Blatant politics from the Supreme Court. The states had no standing to appear before the court on a federal issue. Kagan dissent was the ruling that should have been.
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
38 points (93.2% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7193 readers
886 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
When payments resume shit's gonna get ugly
Yes it is. And those who didn’t make payments or weren’t able to during the pause just extended their debt slavery by 3 years.
It’s outrageous that loans that cannot be discharged have such high interest rates.
It’s outrageous that the something that benefits us all must be taken on by those willing to step up and learn.
Well at least we saved a massive amount with inflation, better to pay it now 4 years later after having it at 0 interest than 4 years ago when money was worth more
What a fucking joke.
When I got engaged to my wife and we were going over our finances, her student loans blew my mind. The way they set up her payments, more than half of her loans were growing despite making monthly payments. The freaking interest was higher than she paid in every month.
I have a friend in the same position. It's actually pretty sad to see. They will never be out from under the crushing weight of this debt.
I do not get how these 6 states were determined to have standing in the first place? Isn't the whole US justice system predicated on the fact that you need to experience direct or indirect harm, be an actually involved party for you to be able to sue? They're federal loans, so federal money, where does their standing come from?
Pay wall, can’t read the article :(
I mean, fuck Reagan -- he's the reason why we're in this mess in the first place.
https://theintercept.com/2022/08/25/student-loans-debt-reagan/
Summary of the opinion: Nobody here has standing, but... Missouri maybe?, Cause the corporation the state created won't be able to take in all those fees. Also, congress only allowed completely trashing rules, or slightly tweaking them, this is more "in-between" and we don't like that. Oh, and the replacement rules only have a requirement to be published, theres no authority to actually write them. This is a new rule, so it's not allowed. Furthermore, the action taken was too big, unprecedented, we don't like that.
Summary of the dissent: Nobody here has standing. PERIOD. That corporation could bring it to us, and is explicitly permitted to act as an independent financial and legal entity, so they can bring it theirselves. IF they brought it themselves, congress clearly delegated authority to "waive or modify" provisions, and provide substitute rules appropriate to the situation, after they had passed it explicitly for the gulf war, then explicitly for 9/11, and then opened the doors wide open to any national emergency because they have more important things to deal with during emergencies than student loan policy. The scale of the action matches theS scale of the emergency, and is actually smaller than the previous action (loan pause) that the previous administration instituted. So in other words, loan relief like this may have been a shit idea, may have been a great idea, but it is exactly what the law allows and the court has no business deciding otherwise. It's not our fucking job to write policy.
You can probably pretty obviously tell which opinion I agree with more... This court is trash, gymnastics required to justify most of their decisions. Expand the court so the scales of power don't fucking seesaw from regular jurisprudence to batshit insanity upon the death of a single robe-clad geriatric. 😫