"Ill Make it legal"

Darth Biden Says

MouthBQ98 said:

---

No, probably not, but Joe are they going to undo all the transactions in 2 years once a court case is finally ruled on that won't be appealed?

---

Can't it be injunction until then? That way it's a forever campaign issue for the dimwits

I imagine that's what will happen but they can do a lot of damage before the injunction can even be obtained.

Being legal or not legal doesn't matter anymore.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Any legal challenge to Biden's student loan plan will also face another difficulty. Namely, there will be the question of just who has the requisite legal standing the sue the government over this executive action in the first place. And that could be a difficult hurdle to clear. Remember that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that aggrieved taxpayers do not, as a general rule, have standing to sue the government over allegedly unconstitutional laws.

---

From your link. Standing is still a problem.

---

Since we all have to pay for someone else's loan without any benefits I would call that theft and every taxpayer has standing.

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Any legal challenge to Biden's student loan plan will also face another difficulty. Namely, there will be the question of just who has the requisite legal standing the sue the government over this executive action in the first place. And that could be a difficult hurdle to clear. Remember that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that aggrieved taxpayers do not, as a general rule, have standing to sue the government over allegedly unconstitutional laws.

---

From your link. Standing is still a problem.

---

Since we all have to pay for someone else's loan without any benefits I would call that theft and every taxpayer has standing.

---

Which part of the Supreme Court saying taxpayers don't have standing did you not understand.

NO - his act is unconstitutional. We need to wake up. We have a Marxist government. All Pillars of The Communist Manifesto are in full operation.

Wabs said:

---

Red Dane said:

---

Here's an article I just read that makes it sound feasible. He is using a 2003 act meant for veterans to do this. Hopefully a legitimate challenger can come forward to tie this up in court until The Fool falls out of office.

https://reason.com/2022/08/25/will-bidens-student-loan-debt-cancellation-plan-hold-up-in-court/

---

Wow. Comparing hardships brought on by combat to Covid. Just wow.

---

Bro, they compare 1/6 to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Comparing Covid to combat is much less of a stretch (particularly when you add in Floyd's summer of love).

aggiehawg said:

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Any legal challenge to Biden's student loan plan will also face another difficulty. Namely, there will be the question of just who has the requisite legal standing the sue the government over this executive action in the first place. And that could be a difficult hurdle to clear. Remember that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that aggrieved taxpayers do not, as a general rule, have standing to sue the government over allegedly unconstitutional laws.

---

From your link. Standing is still a problem.

---

Since we all have to pay for someone else's loan without any benefits I would call that theft and every taxpayer has standing.

---

Which part of the Supreme Court saying taxpayers don't have standing did you not understand.

---

Supreme Court also said abortion is a constitutionally protected right.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

He has no constitutional authority to do this. Even Nancy Pelosi admitted as much.

He should be impeached for violating the Constitution.

---

Absolutely. He did the same thing regarding the eviction moratorium and even admitted it was unconstitutional, but wanted to buy tenants time. Brandon, that's not your call. If you did something that you knew was unconstitutional when you did it, you have violated your oath and should be removed from office. Period.

Sarge 91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Any legal challenge to Biden's student loan plan will also face another difficulty. Namely, there will be the question of just who has the requisite legal standing the sue the government over this executive action in the first place. And that could be a difficult hurdle to clear. Remember that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that aggrieved taxpayers do not, as a general rule, have standing to sue the government over allegedly unconstitutional laws.

---

From your link. Standing is still a problem.

---

Since we all have to pay for someone else's loan without any benefits I would call that theft and every taxpayer has standing.

---

Which part of the Supreme Court saying taxpayers don't have standing did you not understand.

---

Supreme Court also said abortion is a constitutionally protected right.

---

Also has to be a particularized injury to the plaintiffs or a class of plaintiffs to have standing.

twk said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

We are going to find out.

There is a complaint being drafted as we speak that will be filed in the next week or two (more than likely). The right judge will issue an injunction on this....It will go to SCOTUS.

This is very far from over. When it comes to money, the Constitution has been pretty clear on who holds the purse strings (Congress).

---

The argument is that congress have the education Secretary wide latitude to forgive or cancel student loan debt with 1964 legislation

---

It's a poor argument. Allowing the government to negotiate debt (cancelling some in the process) in individual cases is not the same as a class wide wipeout of debt. It is very much at odds with the Supreme Court's holding West Virginia v. EPA.

The primary difficulty in challenging this will be finding a party with standing.

---

IANAL, but I don't think West Virginia v. EPA would be applicable in this sense. My reading is that SCOTUS' opinion was that Congress didn't give the EPA specific authority to instate requirements for renewables, only the power to limit site emissions. Even if they have the same goal, the means are distinctly different because the latter goes very specifically into how and what.

In this case, the feds have the ability to modify/forgive loans. They're not trying to create some new mechanism to achieve a stated goal, they're just rubber stamping the authority they already had.

If anything, it's closer to DACA, but even then it is not creating a new framework to process requests as a matter of policy, it is just a blanket policy/action. As an analogy, WV v EPA would be like forcing someone to use the Outlook app as opposed to Office 365 through a browser to delete emails. DACA would be like writing a script to delete individual emails through Office 365, and this would be like clicking Select All and then Delete.

aggiehawg said:

---

Sarge 91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Any legal challenge to Biden's student loan plan will also face another difficulty. Namely, there will be the question of just who has the requisite legal standing the sue the government over this executive action in the first place. And that could be a difficult hurdle to clear. Remember that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that aggrieved taxpayers do not, as a general rule, have standing to sue the government over allegedly unconstitutional laws.

---

From your link. Standing is still a problem.

---

Since we all have to pay for someone else's loan without any benefits I would call that theft and every taxpayer has standing.

---

Which part of the Supreme Court saying taxpayers don't have standing did you not understand.

---

Supreme Court also said abortion is a constitutionally protected right.

---

Also has to be a particularized injury to the plaintiffs or a class of plaintiffs to have standing.

---

As Justice Harland once said, standing is "a word game played by secret rules."

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

A plaintiff suing anybody in federal court must meet these constitutional standing requirements, including a plaintiff suing a federal agency under the APA: (1) they must have suffered (or will suffer) an injury in fact; (2) the injury must be causally linked to the defendant's (here, the agency's) conduct; and (3) the injury must be capable of redress by the courts. If you meet these requirements, you are said to have "Article III standing," a reference to the constitutional requirements. But the APA also has an additional requirement that has been imposed by the courts: (4) the interest the plaintiff seeks to protect must arguably be within the "zone of interests" intended by Congress to be protected in granting the agency the authority under which it acted.

---

Link

Where is the injury in fact to Congress or members thereof?

---

Usurpation of Congress's exclusive authority under the Constitution.

My guess is that, if some Republican Congressional critters were to file suit, the issue might not be standing but rather whether they have authority to bring suit by themselves.

ETA: my guess is that there is a remedy and plenty of precedent, I just don't know what it is off the top of my head. The reason for my guess is that Biden's action is not that uncommon, albeit on a smaller scale. Executive agencies frequently try to spend money that Congress has not appropriated and they get quickly slapped down. I'm just not familiar with the precise procedure.

Perhaps part of the problem is that the Justice Department is entrusted with enforcing these types of things, but in the last few Democratic administrations it has simply been an adjunct to the Oval Office.

There are still borrowers out there that have student loans that aren't owned by the Dept of Education. Do you think they would have standing if they still have a balance and have to repay?

TRM said:

---

There are still borrowers out there that have student loans that aren't owned by the Dept of Education. Do you think they would have standing if they still have a balance and have to repay?

---

There are? I didn't know that. Maybe.

Even if it gets thrown out in court, that will be way after the midterms, so it served its purpose.

"Ban student loans at this point until the system is fixed. Loan amounts and interest based on the calculus determining that student's ability to pay it back, whether it be backed by collateral, their gpa and/or their degree."


THIS!!!

yall hilarious if you think the SC will rule against see obamacare

Sarge 91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Any legal challenge to Biden's student loan plan will also face another difficulty. Namely, there will be the question of just who has the requisite legal standing the sue the government over this executive action in the first place. And that could be a difficult hurdle to clear. Remember that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that aggrieved taxpayers do not, as a general rule, have standing to sue the government over allegedly unconstitutional laws.

---

From your link. Standing is still a problem.

---

Since we all have to pay for someone else's loan without any benefits I would call that theft and every taxpayer has standing.

---

Which part of the Supreme Court saying taxpayers don't have standing did you not understand.

---

Supreme Court also said abortion is a constitutionally protected right.

---

A right is one thing, forcing taxpayers to fund something is another.

No

But they benefit from any challenge to it by getting to claim that evil obstructionist republicans are keeping them from wiping away your debt

Muy said:

---

Sarge 91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Any legal challenge to Biden's student loan plan will also face another difficulty. Namely, there will be the question of just who has the requisite legal standing the sue the government over this executive action in the first place. And that could be a difficult hurdle to clear. Remember that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that aggrieved taxpayers do not, as a general rule, have standing to sue the government over allegedly unconstitutional laws.

---

From your link. Standing is still a problem.

---

Since we all have to pay for someone else's loan without any benefits I would call that theft and every taxpayer has standing.

---

Which part of the Supreme Court saying taxpayers don't have standing did you not understand.

---

Supreme Court also said abortion is a constitutionally protected right.

---

A right is one thing, forcing taxpayers to fund something is another.

---

My point is that SCOTUS has the ability to correct erroneous decisions, including those which have narrowed the scope of Article III standing.

aggiehawg said:

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Any legal challenge to Biden's student loan plan will also face another difficulty. Namely, there will be the question of just who has the requisite legal standing the sue the government over this executive action in the first place. And that could be a difficult hurdle to clear. Remember that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that aggrieved taxpayers do not, as a general rule, have standing to sue the government over allegedly unconstitutional laws.

---

From your link. Standing is still a problem.

---

Since we all have to pay for someone else's loan without any benefits I would call that theft and every taxpayer has standing.

---

Which part of the Supreme Court saying taxpayers don't have standing did you not understand.

---

The Supreme Court has never been wrong, or overturned itself

Maroon Dawn said:

---

No

But they benefit from any challenge to it by getting to claim that evil obstructionist republicans are keeping them from wiping away your debt

---

True but I don't think that works as well for the dims as they hope

But we have descended into Marxist idiocy at this point

Didn't Pelosi say "we can do it, but the President does not have the authority to it"?

jefe95 said:

---

I hear that the recently passed legislation included language that made student loan debt forgiveness not subject to federal income tax. Not sure how they did that in that bill. But the dems have the hood so they make the rules.

That of course paved the way for Joe to wave his wand.

---

That passed in the American Rescue Plan of 2021. Tax free if written off before 2025.

Blumenthal v Trump might give individual legislators standing because the president* did not give congress the opportunity to vote on an act that rightfully should be theirs.

aggiejayrod said:

---

Blumenthal v Trump might give individual legislators standing because the president* did not give congress the opportunity to vote on an act that rightfully should be theirs.

---

The ruling in that case was that they lacked standing. Confused.

Equal Protection claim by a plaintiff who had recently paid off college? I know there is some provisions for reimbursement, but it's time limited.

aggiehawg said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Blumenthal v Trump might give individual legislators standing because the president* did not give congress the opportunity to vote on an act that rightfully should be theirs.

---

The ruling in that case was that they lacked standing. Confused.

---

That's what I get for reading quick and missing the appeal.

Every other case I'm reading seems like a group of legislators really has to thread the needle to get standing and basically show it's not something that can be redressed by legislation.

Knowing roberts he'd prolly punt with the political question doctrine. Or call it a tax on non-students

aggiejayrod said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Blumenthal v Trump might give individual legislators standing because the president* did not give congress the opportunity to vote on an act that rightfully should be theirs.

---

The ruling in that case was that they lacked standing. Confused.

---

That's what I get for reading quick and missing the appeal.

Every other case I'm reading seems like a group of legislators really has to thread the needle to get standing and basically show it's not something that can be redressed by legislation.

Knowing roberts he'd prolly punt with the political question doctrine. Or call it a tax on non-students

---

Problem for legislature members is the particularized injury. Not strictly proximate cause standard but the causal connection does have to be concrete and not ephemeral.

I'm still trying to find damage to support standing.

Since America ended its laws no longer apply.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Any legal challenge to Biden's student loan plan will also face another difficulty. Namely, there will be the question of just who has the requisite legal standing the sue the government over this executive action in the first place. And that could be a difficult hurdle to clear. Remember that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that aggrieved taxpayers do not, as a general rule, have standing to sue the government over allegedly unconstitutional laws.

---

From your link. Standing is still a problem.

---

Standing can't be dispositive here OR the executive branch could spend whatever the f they want on anything and for any amount. Roberts and the leftist might (conveniently) buy it- the right won't.

Aston04 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Any legal challenge to Biden's student loan plan will also face another difficulty. Namely, there will be the question of just who has the requisite legal standing the sue the government over this executive action in the first place. And that could be a difficult hurdle to clear. Remember that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that aggrieved taxpayers do not, as a general rule, have standing to sue the government over allegedly unconstitutional laws.

---

From your link. Standing is still a problem.

---

Standing can't be dispositive here OR the executive branch could spend whatever the f they want on anything and for any amount. Roberts and the leftist might (conveniently) buy it- the right won't.

---

Alright, genius. Tell me who can challenge this?

Not necessary to have an attitude about it.

Congress controls power of the purse. While that power has eroded over the years- this massively usurps this power- even Nancy Pelosi acknowledged this not long ago. I will let high powered lawyers in DC figure out which party will be most palatable for the SC to accept for standing. But again, the sure audacity of this power grab by the executive branch is not going to stand simply because those most directly involved are getting OUR $ thrown at them.