US Supreme Court blocks student loan forgiveness plan
US Supreme Court blocks student loan forgiveness plan
You're viewing part of a thread.
Show Context
200 comments
-
If that's what the cases were actually about, I would support you. But the entity that has standing for that argument is MOHELA and they didn't want to be a part of it. The cases that were presented had nothing to do with what Missouri had to lose financially.
The state of Missouri, one of the plaintiffs, is claiming that MOHELA will lose revenue as a result of debt cancellation, and therefore would be unable to repay money into a Missouri state fund that funds in-state schools. It was revealed that MOHELA hasn’t made a contribution to that fund in 15 years; MOHELA has also said in its own financial documents that it doesn’t plan to make any payments in the future. Furthermore, an analysis from the Roosevelt Institute and the Debt Collective shows that MOHELA stands to gain revenue if debt cancellation goes forward, because it received additional servicing rights and its liability on certain accounts would be extinguished.
So, honestly, I call bullshit.
-
You can can call whatever you want. They still had standing, and proved it.
You're just mad you didn't get a free voucher.
-
They don't need standing because they're the supreme court. They literally just ruled on a theoretical case which was bananas in another decision. If you can actually show me their standing that isn't total bullshit, please direct me to it.
This court case doesn't actually impact me. I don't live in the US anymore.
-
- At least Missouri has standing to challenge the Secretary’s pro- gram. Article III requires a plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact—a concrete and imminent harm to a legally protected interest, like property or money—that is fairly traceable to the challenged con- duct and likely to be redressed by the lawsuit. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561. Here, as the Government concedes, the Secretary’s plan would cost MOHELA, a nonprofit government cor- poration created by Missouri to participate in the student loan market, an estimated $44 million a year in fees. MOHELA is, by law and func- tion, an instrumentality of Missouri: Labeled an “instrumentality” by the State, it was created by the State, is supervised by the State, and serves a public function. The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself. The Court reached a similar conclusion 70 years ago in Arkansas v. Texas, 346 U. S. 368. The Secretary emphasizes that, as a public corporation, MOHELA has a legal personality separate from the State. But such an instru- mentality—created and supervised by the State to serve a public func- tion—remains “(for many purposes at least) part of the Government itself.” Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 513 U. S. 374, 397. The Secretary also contends that because MOHELA can sue on its own behalf, it—not Missouri—must be the one to sue. But where a State has been harmed in carrying out its responsibilities, the fact that it chose to exercise its authority through a public corporation it created and controls does not bar the State from suing to remedy that harm itself. See Arkansas, 346 U. S. 368. With Article III satisfied, the Court need not consider the States’ other standing arguments.
You can just read it yourself. It's all explained for you. You just don't like it.
-
Yeah. I read it. And it's total bullshit. If you scroll up just a couple of comments ago, you'll see why. MOHELA themselves say they will lose money from this court ruling and never planned to pay into the Missouri government program the Missouri government is referring to and they haven't for years. Additionally, Kavanaugh just ruled that "states can't sue the government just over 'indirect' harm from a federal policy." I literally already sent you a link to that. And yet, here he rules directly the opposite. So, maybe you could read first before sending the same bullshit that's already been shut down in this very thread.
But, because there's no real way to check the supreme court, they can say whatever they want and it's law.
-
Remember how i said they explained it, but you just don't like it?
Your linked case is TOTALLY different from this case. They're not the same. You keep saying they are, but they aren't.
Like i said, you either CAN'T read, choose not to,, or you're gaslighting because you're unhappy about the decision.
-
Remember how I said it's not about what I like but about how arbitrary and contradictory it is?
Oh my god. you actually can't extrapolate core ideas and concepts and then apply it to other scenarios. The US education system is really failing us.
-
Yea, i remember you saying that, and i remember tlling you you're conflating two things that shouldn't be.
Then you doubled down on your ignorance about "indirect" harm, which leads me to believe you DIDN'T read the ruling in this case that i even pasted for you, so you didn't have to do ANY work but reading... Which again, you chose not to do.
LET ME HELP YOU FURTHER:
- At least Missouri has standing to challenge the Secretary’s pro- gram. Article III requires a plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact—a concrete and imminent harm to a legally protected interest, like property or money—that is fairly traceable to the challenged con- duct and likely to be redressed by the lawsuit. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561. Here, as the Government concedes, the Secretary’s plan would cost MOHELA, a nonprofit government cor- poration created by Missouri to participate in the student loan market, an estimated $44 million a year in fees.
MOHELA is, by law and func- tion, an instrumentality of Missouri: Labeled an “instrumentality” by the State, it was created by the State, is supervised by the State, and serves a public function. The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself. The Court reached a similar conclusion 70 years ago in Arkansas v. Texas, 346 U. S. 368.
The Secretary emphasizes that, as a public corporation, MOHELA has a legal personality separate from the State. But such an instru- mentality—created and supervised by the State to serve a public func- tion—remains “(for many purposes at least) part of the Government itself.” Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 513 U. S. 374, 397. The Secretary also contends that because MOHELA can sue on its own behalf, it—not Missouri—must be the one to sue. But where a State has been harmed in carrying out its responsibilities, the fact that it chose to exercise its authority through a public corporation it created and controls does not bar the State from suing to remedy that harm itself. See Arkansas, 346 U. S. 368. With Article III satisfied, the Court need not consider the States’ other standing arguments.
Can you read? I bolded the important part that explains the DIRECT harm.
And yes, i agree. Our education system IS failing us. You're exhibit A.
-
-
-
-
-
-
200 comments