The proposed debt cancellation of more than $400 billion would have been one of the most expensive executive actions in U.S. history and affects tens of millions of borrowers.
  • assembly@lemmy.world
    211·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • adude007@lemmy.ml
      151·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • andyquest@vlemmy.net
        1·
        1 year ago

        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

        • Tak@lemmy.ml
          3·
          1 year ago

          If the inflation translates to wages but I’ve yet to see that happen.

  • Broncos_Fan@lemmy.one
    91·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • CrazyDuck@lemmy.world
    92·
    1 year ago

    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?

  • Sticky@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    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. 😫

    • milo_bytes@pawb.social
      121·
      1 year ago

      yeah, I bet the millions of Americans who voted Democrat and then had their votes functionally overturned by the archaic electoral college are just thrilled that student loan forgiveness was blocked

      get a grip dude

    • jmanes@lemmy.world
      6·
      1 year ago

      Lashing out against all Americans is misguided. I didn’t vote for Trump. You gonna yell at me too? Maybe show some empathy for those of us affected rather than talking trash to a group of people who are now disadvantaged by these recent SC decisions. Especially the one about discrimination.

        • jmanes@lemmy.world
          2·
          1 year ago

          I absolutely defended her and rallied folks to vote in that election. I live in Missouri, though, which means we are constantly outnumbered. I tried, though.

          Advice for you: drop the internet virtue signaling and assumptive behavior.