The Supreme Court on Wednesday maintained a temporary pause on a new effort by President Biden to wipe out tens and perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars of student debt.

The plan was part of the president’s piecemeal approach to forgiving debt after the Supreme Court rejected a more ambitious proposal last year that would have canceled more than $400 billion in loans. Mr. Biden has instead pursued more limited measures directed at certain types of borrowers, including people on disability and public service workers, and refined existing programs.

The decision leaves in limbo millions of borrowers enrolled in a new plan, called Saving on a Valuable Education, which ties monthly payments to household size and earnings.

The emergency application was one of two related to the program that the justices decided on Wednesday. The brief order did not give reasons, which is typical, and no public dissents were noted.

Republican-led states had filed a number of challenges to the plan, including a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, which earlier this summer issued a broad hold on the loan plan while it considers the merits of the case.

65 points

Just declare loan forgiveness as an official act, then claim immunity

permalink
report
reply
30 points

Then walk out going:

“Fuck you” points at Thomas

“Fuck you” points at Alito

“Fuck you” points at Gorsuch

“Fuck you” points at Kavanaugh

“Fuck you” points at Roberts

“Fuck you” points at Barrett

“You’re cool” *points at Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan.

“I’m out, bitches!”

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

This is exactly what I hoped Biden’s admin would do when they were challenged. “Oh no I made it an Executive Order anyway, it’s happening so deal with it”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

What’s the least disparaging way of saying “do it or no balls”?

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

We need to flip the house and pass the senate’s bill to expand the court. Screw these extremists.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

13 federal circuits.

There should be 13 Supreme Court justices.

Each justice could be responsible as “executive” of their circuit.

12 associate justices for the 1st through 12th circuit.

The chief justice is assigned the Federal Appeals Circuit.

It makes way too much sense.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-71 points

Your statement is the extremist view.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points
*

Just using the legislative process to do what has been done before.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

It’s kind of weird to think using the legislative process as the founders did is extreme.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-19 points

And in four years just expand the court. And in four years just expand the court. What is your end game

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*

You can’t change the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

Except that you can.

And they did. Eight times.

1789 - six justices

1801 - reduced to five justices

1802 - restored to six justices

1807 - seven justices

1836 - nine justices

1863 - ten justices

1866 - nine justices

1867 - eight justices

1869 - nine justices

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Edgy take.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-14 points

It’s really not, compared to destroying the existing system.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

The fuck are you talking about?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

NO U

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points
New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for New York Times:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/28/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-student-loans.html?unlocked_article_code=1.GU4.wjb1.jPysVLr40Rwx&smid=re-nytimes

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 9.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 214K

    Comments