Scotus 2023

[rowsdower88]

Question for those against affirmative action:

How do you feel about medical schools that give preferential admissions to specific undergraduate institutions without regard to race?

As far as I can tell, such a practice will continue to be perfectly acceptable even after the recent SCOTUS decision. It is already an established practice at some schools.

For example, Michigan State University - College of Human Medicine has a program called the Early Assurance Program which will admit junior undergrads with >3.0 gpa and MCAT >500 from select schools provided they can attest to any of the following:
- first generation to attend college
- graduated from a low-income high school
- eligible for need-based grants
- express and support an interest in a high-need medical specialty area (literally every student could say this)

This program is available to students at Northern Michigan University and some others. NMU has a student body that is 85% white and 2% black.

Now, what if Michigan State or (Harvard Medical School for that matter) expanded such a program to be 30% of their student body, and only partnered with HBCUs like Howard and Morehouse, would you find such a program unacceptable? Do you already find such programs unacceptable? If so, why?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jwk]

“The Supreme Court is a cesspool of corruption devastating our communities. Because of the decisions made by an unethical and illegitimate majority, my constituents are unable to access abortion care, have weaker labor protections, are more vulnerable to voter suppression, and are subjected to a racist legal system,” said Representative Bush. “As lawmakers, we have a mandate to ensure our rights are not stripped away by bought-and-paid-for judges trying to implement a fascist agenda. I’m proud to lead on the reintroduction of the Judiciary Act, which would expand the Court and help us reclaim our democracy once and for all.”

If you're quoting Cori Bush, you've lost the argument already.

 

[rowsdower88]

Precedent people probably had similar problems with Brown v BOE. They’d probably dance around the meat of the case and make pedantic arguments about how “this sets an incoherent legal precedent, we’re doomed going forward,” when the reality of it was they just didn’t like what the decision itself meant for civil rights for minorities.

I literally just wrote a post on this thread about what criteria I believe are acceptable for the court to reverse precedent. I think Brown meets all of those criteria and it was the correct decision to overrule that precedent.

 

[jwk]

RBG should have retired during Obama but her ego ... got us in this mess.

Bingo.

 

[jwk]

Question for those against affirmative action:

How do you feel about medical schools that give preferential admissions to specific undergraduate institutions without regard to race?

As far as I can tell, such a practice will continue to be perfectly acceptable even after the recent SCOTUS decision. It is already an established practice at some schools.

For example, Michigan State University - College of Human Medicine has a program called the Early Assurance Program which will admit junior undergrads with >3.0 gpa and MCAT >500 from select schools provided they can attest to any of the following:
- first generation to attend college
- graduated from a low-income high school
- eligible for need-based grants
- express and support an interest in a high-need medical specialty area (literally every student could say this)

This program is available to students at Northern Michigan University and some others. NMU has a student body that is 85% white and 2% black.

Now, what if Michigan State or (Harvard Medical School for that matter) expanded such a program to be 30% of their student body, and only partnered with HBCUs like Howard and Morehouse, would you find such a program unacceptable? Do you already find such programs unacceptable? If so, why?

What others? Kinda important.

 

[rowsdower88]

No offense, but I really doubt your bonafides as a constitutional case law expert. I imagine there were plenty of eminent legal scholars arguing against every decision that's ever been made in the name of justice, basing their arguments on whatever part of it they didn't see as meeting the technical criteria for a decision. After all, their jobs as defendant lawyers in cases where there's pretty obviously injustice, is to argue based on finer points, and not the true merits, otherwise these cases would be over and done with in a couple days and not make it to the supreme court.

Focus on the actual result, not the technicalities. Leave the law jargon to the lawyers. The actual result in the student loan decision is fair, and brings justice forward. Argue that point if you want, but anything else is just a waste of time and irrelevant to the people affected.

You know what, that's probably the correct expectation to have for a physician forum. On the other hand, no one is forcing you to grapple with the legal arguments I'm making. Instead of just accusing me of being obtuse you could point out perceived inconsistencies in my reasoning or just ignore me altogether. Maybe there are some on the forum who ARE interested in the legal arguments though. -shrug-

I don't have any bona fides. Just a person willing to have his ideas challenged.

I don't put much stock in your "Ends justify the means" interpretation of legal jurisprudence.

 

[rowsdower88]

What others? Kinda important.

Is it? Does the principle of allowing early acceptance programs depend on which schools are specifically available?

I think Lawrence Technological University, University of Detroit Mercy, and University of Michigan - Dearborn are other schools.

If your argument is that those other schools will "balance out" the racial demographics somehow, that would probably be by accident. The decision of which schools are Early Assurance is based on proximity to satellite campuses of the med school currently.

 

[pgg]

Question for those against affirmative action:

How do you feel about medical schools that give preferential admissions to specific undergraduate institutions without regard to race?

Seems OK to me.

Now, what if Michigan State or (Harvard Medical School for that matter) expanded such a program to be 30% of their student body, and only partnered with HBCUs like Howard and Morehouse, would you find such a program unacceptable? Do you already find such programs unacceptable? If so, why?

Also seems OK to me, provided the chosen undergraduate institution isn't currently violating any laws in their admissions practices, and doesn't start once the inevitable flood of Asian and white premeds begin applying, looking for the inside track to a Harvard Med acceptance.

 

[pgg]

These are aggrieved parties. They are not injured parties.

You have not been injured by the student loan forgiveness plan. You have a political grievance. You, and everyone else you listed, would not have been made one cent poorer by the student loan forgiveness plan.

This is a fair point, and I admit I hadn't thought of it in that way. I was most definitely aggrieved by the proposal. Not at risk of injury, except in an abstract or distant taxpayer sense.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Without SCOTUS, Biden would legislate with executive authority using his Pen and phone. Nancy Pelosi said Biden did NOT have the legal authority to forgive student loan debt. Biden tried to usurp the authority of the legislative branch and SCOTUS slapped him down. Now, Biden will try again to forgive student loan debt so expect more lawsuits with Courts once again intervening in this unconstitutional executive over-reach.

Quoting Pelosi during a 2021 press conference, the Court's majority opinion wrote, "People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress."

 

[nimbus]

Does anybody understand Roberts’ carve out for the military academies?


What are the ”potentially distinct interests that the military academies may present”? Why is racial diversity more important for the military academies than for other universities and the rest of society?

 

[nimbus]

Might be that restricting affirmative action in military academy admissions could tilt the balance of the officer corps to being much more white or asian. That creates a very regressive image of the military when officers are white and minorities are only found in enlisted ranks. I'd assume that would hurt recruitment numbers materially for the military, which is already a problem for them. Could be a harm done to the military by restricting affirmative action therefore the carveout.

Doesn’t the same problem exist in corporate America, academia, hospitals, and most other institutions in society? What makes the military distinct?

 

[rowsdower88]

Might be that restricting affirmative action in military academy admissions could tilt the balance of the officer corps to being much more white or asian. That creates a very regressive image of the military when officers are white and minorities are only found in enlisted ranks. I'd assume that would hurt recruitment numbers materially for the military, which is already a problem for them. Could be a harm done to the military by restricting affirmative action therefore the carveout.

That's almost exactly the argument Prelogar made. Lack of affirmative action is a threat to national security 2/2 decreased enrollment.

“Our armed forces know from hard experience that when we do not have a diverse officer corps that is broadly reflective of the diverse fighting force, our strength and cohesion and military readiness suffer,” Prelogar said.

Military a key focus of Supreme Court argument on affirmative action

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that a diverse officer corps is necessary for national security.

www.militarytimes.com

 

[nimbus]

In my opinion, not really, as none of those things are vital to national or world defense. Stakes are a bit higher in the military than in those situations, and there's no problem with recruitment and the idea of rigid command hierarchies in any of them either.

I’d say there are high stakes in all of those cases but agree with you about recruitment. So the issue is recruitment. Roberts is saying we need to recruit enough enlisted cannon fodder and that cannot be achieved without recruiting at least some racial minorities. And we need to show those potential enlistees that the military is a diverse organization by having a few minority officers for show. I’m beginning to understand.

 

[Kryptocoin]

Supreme Court is fully on a political corrective course. They scan the pending case logs, pick on cases with their ideological bent, and then hear the case.

