden didn't want to give any kind of student loan relief or forgiveness, then why did he try to use the HEROES Act to provide ten to twenty thousand dollars in relief instead of doing nothing? Because Biden is also compromising and negotiating with others in the admin and his party. It was an option that allowed concessions to more progressive voices who wanted full relief and those who didn't want to take on the risk or opposed to full relief. So yeah, it's wrong that he didn't want to give any forgiveness but the idea that he's gungho about full debt relief also isn't backed by strong evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
Baronash posted:That's not what he's saying. Main Painframe actually explained that pretty well in the part of their post that you must have accidentally cut out when you responded to them: I actually did go back and read the article and Yglesias does seem to think the president has this authority: quote:In other words, it would be an economy that badly needed fiscal stimulus but where fiscal stimulus would be hard to achieve. Under the circumstances, student loan forgiveness had a very attractive property — Biden could do it. Which means when he's talking about his sources, he likely is talking specifically about the path that Biden chose through the HEROES Act. PostNouveau fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Jun 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
Not one to give Biden any credit, but the SC opinion itself rather shows that actually, his student loan relief was based entirely in law and was completely legal and valid. The fact that they had to go to such lengths to just make up reasoning that had no basis in reality is enough proof of that for me. Setting aside that the amount and method of relief wasn't enough to begin with, I do think it's not quite right to say that it was set up to fail when the entire reasoning used to strike it down is just made up nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's not quite what he's saying. He's saying that the executive doing it unilaterally was likely to be tossed by the courts, so administration officials that opposed it weren't inclined to push as hard against it because they figured it would die in the courts no matter what legal justification was used. Just to add, courts don't typically toss a law or executive action just because the enacting body cited the wrong source of authority. If the enacting body has authority to do a thing, courts will usually let the action itself stand. An example--after a fashion--would be Roberts holding that the individual mandate in the PPACA could stand because Congress has the authority to impose it as a tax, even though Congress did not initially characterize it as such.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 17:27
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:It is mind-boggling how every step of the way, Republicans are alienating young voters. Like, what tiny percentage of Gen Z and millennials actually consider themselves religious? How many carry student loan debt? How many have LGBTQ+ friends & family members directly affected by all these new laws (which keep getting struck down). It's the most bafflingly short-sighted political strategy I could imagine, yet they keep doubling down. They have a plan. It does not involve relying on young people's votes, and if it makes them no longer able to hold power through democratic means, they will stop using democratic means.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I actually did go back and read the article and Yglesias does seem to think the president has this authority: Again, you're using the fact that someone, somewhere was able to write up a legal justification for forgiveness through one legal avenue as proof that it would have prevailed, despite you yourself disagreeing with that idea. More importantly, the specific issues that his legal experts raised were ones of standing. In effect, they were arguing that nobody would have standing to sue because nobody would be a harmed party. That obviously is not the case, because the same supposed "harm" would have come to the same plaintiffs as this case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Again, you're using the fact that someone, somewhere was able to write up a legal justification for forgiveness through one legal avenue as proof that it would have prevailed, despite you yourself disagreeing with that idea. More importantly, the specific issues that his legal experts raised were ones of standing. In effect, they were arguing that nobody would have standing to sue because nobody would be a harmed party. That obviously is not the case, because the same supposed "harm" would have come to the same plaintiffs as this case. We're hashing out Matt Yglesias' mindset when he tweeted about his sources. He appears to believe the president does have this authority, so when he's talking about the admin taking the path most likely to fail on purpose, he's talking about the HEROES Act, not the obvious path where the authority is plain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 17:40
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:We're hashing out Matt Yglesias' mindset when he tweeted about his sources. He appears to believe the president does have this authority, so when he's talking about the admin taking the path most likely to fail on purpose, he's talking about the HEROES Act, not the obvious path where the authority is plain. But Yglesias characterizes his source as part of an "inter-administration battle", not a unified entire administration. He literally is saying that there were people within the administration that didn't want student loan forgiveness (which no one is denying) and they didn't put up a fight because they didn't believe the reasoning would work (which it didn't). You seem to be claiming that the people pushing the plan didn't think it would work, and that's why they pushed it, which is the opposite of what the tweet states. There's nothing to hash out about his mindset, the tweet literally states what Yglesias believe happened: proponents of student loan forgiveness within the administration thought this avenue would work, and didn't receive much pushback internally because opponents of loan forgiveness thought it would be struck down anyway. Characterizing this as the entire administration opposing student loan forgiveness doesn't make any sense. Xombie fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Jun 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
Xombie posted:But Yglesias characterizes his source as part of an "inter-administration battle", not a unified entire administration. He literally is saying that there were people within the administration that didn't want student loan forgiveness (which no one is denying) and they didn't put up a fight because they didn't believe the reasoning would work (which it didn't). You seem to be claiming that the people pushing the plan didn't think it would work, and that's why they pushed it, which is the opposite of what the tweet states. He didn't say at all that the anti-forgiveness people didn't fight it. He says "undecided officials" were swayed by the "high likelihood of this getting tossed out in court". It being a dead-end in court is the pivotal reason that undecided officials went with the pro side. This very likely outcome was the fulcrum point for them going forward with it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 17:56
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I actually did go back and read the article and Yglesias does seem to think the president has this authority: In both of those sections, Yglesias isn't making legal arguments about what authority the president actually has, he's summarizing the merits of the political considerations that led to unilateral executive forgiveness being seen as a desirable path in the first place. Whether executive debt forgiveness is actually legal is something he seems ambivalent about; he notes that it's an untested theory that might not hold up, but that it's unclear how anyone would establish standing to challenge any sort of executive debt forgiveness. Back in 2020 when he thought the GOP was going to win the Senate and stick Biden with a lovely COVID economy, he was apparently sympathetic to progressive arguments that we had to reach for executive action because Congressional action was a non-starter. But once Dems took the Senate and the vaccines proved to be reasonably effective, Yglesias took a different stance: quote:I think the fascination with this idea represents a kind of unhealthy obsession with executive branch unilateralism. It’s important to understand and exploit the powers of the presidency, but the thing that sane people want here is not achievable through those means. It's also worth noting that the article is a year and a half old, and that Yglesias is retconning a bit with the Twitter victory lap he's taking. While he seems confident now that executive action on loan forgiveness was always legally dubious, he didn't seem to hold a strong opinion on it back at the time - the statements I interpreted as "the president can't do student loan forgiveness" were more like "the president should do other things instead of loan forgiveness, and I don't think he can do those things". Lastly, no Yglesias piece would be complete without a reminder that he is dumb as hell. quote:Actually fixing things requires us to get out of this ping pong and have progressives who are worried about student debt collaborate with Republicans who are skeptical of American higher education. They’re going to need to come up with a system that involves more direct subsidy and less financialization (as progressives want) but that in exchange involves more scrutiny of which programs exist — probably leading to more emphasis on training engineers and less on subjects with lots of leftist ideology and minimal quantitative work. There's something to be said for more Congressional action and less reliance on executive action, but imagining a bipartisan bill where progressives cross the aisle and compromise with Republicans to fix student debt is some fantasy land poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:He didn't say at all that the anti-forgiveness people didn't fight it. He says "undecided officials" were swayed by the "high likelihood of this getting tossed out in court". It being a dead-end in court is the pivotal reason that undecided officials went with the pro side. This very likely outcome was the fulcrum point for them going forward with it in the first place. I think you are reading quite heavily into a couple sentence offhand tweet when a revelation like “Biden’s administration actually wanted the whole thing to fail” would be front page news. You still haven’t actually addressed the question I asked earlier. If you don’t think the Supreme Court would have accepted any argument, then why is the administration’s choice of argument proof that they desired that the whole thing collapse?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:07
