228
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.org to c/memes@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] John_Coomsumer@beehaw.org 63 points 1 year ago

They literally fucking can't. They tried within a more limited scope and the supreme court slapped it down, there is a zero percent chance they could cancel a more broad selection. Dogshit meme

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 year ago

Biden has the power today to completely eliminate student loan debt via the 1965 higher education act. Alternatively, he could expand the Supreme Court to 13 or more justices to cancel out the conservative activist judges.

There are real actions Biden can take today to deliver on this supposed promise. And yet, the same bad dude who brought us legislation to ensure you can’t be rid of student loan debt via bankruptcy, somehow can’t come up with a way to get this job done. Hmm. Meme checks out.

[-] John_Coomsumer@beehaw.org 25 points 1 year ago

there are real actions Biden can take today

Well let's look at the two you just said.

1:elimate via 1965 higher education act. Mechanistically, this would be done via executive order, then the court challenges, and rules on whether or not the action itself or the 1965 act is constitutional. And what do you know! We are in luck! Because that's literally what just fucking happened with the 10k cancellation last year. And it turns out our supreme court is full of shit bags, so it got squashed.

2: stack the court, or, excuse me, "expand to 13". This is blatantly and laughably unconstitutional. The amount of justices is explicitly set Article III, Section 1, by congress. Judiciary Act of 1789 set it to 6. Passed by congress. Judiciary Act of 1801 set it to 5. Congress. 1807 to 7. Congress. 1869 set to 9. Congress. Jackson tried and got overturned. FDR tried, via congressional bill and didn't get the votes. Now tell me where in that timeline do you see the authority to do this without congressional approval? So what you are asking for is a literal goddamn executive coup, a blatant authoritarian power grab for the executive, what we just narrowly avoided with Trump. Any support online you see for this movement, that even dares to cite a legal explanation for why Biden could do this, is made by liars and grifters who thinks they can sneakily interpret the constitution with some backdoor logic to ignore all judicial precedent. They are just rebranding sovereign citizen logic, straight up.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago

I don’t think SC has as much wiggle room to justify a squash attempt under 1965 HEA, the law is written very plainly there.

You’re right about executive overreach though, Biden would have to rally his congress to resize the court. He could have leveraged the majority activists handed him via GA in his first 2 years to do this. And when certain scumbag senators refuse to play ball, campaign aggressively in their home districts against them - whatever he has to do to fight for us. Which he isn’t going to do at all.

[-] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

campaign aggressively

rofl

You think a bunch of republican "I'm a hair's breadth away from taking my gun and shooting the first black man I see" dumbasses will suddenly vote Democrat if you just "campaign aggressively"??

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

I mean, the SC shut him down on eliminating debt. So they clearly don't believe he has the ability according to that act. It's not like he forgot to invoke a law or something. SC takes all laws into account.

Increasing the SC is a very dangerous move. What's going to happen? Just the SC increases every single time the majority changes and a new party comes into power?

So it's not that simple. It's an extremely naive take.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Are you familiar with the HEROES act from 2003? This is specifically what Biden and his legal team were relying upon for their recent attempt at student loan forgiveness. SC isn’t going to throw them a bone and try to broadly interpret other laws to support their case, that’s the attorney’s job which is supposed to be done at the time of filing. The 1965 law is different, and gives the executive absolute authority to cancel student loan debt. Which is why Biden didn’t invoke it.

In terms of restructuring the court, yes it is a dangerous precedent, but the strategy here is to legitimately threaten it and get them to all of the sudden see reason, instead of having to follow through. This has been done successfully a few times throughout history in times when the court has overreached.

This is actually quite simple - Biden can use his power and influence to materially improve the lives of the financially enslaved student populace, and he is choosing not to. He will side with corporations every time, as he has done throughout his entire political career. Have you been paying attention?

[-] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

SC is required to take all law into account as broadly as possible to support. They're legally required to "throw a bone." They can't say something is unconstitutional just because the wrong argument was used at the time. You can argue they don't know about it or didn't refer to it, but at this point, there's legal precedent so it very likely will not work.

Edit: when has the threat to expand the court worked?

Edit: and Dems don't have majority to expand the court anymore anyway

[-] gullible@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

The endless march of court stacking would breed a not-inconsequential amount of bad precedence, to the degree that even judicial impeachment would produce a more stable final state. Iirc, supreme court stacking has been attempted before and struck down as well.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Nawor3565 18 points 1 year ago

Yeah like... They just tried to cut down on student debt and the conservative supermajority struck it down. There's literally nothing Biden can do to overrule that.

[-] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

It's just a majority. 222 Republican reps to 212 Democrat.

Supermajority would be 290.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] erogenouswarzone@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago

I vaguely remember hearing about this thing called an executive order.

