|
I don’t quite understand that tweet. If you pay your loans for 11 years, and haven’t made a dent in the balance, were you paying less than the annual interest? Maybe they were planning to reach the 20 year loan forgiveness with a sizable balance? (I think that’s a thing.)
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:42 |
|
|
YorexTheMad posted:Saying "not everyone deserves to have their student loans forgiven" is just a gateway to means testing, which is 99% of the time just going to be used as an administrative cudgel going in the opposite direction, against those who actually need it. But she really doesn't deserve to have her loans forgiven, she's rich as hell. College is expensive BECAUSE of student loans. The administrator to faculty ratio is out of control and student loans create perverse incentives to attract more students with insane crap like this: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/colleges-with-the-craziest-waterparks-144305876.html It leaves a real bad taste in my mouth to see wealthy people taking advantage of a program like that. Poor people? Ok yeah, fine, axe their loans, but gently caress these people. College should be low/cost free, but the left isn't attacking the real culprit here, the loan system itself. Guaranteeing loans makes 0 sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 20:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, there was not an elaborate conspiracy by Harvard to set up a test case in control of both sides in favor of an abstracted class. Fair, I portrayed that poorly. I don't think there's a conspiracy. Harvard and the courts both work to implicitly protect America's ruling class. SCOTUS accepted this case with Harvard, vs a myriad of other cases/schools because they explicitly wanted to review aa. Harvard does not care about diversity. It cares about serving its powerful, wealthy benefactors, who care about self enrichment. There is no conspiracy, no explicit plan, but the right leaning conservative court and Harvard's interests aligned, neither want to promote diversity. The result is Harvard and the courts get rid of affirmative action nationwide, without the majority of schools even being allowed a voice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I don’t quite understand that tweet. If you pay your loans for 11 years, and haven’t made a dent in the balance, were you paying less than the annual interest? It is indeed a thing and the financially prudent method of repayment for many loan holders. The system is badly hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 20:41
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:
It's also true. Democrats controlled Congress when Biden issued the order, they could have made it a law, but refused, giving the court the opportunity to do exactly this, which they took.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I don’t quite understand that tweet. If you pay your loans for 11 years, and haven’t made a dent in the balance, were you paying less than the annual interest? I think it's also possible to do a 30-year payback for balances after a certain point. She probably has at least a loan to the specific institution and a federal loan if she's talking about multiple balances. The whole system is incredibly rapacious and predatory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:https://twitter.com/theonion/status/1674847810934407185?s=46&t=BHs6Pl38GJXGN2Y4xeriNA Was there ever any explanation or follow up to this? Or was it just collectively memory holed by every soul in washington?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
fishing with the fam posted:Was there ever any explanation or follow up to this? Or was it just collectively memory holed by every soul in washington? The only possible path it could go down are calling for an impeachment which would be ignored, so everyone including the FBI decided to save their effort It should probably get resurrected now that court corruption is a major story
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
fishing with the fam posted:Was there ever any explanation or follow up to this? Or was it just collectively memory holed by every soul in washington? There wasn't a follow up to this specifically, but there have been several leaks and signs that point to him not being vetted as a candidate or investigated during his sex-pest hearings like, at all. So memory hole seems like the most likely thing. We've mostly given up on even the pretext of "good behavior" as a thing necessary for the lifetime service and appointment of a law priest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
I understand the fear that this case is part of a plan to gradually erode the principle of non-discrimination, or that people will see this as giving them permission to discriminate in ways well beyond what it technically does. I’m worried about all that myself. And I sympathize with not wanting to give a victory to people like the plaintiff here who are working themselves into a lather imagining all the ways that the evil gay people are oppressing them, and as a legal matter I don’t think she should have standing to sue in the abstract like this. But. The legal standard actually articulated in this case, that public accommodation laws can’t compel written or spoken expression that the business owner doesn’t support, is pretty clear. It does not allow businesses to just refuse to serve anyone they don’t like, and the reasoning behind it does not really generalize beyond this decision. That doesn’t mean the Court won’t expand this in the future; like I said, I’m worried about where this goes. But the conservative justices are not a monolith, and I don’t think there’s a majority to tear down anti-discrimination laws in general. It’s possible that this is the end of the line. And if it is, I don’t think it’s really all that bad. I’m much more upset about the student loans case, mostly because it’s blessing this bullshit with states suing whenever they don’t like federal policy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/merrittk/status/1674864175414231040?s=20 Basically how I would sum up the last two days opinions. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 21:13