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:In both of those sections, Yglesias isn't making legal arguments about what authority the president actually has, he's summarizing the merits of the political considerations that led to unilateral executive forgiveness being seen as a desirable path in the first place. No, he seems to just defer to people with law degrees who tell him it will work. quote:Lastly, no Yglesias piece would be complete without a reminder that he is dumb as hell. Yes, it is very unfortunate that he has the sources on this one. I think him being a dipshit is a big part of the reason why he's not going to write a story saying "Hey the administration threw this case" even though it's what his sources say. He doesn't see the impact. Baronash posted:I think you are reading quite heavily into a couple sentence offhand tweet when a revelation like “Biden’s administration actually wanted the whole thing to fail” would be front page news. You still haven’t actually addressed the question I asked earlier. If you don’t think the Supreme Court would have accepted any argument, then why is the administration’s choice of argument proof that they desired that the whole thing collapse? They had a very clear path to doing it and chose the dubious path. That speaks to their mindset, as does Yglesias' info from his sources, who say they chose the dubious path precisely because it was likely to fail. I don't know what more you need on this; the administration clearly threw this case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1674780287191105544?s=20 im sure somehow refusing service to Christians is somehow not the same. https://twitter.com/AriDrennen/status/1674782825575481344?s=20 Also love that you can just make up bullshit and have it get to the supreme court? e: Whoever said the court did a few non-terrible decisions to prep for the bad ones was bang on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
Outdoor application of a product that releases a bit of radon is honestly a weird thing to worry about in a state that doesn't even have basements for it to collect in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
Oxyclean posted:e: Whoever said the court did a few non-terrible decisions to prep for the bad ones was bang on. I don't know why they even bother anymore. Roberts actually thinks they have any legitimacy left to salvage?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:28
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I actually did go back and read the article and Yglesias does seem to think the president has this authority: Maybe you should read my replies to your post? My first reply was literally that quote  That quote is not loan forgiveness, it's about pausing collecting on the loansSo you don't have to go back to find my initial reply: Kalit posted:
Kalit fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jun 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Maybe you should read my replies to your post? My first reply was literally that quote Huh? He calls it student loan forgiveness in that section: "Under the circumstances, student loan forgiveness had a very attractive property — Biden could do it."
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:31
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Huh? He calls it student loan forgiveness in that section: "Under the circumstances, student loan forgiveness had a very attractive property — Biden could do it." Yes, Yglesias is a dumbass who doesn't know what forgiveness is or is purposely misusing that term to get more clicks. In that quote, he clearly states: quote:the president can choose to simply not collect the loans This is not forgiveness. It's what is already occurring and can be changed at any time by the DoE.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Yes, Yglesias is a dumbass who doesn't know what forgiveness is or is purposely misusing that term. In that quote, he clearly states: We're only talking about it to determine what he thinks, so even if he is a dumbass who doesn't use the right terms, the passage makes it clear he thinks the president holds the authority to forgive loans and that such authority would likely survive a court challenge. I'm certainly not basing my belief that the president has the authority on something that idiot wrote. There are actual experts with law degrees who say the president has a good case to have the authority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:35
|
|
|
Oxyclean posted:https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1674780287191105544?s=20 They killed student loan relief, affirmative action, and legalized further discrimination against LGBTQ people
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:We're only talking about it to determine what he thinks, so even if he is a dumbass who doesn't use the right terms, the passage makes it clear he thinks the president holds the authority to forgive loans and that such authority would likely survive a court challenge. Can you please stop trying to make a legal argument using Yglesias? I don't know why you're determined to die on the hill of "well this blogger thinks X because...". At least the Harvard Law letter you linked earlier had some weight around it because they're lawyers/legal experts
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Their only not bad decision was the gerrymandering one They also shot down the independent legislature theory and a case that would have let them rule that charter schools can violate the Constitution because they're private even though they take public money. But neither were rulings, they just declined to hear the cases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:39
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:No, he seems to just defer to people with law degrees who tell him it will work. PostNouveau posted:Yes, it is very unfortunate that he has the sources on this one. I think him being a dipshit is a big part of the reason why he's not going to write a story saying "Hey the administration threw this case" even though it's what his sources say. He doesn't see the impact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Can you please stop trying to make a legal argument using Yglesias? I don't know why you're determined to die on the hill of "well this blogger thinks X because...". At least the Harvard Law letter you linked earlier had some weight around it because they're lawyers/legal experts I'm not making a legal argument using Yglesias. I'm saying he has sources who say the administration threw this case on purpose. That's not a legal argument at all. Baronash posted:All the tweet said is that certain officials in the government, faced with an inter-administration battle, didn't fight as hard against it because they didn't think it was likely to succeed. That is miles away from the claims you are making. It says undecided officials were swayed by the likely failure. It doesn't say anything about the two sides not fighting hard. Main Paineframe posted:If his sources say "hey, the administration threw the case", then he isn't relaying that to us at all. As he's presenting it, his sources say "some administration officials thought unilateral forgiveness through executive power would fail". I don't know why you're using quotes here because the actual quote from the tweet is "the high likelihood of this getting tossed out in court helped proponents win the intra-administration battle over whether or not to do it by nudging undecided officials toward seeing little downside risk." PostNouveau fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jun 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:No, he seems to just defer to people with law degrees who tell him it will work. If his sources say "hey, the administration threw the case", then he isn't relaying that to us at all. As he's presenting it, his sources say "some administration officials thought unilateral forgiveness through executive power would fail". He doesn't claim that the administration had another better option that would have succeeded, but purposely sandbagged it with an intentionally flawed approach. He just said that some administration officials opposed the forgiveness and thought it would fail. If his sources were telling him that the Biden administration purposely sabotaged the effort, then he would say that straight-out, because it would be one hell of a scoop and way more newsworthy than his silly attempt to claim he always knew this would happen. We wouldn't have to pick through his exact wording looking for double meanings and hidden implications.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
what website design is doable from anywhere in the world with internet access. In the bakery case, that's an actual physical object; if you are in a small town and the only bakery refuses to serve you that has real harms. If someone says hey I won't make your wedding website because (I'm too busy/on vacation/am a raging bigot), you just shrug your shoulders and go to one of the umpteen billion different providers who could knock that poo poo out in a day. There's basically zero harm. This is so transparently a excuse to lay precedent for more anti-LGBT  religious freedom casesThey want to loudly proclaim their bigotry without consequence Xand_Man fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jul 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I'm not making a legal argument using Yglesias. I'm saying he has sources who say the administration threw this case on purpose. That's not a legal argument at all. You absolutely were (see bolded statement) PostNouveau posted:Biden cut a deal during the debt ceiling talks to end the repayment pause in October. Unclear if that's set legislatively or if he's just going to honor the agreement to keep his word to the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:42
|
|
|
Kalit posted:You absolutely were (see bolded statement) Yes, the tweet backs up this statement, which immediately preceded the tweet in my post "He did this because they knew it wouldn't survive a court challenge."