Remember when Bush Sr. stole all the Iraqi govt property in the US during Desert Storm? Seems like if he can do that, they could figure something out. The fact is, they don't really want to, exactly like OP says, they just want to appear to want to.

[-] John_Coomsumer@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago

if he can do that, they could figure something out

Learn how the government works. Please. An executive order was what Biden did previously, in attempting to cancel a smaller amount of debt for less people. It was rejected by the supreme court. There is no next step, there is no other way that isn't an explicitly authoritarian unconstitutional Andrew Jackson style attack on the supreme court. Biden would have an approval rating of 10% within a week, whether or not anyone on Lemmy thinks it's a good idea.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

EOs can't supercede the Supreme Court's decisions. If they claim the action is unconstitutional, no EO overrides that. It's simply not how EOs work.

[-] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

You need to go watch some Schoolhouse Rock

[-] erogenouswarzone@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Who created that again?

[-] akatsukilevi@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Correction: They can, they just don't want to. If supreme court accepts it, then it's cancelled, but it's more interesting for them to have a bunch of poor people with a fuck ton of debt up their arses, hence why they don't do it

[-] John_Coomsumer@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

if the supreme court accept it, then it's cancelled

They clearly, obviously, blatantly will not accept it. They shut him down on cancelling a smaller amount. They won't just allow him to cancel a larger amount. All sending it to them does is create more precedent limiting the power of the executive, there is no reason to do that. There's zero upside.

[-] akatsukilevi@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Which once again reinforces that government can't do because government doesn't want to, because they have the choice to not do anything
And why bother? They don't have debt, it's not their problem, so they don't care enough to do something about it

[-] bigkix@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Maybe that was the plan all along? Pretend like you want to do it even though you know you won't be able to.

[-] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 23 points 1 year ago

Get Congress to pass a bill and I'm sure he will sign it.

[-] lobut@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago

Nah, these people just want to create terrible memes and get nothing done.

[-] PenguinJuice@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

Does anyone else fear the economic impact that student loans are going to have once they are resumed? I am really not looking forward to another recession.

[-] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.org 18 points 1 year ago

We are in a recession though, have you seen what the working class is going through for the past three years?

[-] PenguinJuice@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

That's what I'm saying. We've been barely skirting by but it's been doable. Once student loans kick in, that's the spark going from embers to an inferno.

[-] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

No we're not, and we haven't been. The media and CEOs have been fearmongering about "a recession" for years now and it's never been close to happening.

Unemployment is near record lows. Wages are rising.

What's been killing the working class recently has been inflation, and nothing else. Which sucks, but is getting better.

[-] sorebuttfromsitting@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

you talk a lot, so what's your deal?

[-] sorebuttfromsitting@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

who the fuck is jimmy dore

[-] erogenouswarzone@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Hot Take: I'm looking forward to it for one reason only: Maybe social networks will be fun and bearable again without the constant bombardment of political "ideas." Maybe all those people who haven't been working will go back to work and stop ruining the internet.

[-] Sc00ter@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago

all those people who haven't been working

You realize unemployment in the US is near pre pandemic levels and as low as its been since the 60s?

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

Unemployment numbers are always disingenuous because they only count people who are looking for employment. People who leave the voluntarily leave the workforce aren't included.

[-] MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

That's a poor argument as you're trying to say that this time we should compare apples to oranges. It's also an argument you could use any time you disagree, essentially waiving the facts. Sorry, but no. Disingenuousness requires intent, the unemployment numbers are measured the same way year in and year out. If you want to argue that the number of people leaving the workforce skewed the numbers this badly, you'd need to show your work, not just attempt to disregard the actual data.

You should learn a bit about how they intentionally figure these numbers in their favor... Kind of how they change how inflation is calculated ever so often to make it look like inflation isn't as bad as it is. There are jobs but there are more people permanently exiting the workforce and that doesn't get factored into unemployment. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. https://www.statista.com/statistics/191734/us-civilian-labor-force-participation-rate-since-1990/#:~:text=This%20graph%20shows%20the%20civilian,participated%20in%20the%20job%20market.

Since 2000, the rate of eligible workers in the workforce has decreased from 67% to current 62%.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you think folks only had one bill (school loans) so had no reason to work until it comes back, you're kind of out of touch. Unemployment is fairly low and it's not because people aren't looking for work.

[-] Pinklink@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

Rabble rabble! No one wants to work these days and pull themselves up by their bootstraps! Never mind that is literally impossible, so actually a perfect apt metaphor! Instead, they just want to spend time online ruining it for ME! Rabble rabble!

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 1 year ago

Hot take: you are astroturfing for the rich people.

[-] robotrash@lemmy.robotra.sh 10 points 1 year ago

What you're experiencing is "summer internet". All the children on social media, not the adults with loan debt.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
228 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

45454 readers
1570 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS