Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Supreme Court rejects Biden’s plan to wipe away $400B in student loans

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: The Supreme Court rejects Biden’s plan to wipe away $400B in student loans

#31

Post by aluminum96 »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #18

This one was just clearly unconstitutional right? Not sure if I’m missing something. Not that the government can’t or shouldn’t do something along these lines, but it needs to be Congress right? Commentary about this seemed to split along party lines so not sure if there is some legitimate interpretation where this might be constitutional…

The court didn't find the HEROES Act unconstitutional; instead, they found that the executive action was not within the language of the HEROES Act.

It's pretty bad, in my opinion, that the court even reached the merits, because the plaintiffs obviously do not have standing. None of the states were able to show direct financial injury. Instead, they tried to use Missouri's financial interest in MOHELA as the basis for standing. But then why didn't MOHELA itself join the lawsuit?

SCOTUS reached the merits because they wanted to strike the program down, and this is becoming a theme with the current court. A court that doesn't concern itself with technical correctness is no court at all, but rather a legislature.

Re: The Supreme Court rejects Biden’s plan to wipe away $400B in student loans

#32

Post by aluminum96 »

The plaintiffs should not have had standing. None of the litigant states actually had a direct financial injury; instead, they relied on Missouri's financial interest in MOHELA as the basis for standing. But as Amy Coney Barrett inquired in oral arguments, why didn't MOHELA itself join the lawsuit, if it was really injured?

SCOTUS reached the merits because they wanted to make a policy decision. The current court is making radical changes to established law, such as last term's decision to throw out much of the VRA simply because the justices felt it was too old and no longer needed. (It was re-authorized in 2006.) Allowing judges to throw out the decisions of the legislature or executive on major policy questions, with a flimsy and partisan legal basis, is not a sustainable way to run a democracy.

Re: The Supreme Court rejects Biden’s plan to wipe away $400B in student loans

#33

Post by Alupis »

enterprise_cog wrote: post #29
Alupis wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so unless you think that medical professionals are useless or that medicine should only be practiced by the rich, you should reconsider your views. Doctors and medical professionals are among the highest paid in this country[1]. Paying off their student loans makes the least sense. > The fact that you have to take enormous debts to be allowed to study (which is your only hope for social mobility) This is so absurdl…

Cite your sources about all those six figure blue collar jobs.

One google search turned up a bunch[1]. The thing they all have in common? Hard work, and skill. If you're skill-less, you aren't going to earn well, ie. if someone else can be trained to do your job in a day, you are not going to earn well.

It's a myth you need a piece of paper to earn well and live well. It needs to die.

We puppy-mill thousands of useless graduates each year and then are shocked they earn so little doing basic office work. In some cases, it's a complete inversion of what people expect - more degree less pay.

[1] https://theinterviewguys.com/highest-paying-blue-collar-jobs...

Re: The Supreme Court rejects Biden’s plan to wipe away $400B in student loans

#34

Post by adamredwoods »

barbazoo wrote: post #13
avgDev wrote: post #4

I'm glad. Students got a break. 2 years+ of 0 payments and 0 interest. I took advantage of it and finished paying off my loans. Some individuals I know were purchasing fun cars because the loans were getting "cancelled". You take on DEBT, you should have an expectation of paying it.

I wonder if people in favor of cancelling the debt are also the folks advocating for tuition free education in which case, sure, you take on debt, you should have to pay it back but really education shouldn't incur debt at all according to them. Anyway, charging interest on tuition debt seems so backwards to me. We should reward people getting educated, not punish them.

>> We should reward people getting educated, not punish them.

Yes! The idea is that education is the foundation for making a country better prepared in the future. If the US truly wants to invest in its future, education should be the foundation of all plans.

https://www.unesco.org/en/higher-education/need-know

https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/investingineducationpaysrichdi...

>> The report warns however that private sector development does not solve the problem of access in the survey countries, which often have high levels of inequality and poverty, and where the poor may not be able to pay for education.

Re: The Supreme Court rejects Biden’s plan to wipe away $400B in student loans

#35

Post by Workaccount2 »

logankeenan wrote: post #17

I have mixed feelings about student loan relief. However, I find it super interesting hearing people talk about how terrible high inflation or high interest rates for loans/mortgages are today. All while student loan interest rates have been higher for decades.

Student loan interest rates have to be higher because credit isn't a factor in determining loan eligibility.

So it's basically the pooled risk rate where good debtors cover the additional risk of poor debtors.

Re: The Supreme Court rejects Biden’s plan to wipe away $400B in student loans

#36

Post by gnicholas »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #18

This one was just clearly unconstitutional right? Not sure if I’m missing something. Not that the government can’t or shouldn’t do something along these lines, but it needs to be Congress right? Commentary about this seemed to split along party lines so not sure if there is some legitimate interpretation where this might be constitutional…

The merits of the case were much more straightforward than the standing analysis. But if the plaintiffs didn't have standing, the merits wouldn't be reached. I was slightly surprised that they ruled on standing the way they did, but the underlying merits decision was completely unsurprising (because, as you say, this was a very clear overstepping — as top dems had admitted just months prior).

Re: The Supreme Court rejects Biden’s plan to wipe away $400B in student loans

#37

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

endisneigh wrote: post #2

Good. It was a dumb and regressive proposal anyway. And no, we shouldn’t be bailing out rich folks either.

> And no, we shouldn’t be bailing out rich folks either.

Okay, but don't you think it's at least a little fucked up that we already bailed out the rich people, but we stopped there?

Re: The Supreme Court rejects Biden’s plan to wipe away $400B in student loans

#38

Post by zeroonetwothree »

aluminum96 wrote: post #32

The plaintiffs should not have had standing. None of the litigant states actually had a direct financial injury; instead, they relied on Missouri's financial interest in MOHELA as the basis for standing. But as Amy Coney Barrett inquired in oral arguments, why didn't MOHELA itself join the lawsuit, if it was really injured? SCOTUS reached the merits because they wanted to make a policy decision. The current court is…

MOHELA is owned and funded by the state of Missouri, any injury to it is an injury to the state.

BTW I think current "standing" rules are a travesty and courts should stop dismissing cases on those grounds. It's just a way to weasel out of making certain decisions they don't want to. For example it's pretty clear that someone is harmed by the President giving out $400 million, there's no such thing as free money.

Re: The Supreme Court rejects Biden’s plan to wipe away $400B in student loans

#39

Post by zeroonetwothree »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #37
endisneigh wrote: post #2

Good. It was a dumb and regressive proposal anyway. And no, we shouldn’t be bailing out rich folks either.

> And no, we shouldn’t be bailing out rich folks either. Okay, but don't you think it's at least a little fucked up that we already bailed out the rich people , but we stopped there?

So we should keep doing dumb stuff?

Re: The Supreme Court rejects Biden’s plan to wipe away $400B in student loans

#40

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #39
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And no, we shouldn’t be bailing out rich folks either. Okay, but don't you think it's at least a little fucked up that we already bailed out the rich people , but we stopped there?

So we should keep doing dumb stuff?

I do recognize that I'm essentially committing the sunken cost fallacy.

But certainly you can understand the optics of it, right? We've spent billions bailing out rich people 3 times in the last 15 years, and suddenly there's a massive pushback against helping out the lower classes?

I'd like you to at least acknowledge the optics.

Post reply on HN