Biden's student loan handout struck down by federal judge in Texas

republicans should pay a special tax fund for the tax cuts for the rich and the two 20+ year wars

 

Why don't you go somewhere and make a thread about that topic because that's not the subject here.

 

Completely incorrect, the middle class has done wel under republicans.

 

Based on what? Seems like they're finding in favor of the Constitution which isn't right or left do you think rights are right wing?

 

It should be illegal to buy votes!

 

Did Biden ask the federal judge to hold off on this decision until after the election? We all know he asked Saudi Arabia to hold off on cutting oil production for political reasons. Fortunately for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party their progressive wing still hasn't learned they can't trust their own party.

 

You don’t need to be an expert to understand English and know that the limitations put on each branch are spelled out in the constitution in…. you guessed it, English.

Nowhere does it grant the power of the purse to anyone other than the house. Period! If you can’t read it and see that maybe you are the one who needs more explanation for your position.

 

I think it’s time these kids learn that our government doesn’t work that way. These morons actually believed the executive could do this. That’s the sad part. Maybe they do need more schooling

 

Well, first off, this is a T**** appointed judge, so every decision like this needs extra special scrutiny, much like the apparatchik judge Cannon...

The administration will appeal.

Personally, I'm NOT a huge fan of waiving student loans in general, but I don't see that the President doesn't have the authority to do it, especially during a time of national financial difficulty. I was OK with it once there was an income threshold for determining who is eligible, but I'm not picking this hill to die on either...

 

Based on a very slanted Right-wing, conservative religious, view of the Constitution. Five of the justices are making decisions based on their 2000+ year old, religious beliefs and not on what was modern, settled law.
They made a decision where women reproductive organs are subject to the control of men with no medical training, or even knowledge.
Roe vs Wade worked well for 50 years. Now women are incubators, when the fetus is more important that the women, even when the "woman" is a child way too young to give her consent, for being raped by her father.
Religious beliefs should have no part of Supreme Court decisions. None, as per the 1st amendment. They are now using their religion to impose their beliefs on the nation. The opposite of what the Constitution says. in the 1st Amendment.

 

I believe Trump done good on judges. He tried to appoint judges that are in my opinion constitutionalists in nature. We needed that. We don’t need judges that interpret the constitution based on their beliefs but rather the original intent of the constitution and the original intent of said amendments

 

They rule based on the original intent of the constitution yeah…. That can’t be functional. Would you rather have a SC that rules based on emotion?

Since when did impartial become a Supreme Court standard. The constitution says they should rule based on the constitution not being impartial or sympathetic to politics.

 

Don't be ridicules. Their decisions need to be based on the law. They are lawyers, deciding the law after all.
Women should have equal Rights as men. That includes proper health care, even when pregnant. Rescinding Roe vs Wade denies pregnant women proper health care. Women have died already because of this. That is plain and simple.

 

Even my son (both democrat and still paying on his student loans) thought this was a bad call. His position was that if Biden really wanted to help he should have eliminated the interest on outstanding loans.

 

If you interpret the constitution based on the "original intent" of the Constitution, be prepared to turn in much of the armament owned in America today, because the only weaponry available at that time were muskets and flintlock pistols..

I'm pro musket, BTW...

He and Mitch appointed judges who were, as a group, considered unqualified, inexperienced, and overall too partisan... with no better example than Loose Cannon in Florida, but I can find others as well...

 

Here in lies my issue. The judge makes a rule based on emotion. Where is the White House? This should already be moving to appeals court. It appears the government has slow walked this to the point. I don’t think it’s a Biden action, nor is he really concerned. It’s been weeks since the first appeals court judge put a stay and we still have not seen any action.

The Secretary already has authority under the law to compromise and settle amounts owed. For example, 31 CFR 902.1 and 902.2 spell it out nicely.

 

The WH has directed the DOJ to appeal... Not sure why it's best to come from them vs the WH directly, but I'm not sure it matters..

I understand the WH is continuing with their relief applications and going through the approval process (income thresholds), so there is time to let this play out in the courts while that occurs, since I don't believe the relief was ready to go anyway.

Also, we all have to realize that Joe is NOT 100% behind this effort.... he never was.... he put it in motion, but it was never his burning desire to get this done, and I can understand where he's coming from...

 

Go Google heller v dc.
Hit ctrl f.
Type "some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous..." and read the paragraph telling you you are absolutely, 100%, laughably incorrect.

 

The DoJ is the way the Whitehouse would take action. That's how it works. That's the mechanism. Presidents aren't parties, that's what a solicitor general does.

 

Please find me something within the Bill of Rights where it denies women their rights??? Next, and to be clear, are you citing that the killing of human life is " health care" ? Please clarify that for us

 

It's not the Bill of Rights. It is the Supreme Court doing it.
Are not women human life? Shouldn't they have a say about their own bodies?
Apparently the pro-birth crowd doesn't think so.

 

Yes they were, however the early interpretation of the second was clearly discussed by what many call a co-founder that goes by the name of Tench Coxe. In his early writing in the Pennsylvania Gazette he said the American people have the same sword and shield as the military. That was in fact the original intent. Many of his writings is also what lead to the SCOTUS decision that we are constitutionally allowed private arms. So his writings are historically significant. So I would argue the other way around.

 

Last time I checked the 10th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. You should learn what it means.

 

Not if the Reps can take the House. Biden was handing out $10,000 a vote and it worked on the back of blue collar voters.

 

It never existed it is unconstitutional and nothing more than Biden buying votes with taxpayer money. You haven't figured that out yet?