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I'm not making a legal argument using Yglesias. I'm saying he has sources who say the administration threw this case on purpose. That's not a legal argument at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:46
|
|
|
Baronash posted:And "undecided officials" is not a synecdoche for "Biden and his administration." Nor does it support the argument that a specific pathway was chosen because it would fail. If you want to make those arguments, you're gonna need to find sources that actually support what you're asserting. Undecided officials were clearly the critical element because the likely failure helped the proponents win the intra-administration battle by nudging them. This was the pivot point on which the policy path was decided, according to these sources.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:48
|
|
|
zoux posted:A day after landing in the worst possible political situation - that is instantly escalating into publicly accusing an octagenarian literal Holocaust survivor of being a slave owner for asking him a question sternly- NYC Mayor Eric Adams has chosen to post through it. https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1514619608623243264
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:49
|
|
|
Oh god, this one is going to be awful https://twitter.com/ericmruben/status/1674810476742492160 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:51
|
|
|
zoux posted:A day after landing in the worst possible political situation - that is instantly escalating into publicly accusing an octagenarian literal Holocaust survivor of being a slave owner for asking him a question sternly- NYC Mayor Eric Adams has chosen to post through it. Dinkins was weirdly obsessed with tennis. He's the one that diverted air traffic during the US Open so it would be quieter when they were holding it. I would say the last good New York City. Mayor is probably Mayor Lindsay... But the most popular mayor more broadly in the last 50 years would have to be Ed Koch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Undecided officials were clearly the critical element because the likely failure helped the proponents win the intra-administration battle by nudging them. This was the pivot point on which the policy path was decided, according to these sources. I'd also appreciate that if you're going to continue to use "Matt's lawyer friends said it would work" as the bedrock of your argument, that you actually engage with this rather than repeatedly ignore it: Baronash posted:There are people with law degrees at literally every quadrant of this issue, including ones on the Supreme Court who wrote dissents on this case. That is not, in itself, the proof you seem to think it is. Additionally, as I already posted, the lawyers he consulted said its success hinged on their belief that there wouldn't be plaintiffs who would have ground to sue, which is demonstrably false given that most of the same plaintiffs in this case would have been able to sue under the alternative forgiveness scheme.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
Yglesias is saying very explicitly that there were voices that were pro- and anti-student loan forgiveness in the administration. I would guess that Biden fell on the "pro-" side or at least was won over by their argument because he did it. Even if we're assuming they're 100% on point, what Yg's "~~sources~~" (what's up with that formatting?) tell him is not that the administration said, "ah, gently caress it, sign the order - it'll fool the rubes and never go into effect!" It was that the people who didn't want the order signed didn't fight too hard against Biden doing it because they didn't think it would go into effect. I don't think it's some kind of scandal or reflects poorly on the President himself that some people who worked for him were not on board with forgiveness, considering that he didn't listen to them. And I can't think of anything less interesting that MattY's legal opinions on the matter, whatever they are. PostNouveau posted:They had a very clear path to doing it and chose the dubious path. VorpalBunny posted:It is mind-boggling how every step of the way, Republicans are alienating young voters. Like, what tiny percentage of Gen Z and millennials actually consider themselves religious? How many carry student loan debt? How many have LGBTQ+ friends & family members directly affected by all these new laws (which keep getting struck down). It's the most bafflingly short-sighted political strategy I could imagine, yet they keep doubling down. Ghost Leviathan posted:They have a plan. It does not involve relying on young people's votes, and if it makes them no longer able to hold power through democratic means, they will stop using democratic means. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jun 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:57
|
|
|
Baronash posted:There's actually nothing in that tweet that states that this was a "pivot point," only that it helped. And again, that's wildly different from "this path was chosen specifically to make sure it failed." You have repeatedly made that assertion and have done nothing but wave vaguely at a one sentence tweet to support it. It says it helped proponents win the battle. It's the only thing he notes about his sources say about the battle in the administration. We can keep junking up the thread, but it's not my fault you don't like what his sources are saying about the administration's decision-making. I'm only talking about Matt's lawyer friends in relation to what Matt thinks. I don't really care what they think, only that he accepts their opinions. Mellow Seas posted:Yglesias is saying very explicitly that there were voices that were pro- and anti-student loan forgiveness in the administration. I would guess that Biden fell on the "pro-" side or at least was won over by their argument because he did it. I'd actually guess Biden was the undecided one swayed by the fact that the court would strike it down. It's ultimately his call after all, so it's hard to see how undecided people below him matter all that much. PostNouveau fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jun 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Oh god, this one is going to be awful It seems likely that we're going to see a lot of state restrictions on firearms ownership get obliterated in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
suffering whiplash from the 'why aren't democrats using all levers available to do things?' posts like last week and the 'actually, using a lever that wasn't guaranteed to work in the long term is evidence it was sabotage the whole time' posts now the radioactive roads are just an insane idea. I'm sure they could be made relatively safely in the short term, but in the long term they're probably guaranteed to have some lovely interaction or effect. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jun 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 19:01
|
|