Dobbs case was a prime example. There were no disagreements in the lower courts. Yet they picked up the case and reversed Roe vs Wade.

Student loan case. No standing by the states, yet heard the case anyway and reversed it.

Affirmative action. A third-party group sued Harvard. Why didn't the actual students "harmed" by Harvard's policy sue? Again SCOTUS didn't care. They heard the case and reversed it.

In the future, when liberals gain control of the court ( the law of averages), and they start scanning the dockets for ideological cases, I hope conservatives don't feign outrage.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Supreme Court is fully on a political corrective course. They scan the pending case logs, pick on cases with their ideological bent, and then hear the case.

Dobbs case was a prime example. There were no disagreements in the lower courts. Yet they picked up the case and reversed Roe vs Wade.

Student loan case. No standing by the states, yet heard the case anyway and reversed it.

Affirmative action. A third-party group sued Harvard. Why didn't the actual students "harmed" by Harvard's policy sue? Again SCOTUS didn't care. They heard the case and reversed it.

In the future, when liberals gain control of the court ( the law of averages), and they start scanning the dockets for ideological cases, I hope conservatives don't feign outrage.

Your logic is flawed. The Student loan case was clearly an abuse of power by the executive branch. Nancy Pelosi pretty much said so herself on camera. We strive to be a better country, a more perfect union, that means race should play no formal role in admissions or hiring or promotion. I do think schools will still consider race but on a personal level.

Roe vs Wade was precedent so Scotus over-stepped here a bit but the ruling was still correct. Our Supreme Court was created as a check and balance to the other branches of govt., particularly the executive branch, so the founders would be pleased in limiting the powers of the President.

 

[Kryptocoin]

Your logic is flawed. The Student loan case was clearly an abuse of power by the executive branch. Nancy Pelosi pretty much said so herself on camera. We strive to be a better country, a more perfect union, that means race should play no formal role in admissions or hiring or promotion. I do think schools will still consider race but on a personal level.

AA is legal in hiring and promotions. Thomas and Amy Barrett are both AA hire.

Roe vs Wade was precedent so Scotus over-stepped here a bit but the ruling was still correct. Our Supreme Court was created as a check and balance to the other branches of govt., particularly the executive branch, so the founders would be pleased in limiting the powers of the President.

Roe v Wade was re-affirmed multiple times by both liberal and conservative justices. The only thing that changed this time was the addition of 3 Trump appointed justices. All of whom stated during their confirmations that they will not reverse a Roe v Wade precedent. But we all know how that went.

 

[vector2]

Yeah, but not as high stakes as people who carry/operate/fire guns and weapons at enemies of the state for a living. l think it's apparent that the military needs as many people as it can get right now based on their enlistment goals not being met recently, so whatever they gotta do to get those numbers up, it's probably in everyone's interest that they do it. Hence, the exception.

Imagine what potentially happens if we can't find enough people to run our aircraft carriers and performance suffers.

Just to be clear here, multiple posters have said that affirmative action in higher education is an "overtly racist" policy, particularly toward Asians and whites.

But if I'm reading you right, this "overt racism" is OK just as long as the stakes are [arbitrarily] high enough and recruitment to a valued institution is [arbitrarily] low enough.

Where do we draw the line, though? The FBI and CIA are pretty important to national security. Should AA be permitted there if recruitment is arbitrarily low enough? How bout the Department of Energy which regulates nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors? The IRS collects all the taxes which actually fund the DoD so we should definitely keep them fully staffed, right? (And never anyone mind that there are probably a hundred other ways to boost recruitment without relying on AA)

In my opinion, the exclusion of military academies destroys the entire argument of those who found in favor. Either say AA is overtly racist, it violates the 14th Amendment, and we're not going to make any exceptions to it, or keep quiet and allow public and private institutions to make their own decisions about the matter. But saying overt racism is OK only if it's in furtherance of needing more black and brown people to join the military just reeks of special pleading.

 

[GravelRider]

I can’t wait for the Supreme Court to hear the case regarding legacy admissions and large donor admissions to universities next….oh wait….

 

[vector2]

Legacy admissions: liberal endorsed viewpoint and controlled by liberal university powers

Uhhh, not quite, dude. Legacy admissions are endorsed by tons of colleges throughout the country, public and private, conservative and liberal.


