Student loans

I don't think people are grasping how much of a departure from normal rules of statutory interpretation this SCOTUS decision was. The court basically said the plain language of the statue doesn't matter, what matters is what the court feels Congress meant.

The language of the grant of power Congress gave was broad. When Congress uses broad language, then the courts are supposed to assume the grant of power was broad. It's not up to the courts to add limitations to a statute when Congress didn't include them. This is known to the lawyers that draft statutes.

The SCOTUS basically just said that the courts shouldn't assume a statute means what it says but should substitute their best judgement. Statutes are written on the basis that their plain language controls. Letting courts second guess plain language is insane!

Put the facts of the case to the side. This SCOTUS just blazed a judicial activist trail that future, less conservative courts can follow.
 
Great! Usually it’s the left that breaks norms first while the republicans cry foul.
 
striker42 said:
That's just it, it's not unilateral. Congress made a poorly thought out law granting the Secretary of Education broad powers during a national emergency. If Congress wanted narrower use of the power they should have said that in the statute.

This is the risk legislators run when they hand broad powers to the president.
Click to expand...

What’s the emergency here?
 
thethe said:
What’s the emergency here?
Click to expand...

Legally speaking? The COVID emergency. It was legally declared by Trump and continued until April of this year.

People keep making the mistake of thinking what they consider a national emergency to be the same as what legally qualifies as a national emergency.

If you don't like what Biden did you should be wanting Congress to amend the law. Lord knows it wasn't the only poorly thought out post 9/11 law.
 
Here's the thing about national emergencies. The Civil War v 2.0 could occur but if a national emergency isn't declared through the appropriate process then it's not legally a national emergency.

Conversely, if low ticket payouts at Chuck E Cheese is declared a national emergency through the appropriate process then guess what? Low ticket payouts at Chuck E Cheese is legally a national emergency.
 
striker42 said:
Legally speaking? The COVID emergency. It was legally declared by Trump and continued until April of this year.

People keep making the mistake of thinking what they consider a national emergency to be the same as what legally qualifies as a national emergency.

If you don't like what Biden did you should be wanting Congress to amend the law. Lord knows it wasn't the only poorly thought out post 9/11 law.
Click to expand...

But didn’t they already delay payments as is? You don’t have to make an argument as to why the declared emergency impacts the subject at discussion?
 
thethe said:
But didn’t they already delay payments as is? You don’t have to make an argument as to why the declared emergency impacts the subject at discussion?
Click to expand...

The question in the case wasn't whether the administration's actions were related to the emergency. The question was whether they had the power to do it at all. Generally if an agency has discretion under a statue, courts won't second guess it so long as the agency can provide some rational basis.

Here the administration could say the economic impact of the emergency would leave borrowers in a worse position if they are not given additional relief. It doesn't have to be a great reason but it's a rational basis.
 
striker42 said:
The question in the case wasn't whether the administration's actions were related to the emergency. The question was whether they had the power to do it at all. Generally if an agency has discretion under a statue, courts won't second guess it so long as the agency can provide some rational basis.

Here the administration could say the economic impact of the emergency would leave borrowers in a worse position if they are not given additional relief. It doesn't have to be a great reason but it's a rational basis.
Click to expand...

But isn’t a “rational” basis subjective? Can’t it be argued just as well that it’s an “irrational” basis?
 
thethe said:
But isn’t a “rational” basis subjective? Can’t it be argued just as well that it’s an “irrational” basis?
Click to expand...

Legal meaning vs layman meaning. Rational basis is the absolute lowest standard. So long as something isn't completely arbitrary, it generally meets the rational basis standard.
 
acesfull86 said:
I wouldn’t doubt it. Sounds like a great excuse to hire more administrators.
Click to expand...

My wife worked as a graduate researcher in the UC system (which the UC system is fantastic fwiw). She was not allowed to work at all. If she got hired by a private research company she had to report it and she couldn’t earn more than the stipend. In fact there was one semester where she wasn’t allowed to work because she had reached her earnings cap.

She was told she could apply for subsidized housing or apply for student loan if that wasn’t enough to make ends meet.

Fantastic system I tell ya.
 
chop2chip said:
My wife worked as a graduate researcher in the UC system (which the UC system is fantastic fwiw). She was not allowed to work at all. If she got hired by a private research company she had to report it and she couldn’t earn more than the stipend. In fact there was one semester where she wasn’t allowed to work because she had reached her earnings cap.

She was told she could apply for subsidized housing or apply for student loan if that wasn’t enough to make ends meet.

Fantastic system I tell ya.
Click to expand...

I should clarify… she did plenty of work with the university (a lot actually - research universities basically are operated by grad students and not professors).

She was just not allowed to do outside work.
 
https://reason.com/2024/02/16/biden-announces-new-plan-to-forgive-student-debt-in-cases-of-financial-hardship/

On Thursday, the Biden administration announced a new plan to enact large-scale student loan forgiveness, this time by targeting borrowers experiencing financial “hardship.”

...

"The ideas we are outlining today will allow us to help struggling borrowers who are experiencing hardships in their lives, and they are part of President Biden's overall plan to give breathing room to as many student loan borrowers as possible," Under Secretary James Kvaal said in the press release. "It's an important part of the Biden-Harris Administration's permanent solutions to the problem of unaffordable loans."

Ironically, the Biden administration’s “permanent solutions” to the student loan crisis will likely only end up making the problem worse. While supporters of the proposal say it would provide necessary relief for borrowers unlikely to pay their loans back, providing blanket forgiveness to those struggling to pay their loans back would likely end up incentivizing universities to hike prices and encouraging students to enroll in expensive programs.

If students know that they can have their loans forgiven as long they prove financial hardship, it will directly incentivize prospective borrowers to take on huge balances for dubiously valuable degrees. In turn, colleges can assure students that taking on tens—or even hundreds—of thousands of dollars in loans is a wise choice. After all, the government has promised to step in should repayment become burdensome.

---------

I've yet to see (D) propose one solution to this problem that doesn't involve putting the burden on the taxpayer and/or creating perverse incentives which will make the problem worse
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top