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:https://twitter.com/merrittk/status/1674864175414231040?s=20 What is the purpose of this post other than to endorse calls for violence?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:What is the purpose of this post other than to endorse calls for violence? I'm actually specially being careful not endorsing poo poo. There is of course a moral argument (and ethical argument) that could be made that violence is actually completely justified, in certainly circumstances, but I am not in any way doing such a thing. Implying that I am seems to be a very Neo lib "gotcha" from you though. That's weird. why are you doing that? are you going to suggest I should just go vote? Because I did that. I do that. I was posting it because there are a ton of people today (and yesterday) who are hugely effected in very violent ways by the courts decisions, and that tweet is pointing out the hypocrisy of violence and discrimination against them is allowed on institutional and economic levels, but venting in a manner (to blow off steam) that is even a fantasy is deemed (unbecoming) and on a lot of major platforms is not allowed. So the point of linking that is they are making a joke, and I thought it was funny because the joke is pointing out the hypocrisy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 21:24
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:What is the purpose of this post other than to endorse calls for violence? To express what it feels like to make a reasonable statement to an uncaring and unmoved majority. Most rights were fought and died for, and people pointing that out being treated like immature little children who can't conceive of reality like a Mature Adult* is patronizing and obnoxious. If you're involved in social media there's a lot of tut tuts and "Vote!"s from "allies" regarding people making comments like "I hope the supreme court visits the Titanic in a submarine." It's a maddening feeling to care about something and be faced with people who treat politics as entertainment finding you off-putting for being a "sore loser."
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 21:24
|
|
|
fishing with the fam posted:Was there ever any explanation or follow up to this? Or was it just collectively memory holed by every soul in washington?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 21:26
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Fair, I portrayed that poorly. I don't think there's a conspiracy. No, Harvard did not "work to implicitly"- do you not know what an amicus is? what an intervening party is? You've constructed an elaborate, unfalsifiable framing of the case.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:To express what it feels like to make a reasonable statement to an uncaring and unmoved majority. Most rights were fought and died for, and people pointing that out being treated like immature little children who can't conceive of reality like a Mature Adult* is patronizing and obnoxious. If you're involved in social media there's a lot of tut tuts and "Vote!"s from "allies" regarding people making comments like "I hope the supreme court visits the Titanic in a submarine." Really well said. What's even stranger is I'm not directly effected by these decisions. I'm a white male, and have no student debt. But I'm friends with plenty of people who are directly effected by these decisions, and am a mature enough adult to see that these actions are that of extreme violence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 21:30
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Fair, I portrayed that poorly. I don't think there's a conspiracy. I mean, you have to remember UNC was also part of the lawsuit as well, and they're not exactly harvard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:Isn't "queer people shouldn't be allowed to participate in society" a political belief? So if someone is refusing to take money on that basis, why wouldn't that be a protected action here? I guess I'm not understanding the distinction between "not performing a service" and "not performing a service with creative intent." Denial of a service doesn't necessarily imply denial of any service, but the legal ground between the two doesn't seem like it's going to hold steady to me. Because accepting money isn't protected free speech under the First Amendment. If it were, then it would be unconstitutional to ban bribery, among other things. I think the Supreme Court's stance is fairly clear here unless you're trying to go out of your way to stretch it well beyond what it clearly says and adopt creative definitions of a whole bunch of phrases. But the Supreme Court doesn't need to do stuff like that. And that especially goes for the current Court, which doesn't give a poo poo about precedent. If they want to make discrimination legal in all cases, they'll just do it. Their rulings are already bad enough as it is, imaginatively reinterpreting them like this is just catastrophizing. BillsPhoenix posted:Fair, I portrayed that poorly. I don't think there's a conspiracy. If Harvard didn't care about diversity, it probably wouldn't have instituted all these diversity policies in the first place, and wouldn't have fought a lawsuit about those diversity policies all the way up to the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