However, the only people actually trying to end legacy admissions in any substantive fashion are also liberals.

Subsequent bills aimed at curtailing legacy admissions have been numerous. The most successful of these has been the state of Colorado’s ban on legacy admissions, which took effect in 2021. Nevertheless, other states, including New York, Connecticut and most recently Massachusetts, have similarly introduced bills calling for the end of legacy admissions. Most notably, congressional Democrats in February of 2022 unveiled a bill to defund universities of federal dollars that considered legacy preferences in admissions.​

​

Students are opposing legacy admissions while colleges wait (opinion)

While few colleges have moved in recent years, student groups have taken up the issue, writes Christoph Baker.

www.insidehighered.com

​

 

[FutureInternist]

Settng aside the issue of whether the PPP loans or their forgiveness were good ideas -

I know you're not oblivious to the simple fact that Congress specifically passed an act authorizing both the PPP loans and their forgiveness, in contrast to the student loan forgiveness plan. So your efforts to paint the two as the same is, as usual, more of your deliberate misrepresentation and misdirection.

The Republicans ability to completely ignore laws (like Trump stealing documents) and the turn around and “stick to the letter of the law” like when allowing Republicans to continue to have restrictive voting and taking rights away from certain voters…is proof of the partisanship of the SCOTUS

 

[FutureInternist]

So we should never ever make any changes to the law since it may impact certain people? Is that what you’re saying?

I can see children of former slave owners pissed off that they can’t have access to free workers.

Lets not give any novel chemo to any Republicans… 🤔

 

[GravelRider]

This is definitely one of the weirder things to come out of this decision. I honestly cannot fathom how these two things are related in the eyes of the law or why people bother pointing it out.

Literally, everybody I know who is not extremely rich is extremely against the idea of Legacy admissions. Not only that, but it is overwhelmingly liberals that run These Ivy League schools and control the levers of power. You would think people would be calling out liberals for the problem of legacy admissions, given that they run the place.

Like who do you think is responsible for all the DEI departments and reactionary liberal takes at all the Ivy League universities? It’s literally liberal university presidents who control admissions standards. They run the universities, and conservatives run the Supreme Court. They are completely separate in this conversation.

To simplify:

Legacy admissions: liberal endorsed viewpoint and controlled by liberal university powers

Anti Affirmative action: conservative viewpoint and controlled by conservative Supreme Court

I don’t know about liberals vs conservatives…nor do I care. It’s elites vs. everyone else. These Supreme Court cases are manufactured by well-funded political groups (aka the elites). The Supreme Court has become another tool for the elite class in our society to continue to consolidate wealth and power. The Elite ruling class doesn’t have an ideology other than one of power. Liberal vs conservative ideology is one of convenience depending on which at the moment allows them to continue to consolidate wealth.

You don’t think legacy university admissions are as inherently unfair as affirmative action? Who is going to fund and manufacture a court case to challenge legacy admissions?

 

[emergentmd]

Biden knew loan forgiveness was not legal but he painted himself in a corner while campaigning and the ultra liberal wing demanded some form of forgiveness. He had to do something so threw out a 10K bone that the left wing screamed was too low.

#1 - Biden has said in the past that this was a congress issue and not an executive one.
#2 - If loan forgiveness was is so great, then why stop at 10K. If it was in his powers to forgive, then why not just forgive it all?
#3 - Many legal scholars came out saying this was illegal but then Biden tried to use some Odd Hero's act to make it reasonable by a thin string.

 

[BLADEMDA]

AA is legal in hiring and promotions. Thomas and Amy Barrett are both AA hire.


Roe v Wade was re-affirmed multiple times by both liberal and conservative justices. The only thing that changed this time was the addition of 3 Trump appointed justices. All of whom stated during their confirmations that they will not reverse a Roe v Wade precedent. But we all know how that went.

Affirmative Action Ruling May Upend Hiring Policies, Too

The Supreme Court decision on college admissions could lead companies to alter recruitment and promotion practices to pre-empt legal challenges.

www.nytimes.com

But many experts argue that as a practical matter, the ruling will discourage corporations from putting in place ambitious diversity policies in hiring and promotion — or prompt them to rein in existing policies — by encouraging lawsuits under the existing legal standard.

 

[JiPo]

I am glad SCOTUS ruled against Biden on student loan. People borrowed money to attend schools, fully knowing they have to pay it back.

You borrowed it, you pay it back.

 

[JOHNBROCHILL]

I am glad SCOTUS ruled against Biden on student loan. People borrowed money to attend schools, fully knowing they have to pay it back.

You borrowed it, you pay it back.

These are 18 year old kids who are told by grownups "go to a good college to be successful." Despite having 0 assets, 0 earning potential, 0 credit history, they are allowed, no they are ENCOURAGED, to take out 6 figure loans for an uncertain future. Loans which are only dischargeable in death?? This is a system that is setting our children up for failure.

In this country we bail out failed automotive or banking industries. We throw free PPP money at all businesses, but when it comes to our children and this countries young adults we say go get fvcked. The whole system needs an over haul and I would like to see it done sooner than later.

 

[rowsdower88]

Biden knew loan forgiveness was not legal but he painted himself in a corner while campaigning and the ultra liberal wing demanded some form of forgiveness. He had to do something so threw out a 10K bone that the left wing screamed was too low.

#1 - Biden has said in the past that this was a congress issue and not an executive one.
#2 - If loan forgiveness was is so great, then why stop at 10K. If it was in his powers to forgive, then why not just forgive it all?
#3 - Many legal scholars came out saying this was illegal but then Biden tried to use some Odd Hero's act to make it reasonable by a thin string.

This is a bad take. Or at least very conspiratorial.

#1 - Biden made it an executive issue, this is undeniable. He campaigned on student loan forgiveness even. We can't know what's in the man's heart, but we can look at his actions.

#2 - Why stop at 10k? Because that's what he campaigned on. It's arguably one of the biggest things that helped get him elected in the primary. He is a moderate Democrat, he believes in personal responsibility but thinks some people got a raw deal. He isn't going to sign onto a more massive debt jubilee. (Or at least that's my impression of the man.)

#3 - Many other legal scholars agree with the plain reading of the HEROES Act. Three of them sit on the Supreme Court. A true Textualist interpretation of the HEROES Act suggests the education secretary does have the power to issue "modifications and waivers" to those debtors.

Now... did the Biden administration make missteps in its handling of this case? Maybe. I'm not certain there and we'll have to see if more information comes out. I don't think using different legal arguments would have helped them win the day. As I've described elsewhere, SCOTUS was going to rule against him regardless of the merits of the case.

 

[JiPo]

These are 18 year old kids who are told by grownups "go to a good college to be successful." Despite having 0 assets, 0 earning potential, 0 credit history, they are allowed, no they are ENCOURAGED, to take out 6 figure loans for an uncertain future. Loans which are only dischargeable in death?? This is a system that is setting our children up for failure.

In this country we bail out failed automotive or banking industries. We throw free PPP money at all businesses, but when it comes to our children and this countries young adults we say go get fvcked. The whole system needs an over haul and I would like to see it done sooner than later.

Is the system screwed up? Yes. The whole predatory educational system needs an overhaul. College should not cost $60k/year, and can be a terrible investment for most people.

Just because you made a terrible investment with a loan you can’t afford to pay back doesn’t mean you get a “get out of jail free card” without a consequence.

Throwing $10-20k at the problem does nothing but encourages bad behavior and feeds this terrible system that it is okay to continue to take out bad loans because the government will eventually make it go away. You do it once. What prevents the government from doing it again?

We already have payment programs that only charges 10% of your discretionary income and get forgiven after 20 years of payment regardless of the remaining balance even if you don’t do PSLF. 10%!!

People do not want to pay 10% of their income to pay off the loan they took out? Think about how selfish that is.

People that refinanced with private companies to save money don’t get this benefit, but that is a consequence of a bad decision. Again, if you make a bad decision, you live with the consequence.

As pgg said, the government should lower the interest rate on the student loans so that it is easier to pay it back, and make it discharged when declaring bankruptcy.

 

[doctalaughs]

This is a bad take. Or at least very conspiratorial.

#1 - Biden made it an executive issue, this is undeniable. He campaigned on student loan forgiveness even. We can't know what's in the man's heart, but we can look at his actions.

#2 - Why stop at 10k? Because that's what he campaigned on. It's arguably one of the biggest things that helped get him elected in the primary. He is a moderate Democrat, he believes in personal responsibility but thinks some people got a raw deal. He isn't going to sign onto a more massive debt jubilee. (Or at least that's my impression of the man.)

#3 - Many other legal scholars agree with the plain reading of the HEROES Act. Three of them sit on the Supreme Court. A true Textualist interpretation of the HEROES Act suggests the education secretary does have the power to issue "modifications and waivers" to those debtors.

Now... did the Biden administration make missteps in its handling of this case? Maybe. I'm not certain there and we'll have to see if more information comes out. I don't think using different legal arguments would have helped them win the day. As I've described elsewhere, SCOTUS was going to rule against him regardless of the merits of the case.

The HEROS act was passed over 20 years ago and was meant to modify loans for specific people like those with family killed in the twin towers. The conservative justices here convincingly argue that that you can’t just abuse the “loose wording” to make the power of the law unlimited in scope / spending power. Why can’t the president next use the law to just forgive ALL federal education loans then? Same reasoning- I think most would agree that situation would be a major executive overreach.

 

[doctalaughs]

These are 18 year old kids who are told by grownups "go to a good college to be successful." Despite having 0 assets, 0 earning potential, 0 credit history, they are allowed, no they are ENCOURAGED, to take out 6 figure loans for an uncertain future. Loans which are only dischargeable in death?? This is a system that is setting our children up for failure.

In this country we bail out failed automotive or banking industries. We throw free PPP money at all businesses, but when it comes to our children and this countries young adults we say go get fvcked. The whole system needs an over haul and I would like to see it done sooner than later.

Yeah but the correct overhaul would be making colleges / universities more accountable for these loans.

Free loans to stupid people leads to more of the same, and forgiving those loans will make the problem even worse. Why should anyone assume the debt they sign for won’t be forgiven again in the future?

 

[nimbus]

Is the system screwed up? Yes. The whole predatory educational system needs an overhaul. College should not cost $60k/year, and can be a terrible investment for most people.

Just because you made a terrible investment with a loan you can’t afford to pay back doesn’t mean you get a “get out of jail free card” without a consequence.

Throwing $10-20k at the problem does nothing but encourages bad behavior and feeds this terrible system that it is okay to continue to take out bad loans because the government will eventually make it go away. You do it once. What prevents the government from doing it again?

We already have payment programs that only charges 10% of your discretionary income and get forgiven after 20 years of payment regardless of the remaining balance even if you don’t do PSLF. 10%!!

People do not want to pay 10% of their income to pay off the loan they took out? Think about how selfish that is.

People that refinanced with private companies to save money don’t get this benefit, but that is a consequence of a bad decision. Again, if you make a bad decision, you live with the consequence.

As pgg said, the government should lower the interest rate on the student loans so that it is easier to pay it back, and make it discharged when declaring bankruptcy.

Most colleges with $60k tuition would not exist without guaranteed student loans because most people can’t afford it. How do you propose to overhaul the predatory higher education system?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Is the system screwed up? Yes. The whole predatory educational system needs an overhaul. College should not cost $60k/year, and can be a terrible investment for most people.

Just because you made a terrible investment with a loan you can’t afford to pay back doesn’t mean you get a “get out of jail free card” without a consequence.

Throwing $10-20k at the problem does nothing but encourages bad behavior and feeds this terrible system that it is okay to continue to take out bad loans because the government will eventually make it go away. You do it once. What prevents the government from doing it again?

We already have payment programs that only charges 10% of your discretionary income and get forgiven after 20 years of payment regardless of the remaining balance even if you don’t do PSLF. 10%!!

People do not want to pay 10% of their income to pay off the loan they took out? Think about how selfish that is.

People that refinanced with private companies to save money don’t get this benefit, but that is a consequence of a bad decision. Again, if you make a bad decision, you live with the consequence.

As pgg said, the government should lower the interest rate on the student loans so that it is easier to pay it back, and make it discharged when declaring bankruptcy.

Biden is lowering the required payment to 5% of discretionary income. 5%. then, after 20 years the remainder gets discharged.

Biden's backdoor student loan forgiveness plan

A new loan repayment plan could cost the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars.

www.axios.com

The bottom line: Under Biden's new repayment plan, many people who would have qualified for relief under the loan forgiveness plan will have a way to lower their monthly payments starting this fall.

• But so will future borrowers — and therein lies some critics' chief complaint.
• "Insofar as these changes would be politically impossible to reverse, they would function like a new entitlement program," writes AEI's Nat Malkus.

 

[rowsdower88]

The HEROS act was passed over 20 years ago and was meant to modify loans for specific people like those with family killed in the twin towers. The conservative justices here convincingly argue that that you can’t just abuse the “loose wording” to make the power of the law unlimited in scope / spending power. Why can’t the president next use the law to just forgive ALL federal education loans then? Same reasoning- I think most would agree that situation would be a major executive overreach.

You would must be one of those Living Constitutionalists I've heard so much about.

The text of the law doesn't matter, what matters is the intent of the lawmakers this time. But not next time, next time we have to rely on strictly interpreting the text of the law.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The plan makes loan payments more affordable in the following ways:

• The most borrowers must pay toward their undergraduate loans is 5% of their discretionary income, down from 10%.
• No borrower making less than 225% of the federal poverty level will have to make a monthly payment.
• Loan balances will be forgiven after 10 years of payments — instead of 20 years — if the original loan balance was $12,000 or less.
• Borrowers won't be charged with unpaid monthly interest, so balances won't grow if they make their payments — even if that monthly payment is $0 because their income is low.

Student borrowers in repayment can enroll later this summer before monthly payments restart. Borrowers who sign up or are already signed up for the Revised Pay as You Earn (REPAYE) plan will be automatically enrolled in the new plan.

 

[doctalaughs]

You would must be one of those Living Constitutionalists I've heard so much about.

The text of the law doesn't matter, what matters is the intent of the lawmakers this time. But not next time, next time we have to rely on strictly interpreting the text of the law.

You can argue the exact opposite. The 3 liberal justices that dissented the opinion are suddenly strict textual legal scholars that are following the letter of the law that assumes congress meant to give unlimited spending power to the executive branch here.

 

[rowsdower88]

You can argue the exact opposite. The 3 liberal justices that dissented the opinion are suddenly strict textual legal scholars that are following the letter of the law that assumes congress meant to give unlimited spending power to the executive branch here.

That's my broader point. Constitutional interpretation is largely BS and SCOTUS (and to a lesser extent the judiciary) is just as political as the other two branches.

Edit: it's just that scotus isn't elected and they have lifetime appointments

 

[BLADEMDA]

Doctor sees $340,000 of debt wiped away​

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/01/politics/student-loan-forgiveness-biden-borrowers/index.html

Last year, Charles Goldenberg, a radiologist in New York City, got an email notifying him that his more than $340,000 in federal student loan debt had been canceled because he qualified for the PSLF program.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/08/politics/public-service-loan-forgiveness-biden-waiver/index.html

The Biden administration has already canceled a record $66 billion in student loan debt for nearly 2.2 million borrowers.

 

[doctalaughs]

Unlike roe vs wade these recent decisions are highly in line with what the majority of Americans want by the way (with 60-70% margins). Extreme Liberals are loud on this - but they are in the minority by a lot.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/02/politics/backlash-supreme-court-affirmative-action-student-loans/index.html

 

[doctalaughs]

Doctor sees $340,000 of debt wiped away​

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/01/politics/student-loan-forgiveness-biden-borrowers/index.html

Last year, Charles Goldenberg, a radiologist in New York City, got an email notifying him that his more than $340,000 in federal student loan debt had been canceled because he qualified for the PSLF program.

Yeah absolutely ridiculous…. More stupidity (I know multiple doc friends making > 500k with their debt wiped away as well). Insanity.

 

[BLADEMDA]

So, you can borrow as much money as you want like $300,000 then pay back 5% starting as a PGY-1. Let's say you do a fellowship so your total time at 5% repayment is 5 years. After Fellowship, you get a job with an academic institution which qualifies for PSFL. You keep making the 5% payments for 5 more years then all the remaining debt is wiped away. This is a much better deal than joining the military in med school on scholarship.

 

[FutureInternist]

When SC keeps intact ways to keep black people from voting and at same time limits their options to advance

Like Thomas, many Republicans take advantage of “woke” laws and once in power, turn around and undo those same laws … pathetic

 

[BLADEMDA]

Physicians who sign up for military like PGG, now retired, sacrifice a great deal in terms of money and time away from home to get that "free tuition" and small stipend. The taxpayers are getting a good deal from those like PGG; this is very different than the BAD DEAL they are getting from the new Biden Student Loan Program which rewards high tuition and minimizes personal responsibility.

 

[thinkorswim]

The HEROS act was passed over 20 years ago and was meant to modify loans for specific people like those with family killed in the twin towers. The conservative justices here convincingly argue that that you can’t just abuse the “loose wording” to make the power of the law unlimited in scope / spending power. Why can’t the president next use the law to just forgive ALL federal education loans then? Same reasoning- I think most would agree that situation would be a major executive overreach.

Both Trump and Biden used the loophole to defer student loan payments for the past few years, which cost something like $200 billion, and there was no outrage with that. It even ended up benefiting wealthier households. Forgiving only $10k for lower income individuals would cost $400 billion and all of a sudden everyone is up in arms?

I don’t particularly care about the result of this dispute. I just find the standing issue to be suspect and the SCOTUS interpretation to be politically convenient. This in a clear example of judicial activism by our highest court.

 

[rowsdower88]

So, you can borrow as much money as you want like $300,000 then pay back 5% starting as a PGY-1. Let's say you do a fellowship so your total time at 5% repayment is 5 years. After Fellowship, you get a job with an academic institution which qualifies for PSFL. You keep making the 5% payments for 5 more years then all the remaining debt is wiped away. This is a much better deal than joining the military in med school on scholarship.

You conservatives should have taken the $10k deal Dark Brandon offered you the first time.

 

[BLADEMDA]

America First Legal Sends Letters to 200 Law Schools Demanding the End of All Racial Preferences in Law School Admissions, Faculty Hiring, and Law Reviews

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, America First Legal (AFL) sent a demand letter to the deans of every law school in the United States, demanding that they cease discriminating based...

aflegal.org

 

[BLADEMDA]

You conservatives should have taken the $10k deal Dark Brandon offered you the first time.

Another example of winning the battle but losing the war; Biden's new student loan relief program will end up costing taxpayers over a trillion dollars. Biden is creating another huge entitlement program at a time where we can't cover the cost of existing entitlement programs.

 

[rowsdower88]

Another example of winning the battle but losing the war; Biden's new student loan relief program will end up costing taxpayers over a trillion dollars. Biden is creating another huge entitlement program at a time where we can't cover the cost of existing entitlement programs.

Raise taxes.

 

[rowsdower88]

I’ve been outraged with the student loan moratorium since the vaccines came out. At that point there was no longer any reason to have it. The economy had basically recovered and pay was skyrocketing in every industry and the savings rate was at record highs. People had plenty of money to pay their student loans in January 2021.

Everything student loan related after January 2021 has been pure government waste and scamming of taxpayers to favor the rich

I would say the median student loan debt holder is closer to median American wealth than to "the rich". So I would argue the moratorium has benefitted the median American more than the rich. But admittedly this is just me disagreeing with your framing.

 

[thinkorswim]

I’ve been outraged with the student loan moratorium since the vaccines came out. At that point there was no longer any reason to have it. The economy had basically recovered and pay was skyrocketing in every industry and the savings rate was at record highs. People had plenty of money to pay their student loans in January 2021.

Everything student loan related after January 2021 has been pure government waste and scamming of taxpayers to favor the rich

That’s a fine position to have, but then why weren’t the loan payment pauses challenged earlier?

As I said, I don’t really care about the outcome of the student loan forgiveness. It’s just the way SCOTUS went about it all that bothers me and makes them appear overtly political in their decision.

I think they were correct with the affirmative action decision. But the LGBTQ rights case is the one that outrages me the most. It was just a purely unprovoked slap in the face to millions of Americans.