266
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
266 points (97.8% liked)
politics
19096 readers
1159 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is like a sitcom husband calling a restaurant on Valentines afternoon for an appointment, obviously getting turned away, and then claiming to the sitcom wife it's not his fault and she has to now pretend that he took her out to a fancy dinner after she cooks for him with zero notice.
Because he tried.
With a bare minimum of effort, knowing it wouldnt work.
If you know a woman in that situation in real life, you'd explain what gaslighting is.
But for some reason we still can't criticize Biden, because he's not trump, even tho he's also not running.
Almost like neoliberals will always scream and moan that there's some bullshit reason you can't judge their strategies when they never work. They want us to just keep beating our head against a wall, because when Republicans win, so do the corporations that donate to them and neoliberals.
You’re misrepresenting the context.
Republicans are jurisdiction-shopping to find the most regressive and conservative judges they can find, and filing the cases there.
They've been doing that for decades...
Why do you and Biden think they were just gonna not?
Like, you think Republicans will just voluntarily stop using a loophole so we don't have to bother trying to close it?
The GOP will always find some new way to fuck up the system. That's basically what they do now, sabotage the political system to maintain undue control. Not even pre-existing Supreme Court precedents are respected anymore, the right to vote is under attack from countless sides, wrenches get thrown in everywhere ...
But you complain that the Democrats still try to get things done and at least expose the sad the state of our failing system rather than just waiting around for bulletproof golden opportunities that are somehow beyond the reach of all this fuckery.
Nope, I'm saying they'll throw out a half-assed attempt and say "we tried"
But they're not trying.
Like at the complete inaction over decades with the SC since you brought them up.
So bi-partisan country-wide reform of how cases are assigned along with enforceable ethics codes banning partisanship that all states agree to so that federal appeals are not needed and a Supreme Court overhaul on top before we even attempt to do anything other than bend over for MAGA activists who are passing regressive shady bills at an alarming rate...
Good luck with that.
And your plan is....
Ignore the insane amount of partisian judges, both on the SC and junior courts?
When do things in your version get better?
40-50 years when they die off?
Wow fixing the Supreme Court and court system why didn't anyone think of that...
Maybe Biden should have been appointing federal judges to balance out Trump's appointments?
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/can-biden-top-trumps-number-of-judicial-appointments/
Maybe Democrats should propose ethics reform for Supreme Court? Maybe a change to term limits?
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-reform-biden-harris-trump-ffd48f3a2023aeca841bb53c2147ef03
Unfortunately changes like this don't happen with a magic wand and require pesky things like working around the inevitable House obstruction by winning the election and getting more House seats (otherwise you'd no doubt decry a Republican House blocking it as yet another doomed attempt by Democrats to change things).
So your plan is ignore all of the corrupt appointments?
Until when exactly? Just let them die on the bench in a couple decades?
That's not fixing anything, it's ignoring the problem.
Exactly what I'm complaining about. I'm just not sure why I had to say the same thing twice. Is it still not making sense to you that fixing a problem works better than ignoring it?
Federal judges can only be removed by impeachment by the House of Representatives
You have no plan and no idea what you are even complaining about.
You obviously have no problem insisting you know more than me, but are you going to say you know more about it than Yale?
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/removing-federal-judges-without-impeachment
Just because you don't know something, doesn't mean no one else does.
To my knowledge there has never been a federal judge removed in anyway other than impeachment. You would have to take an untested claim to court, prove it, then still to apply that process to remove judges case by case after. Unfortunately, it's not us that gets to decide whether or not something is legal, it's up to the "supreme" Court. I just can't see us convincing 6 of those justices to accept consequences for their and their party's actions. This would be a hell of a legal long shot.
And on 1/5/20, to my knowledge no sitting president had organized a coup to keep power...
The difference is this would be legal.
Add 6 justices, that goes to SC and they rule expanding the SC is fine and has happened before.
Kick out the lower judges, if it goes to the SC, that's fine. Because we've already taken back the majority.
I know you're arguing against fixing stuff, but you're arguent basically boils down to:
I agree.
Where we disagree is I want to fix everything, so it's all fixed.
And you think we should fix...
Nothing?
There's no difference with a broken court and we can't fix that with our current Congress.
What the hell are you on about about? Like actually what. You need to call down with that nonsense. Why are you being so combative? I'm not even the person you were first talking to.
We dont need congress to expand the SC court...
https://journals.law.harvard.edu/lpr/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/
Just like Obama didn't need Congress to approve his last pick, they have to give Congress a chance to vote, but there's nothing saying they have to.
So the absence of their decision should have resulted in Obama sitting someone anyways during his last year.
Because explaining the same thing over and over gets frustrating...
Which is why I'm probably going to give up on explaining this in a way you can understand pretty soon.
If you want ignore that link from Harvard and just keep arguing....
I view slapfights as a waste of time, but feel free to keep trying. What's weird is after I block one of them, it's common to get accounts with almost no activity immediately taking up the arguement, even in day old threads that aren't getting any other new replies.
Could it be a giant coincidence?
Sure but I just don't think it's likely.
Literally all four of those options require legislation to move through the halls of Congress. Did you even read that source?
Unfortunately Congress adopting statutes to hold hearings on bad behavior still requires the cooperation of Congress according to "Yale".
And unfortunately being appointed by Trump does not immediately constitute "bad behavior". I prefer not your plan.
Before I keep going (because honestly I'm losing faith I can explain this in a way you'll understand) do you agree that you were wrong?
If you can't do that, then there's no point in me putting more effort into helping.
I stated the current process for removal. So no, I don't agree that the idea of passing a law through Congress so that Congress can make it easier for Biden to remove federal judges in any way whatsoever works around the issue of needing to control House seats before any progress toward these goals can be made.
You can ignore me if you think that is unreasonable.
You’re not able to explain this in a way that any rational and sensible human can understand. Hence the consistent downvotes.
What would you sayd they should do?
What a load of horseshit.
There was nothing unconstitutional about the first executive action to cancel student debt. Such action was explicitly permitted by the HEROES Act, and only a bad-faith interpretation by an illegitimate court consisting of corrupt justices was able to find otherwise.
And there's nothing wrong with this attempt, either. It's just that Conservatives don't want the government helping people in an election year. Debt cancellation is universally popular and only negatively impacts the politicians who aren't in favor.
Congress (i.e. the GOP) won't budge on this issue and this is at least the 3rd attempt he's made to forgive loans. Only thing left to do is invoke his "King powers" to do it anyway.
“By the powers invested in me by the Supreme Court, as an official act President of the United States, I hereby forgive all student loans as delineated in this executive order. It is done. Finito. Come at me scrotus!”
- I wish
"No you don't." -SCOTUS
Being immune to prosecution doesn't mean that any executive order can't be overturned. He just can't be prosecuted for crimes committed as part of an official act. He could execute the conservative justices that are blocking the plan, but he can't just make any proclamation he wants and expect it to carry the force of law.
Except SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism. They make decisions and the presumption is that everyone else just goes along with it.
Not saying that's the legal or moral thing to do but if a former President is being given preferential treatment for behavior which is essentially treasonous the new standard is if you're not punished for it then it's "legal".
Well how is Biden going to enforce it? He can day whatever he wants, but financial organizations will just turn to the courts.
Unless you're saying he should send men with guns to wipe out debt somehow?
I guess my point was, if the forgiveness was stated right out and actually executed thereon. Then there would be no “plan” to block. It would be done. And sure, the gop could file another suit, and a conservative court could block it, but there would be nothing left to block.
Basically: it’s better to ask for forgiveness rather than permission, except SCOTUS has determined that the POTUS already has preemptive forgiveness.
Just a thought experiment. I’m not a constitutional scholar by any means.
The problem is that declaring the debt gone doesn't make it gone if the court blocks the executive order. It's not like they can just hit a button and set all accounts to 0. There isn't a paper ledger they can toss into a fire.
If we're getting creative about it and want to use some existing legal authority to take actions that might actually be able to stick, the president does have the near limitless power to order the minting of coinage. As I understand it, he could order the treasury to pump out commemorative student debt coins in denominations ranging from $100 to $50,000, and send them out directly to student loan holders, or maybe to student loan servicers on their behalf. This would carry huge political downsides since printing money to pay for things is pretty well known to lead to inflation, and even if this had no real world effect, the attacks tying the forgiveness to inflation would be relentless and likely persuasive to a lot of voters. But once done, it couldn't really be undone.
As with so many things, a realistic long term solution will require legislation. If the Democrats take the House and hold the Senate, that's a possibility. But the current deadlock makes it impossible, because even if a bipartisan solution were to be negotiated, the leadership of the House will not allow anything to go through that might be good for the people or the country, because that could also be good for Democrats.
Biden can just mint a trillion dollar platinum cost and pay the debt with it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin
The Court granted immunity to prosecution (which is fucking insane) but that doesn't actually give him the ability to forgive all debts. If a court says "no, the debt isn't canceled" and the debt is still on the books somewhere, the problem remains unsolved. About the only way he can use presidential immunity to fix the problem would be to take out the judges that are blocking it.
The courts don't control the ledger, the executive does. Biden would likely have to apply downward pressure to get some random employee with access to delete the debt records. At worst they'd get prosecuted federally and Biden would pardon them.
Why would some random employee take that risk though?
Wish he would. He’s a lame duck. He’s got nothing to lose and forgiving all student debt would likely get more people to vote for democrats.
So you thought there was a chance the third time he did the same thing it would work?
It wasn't the same thing, all three of them were different plans using different justifications based on different laws. One was a blanket forgiveness based on laws allowing for adjustments of student loans in emergencies. One is need based or other circumstance based forgiveness based on a much earlier law giving the department of education wide latitude to make adjustments. And one was adjustments to the income based repayment plans based on the laws establishing those (this has happened many times in the past, such as the establishment of the PAYE and REPAYE plans).
It's especially egregious that judges are blocking the SAVE plan, as many similar adjustments have been made to income based repayment plans previously with no one taking any issue.
Well since you're yet again blaming the Democrats for problems created by Republicans, how would you solve the problem of student loans in a way that would help Americans and would also get past the GOP?
Complaining about neoliberals and not voting will surely convince Democrats to court him.
/s is mandatory bruv
I keep having to learn that same lesson. One of these times it'll stick.