If Biden doesn't want to expand the court, what do Democrats do? Just keep losing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 21:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because accepting money isn't protected free speech under the First Amendment. If it were, then it would be unconstitutional to ban bribery, among other things. I have seen no evidence at any point, related to this case or otherwise, to suggest Harvard is anything other than a gate keeping institution for those already in power, which is predominately white males. Diversity is not a goal. As to what the court can and can't do... Roe v Wade highlighted that extreme rulings could provoke extreme responses. Protests, increasing court size, term limits were all big topics after that ruling. These rulings have been slow enough they're hasn't been as big a response. And yes, UNC, which has a terribly racist national reputation is also involved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 21:54
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, Harvard did not "work to implicitly"- do you not know what an amicus is? what an intervening party is? You've constructed an elaborate, unfalsifiable framing of the case. No, as stated in not a lawyer. I am just recognizing, what to me, is aligned bias between Harvard and the court majority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 21:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I think the Supreme Court's stance is fairly clear here unless you're trying to go out of your way to stretch it well beyond what it clearly says and adopt creative definitions of a whole bunch of phrases. But the Supreme Court doesn't need to do stuff like that. And that especially goes for the current Court, which doesn't give a poo poo about precedent. If they want to make discrimination legal in all cases, they'll just do it. Their rulings are already bad enough as it is, imaginatively reinterpreting them like this is just catastrophizing. Respectfully, the outward hostility to queer people is more than enough reason to assume that there's always more and it's always worse. But I don't think they want to make discrimination legal in all cases -- I think they're looking to make very specific kinds of discrimination legal in all cases. There's much less pushback on their obvious overreaches and wildly discriminatory decisions when they can convince people who are much more literal-minded that "the decision doesn't say x, you're overreacting." You can fully strip people of their rights, but you'll get way less pushback from the middle if you do it piecemeal. Dog Friday posted:If Biden doesn't want to expand the court, what do Democrats do? Just keep losing? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 21:57
|
|
|
Dog Friday posted:If Biden doesn't want to expand the court, what do Democrats do? Just keep losing? Plan A should probably be "win a solid progressive majority in Congress, so they can pass laws like a normal political party instead of relying on legally-dubious stretches of executive power to try to ram poo poo through against the will of Congress". If we accomplish that and it still doesn't work, good news - that's also an absolutely necessary precondition for expanding the Court. If the Dems can't muster a majority for "forgiving student loans", then there is absolutely no way in hell that "expand the court to put a pro-loan-foregiveness majority in place" is on the table, given that it also requires Congressional action. BillsPhoenix posted:I have seen no evidence at any point, related to this case or otherwise, to suggest Harvard is anything other than a gate keeping institution for those already in power, which is predominately white males. Diversity is not a goal. Well, that's clearly wrong, because if diversity wasn't a goal then Harvard wouldn't have had diversity programs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 21:59
|
|
|
Dog Friday posted:If Biden doesn't want to expand the court, what do Democrats do? Just keep losing? Depends whether he's just not advocating expanding the court or if he plans to veto the ongoing efforts in Congress to expand the court should they bear fruit the next time Dems have both houses. Alternatively, Democrats can overcome an unfriendly court the way they did under FDR.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 22:02
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Alternatively, Democrats can overcome an unfriendly court the way they did under FDR. That way was to make a plausible threat of court packing, which has about the same requirements as actually doing it
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 22:04
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Well, that's clearly wrong, because if diversity wasn't a goal then Harvard wouldn't have had diversity programs. Seems like this is where I'm wrong/confused. I had thought federal grant/education funding had some diversity requirements which motivated schools. I thought this because Weslyian College has a diversity program and... they are a private Christian school that hates women and minorities rather openly. SPU and Westmont fit this category as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 22:11
|
|
|
haveblue posted:That way was to make a plausible threat of court packing, which has about the same requirements as actually doing it That attempt backfired, cost Democrats a lot of seats, and nearly derailed FDR's platform. Democrats took control of the court anyway by maintaining Congress and the White House until the conservative majority on SCOTUS retired.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 22:13
|
|
|
going back years ago to groff v dejoy, i didn't realize how perfect a job for People Keeping The Sabbath Holy mail carrier was on account of the whole not-delivering-on-sunday thing, and also how it's now ruined with occasional packages from amazon
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 22:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Plan A should probably be "win a solid progressive majority in Congress, so they can pass laws like a normal political party instead of relying on legally-dubious stretches of executive power to try to ram poo poo through against the will of Congress".  but what if I want to have it my way while controlling the minority of votes?Killer robot posted:That attempt backfired, cost Democrats a lot of seats, and nearly derailed FDR's platform. Democrats took control of the court anyway by maintaining Congress and the White House until the conservative majority on SCOTUS retired. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 22:31
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Seems like this is where I'm wrong/confused. I don't know if that's the case or not, and I'm not going to bother researching it because it's not actually relevant - if they're pursuing diversity because they think it's profitable, that's still pursuing diversity. I'm not sure which Wesleyan College you're talking about (there's at least 6 Wesleyan Colleges in the US and 16 Wesleyan Universities), so I'm going to focus on Westmont College instead. Their student enrollment in the last few years has only been ~53% white and ~40% male. So if they "hate women and minorities rather openly", it doesn't exactly seem to be driving those groups away. Honestly, without any sort of information to back up your claims, my initial reaction is that you're just making exaggerated assumptions based on your preconceived notions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 22:34
|
|
|
My experiences and bias are the basis yes. Westmont used to be significantly more women:men ratiod. I've never met a graduate that chose to attend the school - it's a school parents choose. All 3 schools are very religious. SPU has had lawsuits regarding racism, but they still have a diversity department. Long winded way to say - here's 3 schools as examples that openly teach hate, but they still have diversity programs. I don't think having a program is the same as having a goal of promoting diversity. If NYU had been used instead of Harvard, I think we see a different ruling. But NYU and thousands of other schools had their voice taken away in favor of Harvard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 22:45
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Since we're talking about SCOTUS' ruling on student loan forgiveness... You can spend way to much money, even making a lot. Also her income probably went way down when she ran for office and did a ton of campaign work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 22:50
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:My experiences and bias are the basis yes. Westmont used to be significantly more women:men ratiod. I've never met a graduate that chose to attend the school - it's a school parents choose. All 3 schools are very religious. SPU has had lawsuits regarding racism, but they still have a diversity department. You know UNC was also part of the case, right? And that the lawyer for a group of student respondents (repped by the Lawyers Committee, which is a very well regarded civil rights org) got argument time as well? (Not to mention an absolute fuckton of schools weighed in through the amicus process.) Long winded way to say, we get it, you don't like Harvard, but that doesn't mean they weren't genuinely trying to defend the use of race as a factor in admissions decisions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 22:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You know UNC was also part of the case, right? And that the lawyer for a group of student respondents (repped by the Lawyers Committee, which is a very well regarded civil rights org) got argument time as well? (Not to mention an absolute fuckton of schools weighed in through the amicus process.) Ah, amicus now makes way more sense, my conclusion is completly wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 23:05
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:My experiences and bias are the basis yes. Westmont used to be significantly more women:men ratiod. I've never met a graduate that chose to attend the school - it's a school parents choose. All 3 schools are very religious. SPU has had lawsuits regarding racism, but they still have a diversity department. You really sound like you're shooting from the hip with this whole line of inquiry. Are you from the US?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 23:22
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:You really sound like you're shooting from the hip with this whole line of inquiry. Are you from the US? Well, maybe half the court being Yale JDs made them really hate Harvard? ... And the other half being Harvard JDs made them hate Harvard even more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2023 23:46
|
|
|
Harvard sucks. The SCOTUS sucks. The ruling wouldn't have been any different with another school on the docket line.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 00:04
|
|
|
Dog Friday posted:If Biden doesn't want to expand the court, what do Democrats do? Just keep losing? How are Democrats losing? They hold the executive and the senate, they may take back the house in 24 and there’s a non-zero chance they get to run against Trump again. There hasn’t been any indication the party is interested in fighting for women’s or lgbtq rights or in unfucking the economy for young people. Much better to run on these issues again in 24 than actually do anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:42 |
|
|
Dog Friday posted:If Biden doesn't want to expand the court, what do Democrats do? Just keep losing? The Democrat party never cared about "winning". They did nothing when they had a majority in both houses. Dem politicians just wanna get re-elected so they can go back to ignoring progressive voters and golfing with their private industry buddies. fake e: ^^^ yup!
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2023 00:17
|
|
