• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Amy Coney Barrett denies attempt to block Biden student loan forgiveness plan from taking effect

Phys251 said:
www.cnn.com

Justice Amy Coney Barrett denies attempt to block Biden student loan forgiveness plan from taking effect | CNN Politics

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected a challenge to the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness program on Thursday, declining to take up an appeal brought by a Wisconsin taxpayers group.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

This temporary ruling by Barrett lets the student loan forgiveness program stand for now. Good. (y)
Click to expand...
Hopefully not for long.

The other case with 6 states will be appealed to the 8th circuit. Hopefully the correct decision is made.

This type of cynical, craven political policy is prima facie unconstitutional.

But the votes have to be bought somehow, right? /s
 
Ginger Ale said:
Yep, the Republicans are so upset with student loan forgiveness they're going to run to their Republican SC to nix it. That's how they're going to help the people. They shouldn't have cut those corps tax breaks.
Click to expand...
Meet the new Democrat: 5-figure handouts to people with six figure salaries.

Anyone who has a problem with that is racist and is trying to destroy democracy.
 
SuperDS77 said:
Hopefully not for long.

The other case with 6 states will be appealed to the 8th circuit. Hopefully the correct decision is made.

This type of cynical, craven political policy is prima facie unconstitutional.

But the votes have to be bought somehow, right? /s
Click to expand...

What harm have the states suffered?
 
Taylor said:
Yeah, it's pretty awful.
Click to expand...

LMAO... Which states argument that was destroyed do you think was "awful"? Arkansas?

Arkansas, the only Plaintiff with a relationship to ASLA, alleges its financial and proprietary interest is harmed because the reduction in ASLA’s revenue caused by the incentive to consolidate FFELP loans into Direct Loans could limit its ability to provide education opportunities to Arkansans through financing further student loans. However, ASLA only holds FFELP loans, which are not subject to relief under the Department’s plan. As discussed, supra, FFELP loans consolidated into Direct Loans after September 29, 2022 will no longer be eligible for the relief at issue. Therefore, the lack of the ongoing incentive to consolidate FFELP loans into Direct Loans defeats standing; there is no longer an ongoing injury to ASLA’s revenue stream that could be a consequence of the Department’s student debt relief plan
 
BlueTex said:
LMAO... Which states argument that was destroyed do you think was "awful"? Arkansas?

Arkansas, the only Plaintiff with a relationship to ASLA, alleges its financial and proprietary interest is harmed because the reduction in ASLA’s revenue caused by the incentive to consolidate FFELP loans into Direct Loans could limit its ability to provide education opportunities to Arkansans through financing further student loans. However, ASLA only holds FFELP loans, which are not subject to relief under the Department’s plan. As discussed, supra, FFELP loans consolidated into Direct Loans after September 29, 2022 will no longer be eligible for the relief at issue. Therefore, the lack of the ongoing incentive to consolidate FFELP loans into Direct Loans defeats standing; there is no longer an ongoing injury to ASLA’s revenue stream that could be a consequence of the Department’s student debt relief plan
Click to expand...
Missouri. See above post.
 
Taylor said:
Missouri. See above post.
Click to expand...


Missouri has not met its burden to show that it can rely on harms allegedly suffered by MOHELA. MOHELA, not the State, is legally liable for judgments against it. MOHELA cannot pay any debt of the state, and the State is in no way obligated to pay any debt that it incurs. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 173.386. “The vast majority of MOHELA’s funds are segregated from state funds and controlled exclusively by MOHELA.” Dykes v. MOHELA, 2021 WL 3206691, at *4 (E.D. Mo. July 29, 2021) (finding that MOHELA was not an “arm of the state” for purposes of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity). There is no legal obligation or evidence that Missouri has paid or would pay any judgment on behalf of MOHELA. Further, the Court has found no cases where Missouri affirmatively sued on behalf of MOHELA or stepped in to shield MOHELA from its legal or financial obligations with its immunity. MOHELA is a “self-sustaining and financially independent agency.” Id. MOHELA can sue and be sued in its own name and retains financial independence from the state. Indeed, Missouri appears to recognize this distinctiveness. In preparation for this action, Missouri made a Missouri Sunshine Law request to obtain documents from MOHELA.2 Therefore, its claimed financial harms are not attributable to the state in which it operates, and Missouri cannot establish standing to bring its claims3 or establish standing through any arguments relating to MOHELA.

Why would the state need to request documents from MOHELA via a sunshine law? :ROFLMAO:
 
SuperDS77 said:
Hopefully not for long.

The other case with 6 states will be appealed to the 8th circuit. Hopefully the correct decision is made.

This type of cynical, craven political policy is prima facie unconstitutional.

But the votes have to be bought somehow, right? /s
Click to expand...

There is nothing illegal about it.

The right-wing needs to butt out.
 
IQ57 said:
Aka projection.

It was a double dose of reality.

I’m sorry you missed the point.

Arguing just to argue.
Click to expand...
dude. you make so many short, odd, irrelevant and diversionary posts. all that's gonna accomplish for you is people will just not listen and ignore you.
 
ColdHardTruth said:
There is nothing illegal about it.

The right-wing needs to butt out.
Click to expand...


They cheered when Trump declared a national emergency and stole funds from the military for his wall... Now, they are upset that a national emergency is used to help regular people...
 
Fishking said:
Well, that was stupid of her. It's blatantly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

So you know more about the Constitution than a Trump nominated SCOTUS judge. Hmmm...you should have let them know she wasn't qualified before he nominated her. Maybe he should have nominated you?
 
BlueTex said:
They cheered when Trump declared a national emergency and stole funds from the military for his wall... Now, they are upset that a national emergency is used to help regular people...
Click to expand...
What is the "national emergency"?
 
SuperDS77 said:
What is the "national emergency"?
Click to expand...

COVID 19...


Most recently, the Secretary has used the HEROES act to provide relief in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was declared by former President Trump as a national emergency in March 2020. Accordingly, on March 20, 2020, the Secretary relied on the HEROES Act to pause the accrual of interest and repayment for all federally held student loans from March 13, 2020 until March 27, 2020. On March 27, 2020, Congress directed the Secretary to extend these policies until October 1, 2020 under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 3513, 134 Stat. 281, 404 (2020) (“CARES Act”). When the CARES Act authorization expired, the Secretary, Defendant Cardona, invoked the HEROES Act again to continue the student loan payment and interest pause through December 31, 2022.

On August 24, 2022, President Biden announced the Department’s student debt relief plan to address the financial harms caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and ensure a smooth transition back to repayment status. The Secretary announced that the HEROES Act authorizes him to provide a “one-time” debt relief to federal student loan borrowers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department plans to provide up to $20,000 in debt relief to Pell Grant recipients with loans held by the Department and up to $10,000 in debt relief to non-Pell Grant recipients. Borrowers are eligible for this relief if their individual income was less than $125,000 or $250,000 for households in 2020 or 2021. Direct Loans qualify for the debt relief. Relief for FFELP loans only qualify to those borrowers who consolidated their FFELP loans into Direct Loans as of September 29, 2022.

 
BlueTex said:
Missouri has not met its burden to show that it can rely on harms allegedly suffered by MOHELA. MOHELA, not the State, is legally liable for judgments against it. MOHELA cannot pay any debt of the state, and the State is in no way obligated to pay any debt that it incurs. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 173.386. “The vast majority of MOHELA’s funds are segregated from state funds and controlled exclusively by MOHELA.” Dykes v. MOHELA, 2021 WL 3206691, at *4 (E.D. Mo. July 29, 2021) (finding that MOHELA was not an “arm of the state” for purposes of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity). There is no legal obligation or evidence that Missouri has paid or would pay any judgment on behalf of MOHELA. Further, the Court has found no cases where Missouri affirmatively sued on behalf of MOHELA or stepped in to shield MOHELA from its legal or financial obligations with its immunity. MOHELA is a “self-sustaining and financially independent agency.” Id. MOHELA can sue and be sued in its own name and retains financial independence from the state. Indeed, Missouri appears to recognize this distinctiveness. In preparation for this action, Missouri made a Missouri Sunshine Law request to obtain documents from MOHELA.2 Therefore, its claimed financial harms are not attributable to the state in which it operates, and Missouri cannot establish standing to bring its claims3 or establish standing through any arguments relating to MOHELA.

Why would the state need to request documents from MOHELA via a sunshine law? :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
That makes no sense.

No worries. It will get overturned on appeal. Or they'll just slap "MOHELA" on the plaintiff list and file again.
 
Taylor said:
That makes no sense.

No worries. It will get overturned on appeal. Or they'll just slap "MOHELA" on the plaintiff list and file again.
Click to expand...

LOL... By then the loans will be forgiven... What relief will MOHELA seek then? Take the money back?
 
Fishking said:
Well, that was stupid of her. It's blatantly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Fishking said:
Meaningless statement if you don't include specifics. But that's not the cut of your jib. You prefer to say nothing and just keep to generalized rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Umm...should I point out to you that your statement was simply generalized rhetoric? In what way do you feel it is blatantly unconstitutional?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom