This is interesting, if the SCOTUS rules it is not legal, 350 people will have charge gone. Interesting to see how this plays out. Glad to see it going to SCOTUS.
Post Reply
1 of 1
Supreme Court hearing Obstruction Case
1,116 Views |
26 Replies |
Last: 15 days ago by FLBear5630
Interesting to see how the strict constructionists handle the issue. The language (imho) is pretty clear. The defendant is alleged to have corruptly impeded an official proceeding, which fits the plain language of the statute. That is not what Congess was thinking about when it passed the law. To rule, however, that the statute does not apply because it was not in Congess' contemplation despite the plain language one has to jump over Scalia's gravestone.
Well, I do believe these questions need to be answered. At least it is following process and not just some knee jerk reaction or one off. The closer we stay to the processes in place the more legitimate the outcomes, at least in my opinion.Frank Galvin said:
Interesting to see how the strict constructionists handle the issue. The language (imho) is pretty clear. The defendant is alleged to have corruptly impeded an official proceeding, which fits the plain language of the statute. That is not what Congess was thinking about when it passed the law. To rule, however, that the statute does not apply because it was not in Congess' contemplation despite the plain language one has to jump over Scalia's gravestone.
I am not a believer in the Neo-Con, UniParty or Deep State BS driving the bus...
Sorry if I was unclear. This is exactly the type of thing SCOTUS is supposed to handle. The issue is in the right place and there are good arguments on both sides of it.FLBear5630 said:Well, I do believe these questions need to be answered. At least it is following process and not just some knee jerk reaction or one off. The closer we stay to the processes in place the more legitimate the outcomes, at least in my opinion.Frank Galvin said:
Interesting to see how the strict constructionists handle the issue. The language (imho) is pretty clear. The defendant is alleged to have corruptly impeded an official proceeding, which fits the plain language of the statute. That is not what Congess was thinking about when it passed the law. To rule, however, that the statute does not apply because it was not in Congess' contemplation despite the plain language one has to jump over Scalia's gravestone.
I am not a believer in the Neo-Con, UniParty or Deep State BS driving the bus...
No, I was agreeing. Conversational, not argumentative.Frank Galvin said:Sorry if I was unclear. This is exactly the type of thing SCOTUS is supposed to handle. The issue is in the right place and there are good arguments on both sides of it.FLBear5630 said:Well, I do believe these questions need to be answered. At least it is following process and not just some knee jerk reaction or one off. The closer we stay to the processes in place the more legitimate the outcomes, at least in my opinion.Frank Galvin said:
Interesting to see how the strict constructionists handle the issue. The language (imho) is pretty clear. The defendant is alleged to have corruptly impeded an official proceeding, which fits the plain language of the statute. That is not what Congess was thinking about when it passed the law. To rule, however, that the statute does not apply because it was not in Congess' contemplation despite the plain language one has to jump over Scalia's gravestone.
I am not a believer in the Neo-Con, UniParty or Deep State BS driving the bus...
Like all statutes, you have to read the whole statute to give meaning to the specific clause at issue. Much like reading a contract.Frank Galvin said:
Interesting to see how the strict constructionists handle the issue. The language (imho) is pretty clear. The defendant is alleged to have corruptly impeded an official proceeding, which fits the plain language of the statute. That is not what Congess was thinking about when it passed the law. To rule, however, that the statute does not apply because it was not in Congess' contemplation despite the plain language one has to jump over Scalia's gravestone.
The title of the statute is - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Whatever SCOTUS says, I support.GrowlTowel said:Like all statutes, you have to read the whole statute to give meaning to the specific clause at issue. Much like reading a contract.Frank Galvin said:
Interesting to see how the strict constructionists handle the issue. The language (imho) is pretty clear. The defendant is alleged to have corruptly impeded an official proceeding, which fits the plain language of the statute. That is not what Congess was thinking about when it passed the law. To rule, however, that the statute does not apply because it was not in Congess' contemplation despite the plain language one has to jump over Scalia's gravestone.
The title of the statute is - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.
GrowlTowel said:Like all statutes, you have to read the whole statute to give meaning to the specific clause at issue. Much like reading a contract.Frank Galvin said:
Interesting to see how the strict constructionists handle the issue. The language (imho) is pretty clear. The defendant is alleged to have corruptly impeded an official proceeding, which fits the plain language of the statute. That is not what Congess was thinking about when it passed the law. To rule, however, that the statute does not apply because it was not in Congess' contemplation despite the plain language one has to jump over Scalia's gravestone.
The title of the statute is - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.
Not exactly how Scalia saw it.
https://lawprose.org/lawprose-lesson-247-what-is-the-title-and-headings-canon-of-construction/#:~:text=If%20no%20rules%20prescribe%20the,to%20limit%20the%20plain%20meaning.
China Joe has made it very clear on more than one occasion that he has no intention of following the rulings of the Supreme Court. His Department of Justice will continue to run roughshod over political opponents. Apparently nobody is going to stop him.FLBear5630 said:
This is interesting, if the SCOTUS rules it is not legal, 350 people will have charge gone. Interesting to see how this plays out. Glad to see it going to SCOTUS.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
Here we go again.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:China Joe has made it very clear on more than one occasion that he has no intention of following the rulings of the Supreme Court. His Department of Justice will continue to run roughshod over political opponents. Apparently nobody is going to stop him.FLBear5630 said:
This is interesting, if the SCOTUS rules it is not legal, 350 people will have charge gone. Interesting to see how this plays out. Glad to see it going to SCOTUS.
How about letting the SCOTUS rule and something actually happen before shooting the whole thing happen.
It isn't a thing, until it is.
Three words: Student Loan Forgiveness. The Supreme Court said NO. Joe Biden gave them the finger and did it anyway.FLBear5630 said:Here we go again.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:China Joe has made it very clear on more than one occasion that he has no intention of following the rulings of the Supreme Court. His Department of Justice will continue to run roughshod over political opponents. Apparently nobody is going to stop him.FLBear5630 said:
This is interesting, if the SCOTUS rules it is not legal, 350 people will have charge gone. Interesting to see how this plays out. Glad to see it going to SCOTUS.
How about letting the SCOTUS rule and something actually happen before shooting the whole thing happen.
It isn't a thing, until it is.
The Supreme Court's "NO" seems to be every bit as powerful as Joe Biden's "DON'T."
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
No, he did not forgive Loans.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Three words: Student Loan Forgiveness. The Supreme Court said NO. Joe Biden gave them the finger and did it anyway.FLBear5630 said:Here we go again.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:China Joe has made it very clear on more than one occasion that he has no intention of following the rulings of the Supreme Court. His Department of Justice will continue to run roughshod over political opponents. Apparently nobody is going to stop him.FLBear5630 said:
This is interesting, if the SCOTUS rules it is not legal, 350 people will have charge gone. Interesting to see how this plays out. Glad to see it going to SCOTUS.
How about letting the SCOTUS rule and something actually happen before shooting the whole thing happen.
It isn't a thing, until it is.
The Supreme Court's "NO" seems to be every bit as powerful as Joe Biden's "DON'T."
Those programs were in place for decades, since at least the 90's, at least the Public Service Loan Forgiveness. That is the prevue of the Executive Branch. He changed the way the payments were counted and when you can register, the rules not the program. Under the old rule, you had to make 10 years worth of payments on time. If you were late, it set back to 0. on 1% ever made it through. That is a bad program. Now, they count 10 years (a decade!) of payments. Those loans are more than paid back, interest got waived if you worked in the Public Sector.
That is not ignoring SCOTUS.
If they were "more than paid back" there would be no loan to "forgive."FLBear5630 said:No, he did not forgive Loans.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Three words: Student Loan Forgiveness. The Supreme Court said NO. Joe Biden gave them the finger and did it anyway.FLBear5630 said:Here we go again.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:China Joe has made it very clear on more than one occasion that he has no intention of following the rulings of the Supreme Court. His Department of Justice will continue to run roughshod over political opponents. Apparently nobody is going to stop him.FLBear5630 said:
This is interesting, if the SCOTUS rules it is not legal, 350 people will have charge gone. Interesting to see how this plays out. Glad to see it going to SCOTUS.
How about letting the SCOTUS rule and something actually happen before shooting the whole thing happen.
It isn't a thing, until it is.
The Supreme Court's "NO" seems to be every bit as powerful as Joe Biden's "DON'T."
Those programs were in place for decades, since at least the 90's, at least the Public Service Loan Forgiveness. That is the prevue of the Executive Branch. He changed the way the payments were counted and when you can register, the rules not the program. Under the old rule, you had to make 10 years worth of payments on time. If you were late, it set back to 0. on 1% ever made it through. That is a bad program. Now, they count 10 years (a decade!) of payments. Those loans are more than paid back, interest got waived if you worked in the Public Sector.
That is not ignoring SCOTUS.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Wangchung said:If they were "more than paid back" there would be no loan to "forgive."FLBear5630 said:No, he did not forgive Loans.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Three words: Student Loan Forgiveness. The Supreme Court said NO. Joe Biden gave them the finger and did it anyway.FLBear5630 said:Here we go again.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:China Joe has made it very clear on more than one occasion that he has no intention of following the rulings of the Supreme Court. His Department of Justice will continue to run roughshod over political opponents. Apparently nobody is going to stop him.FLBear5630 said:
This is interesting, if the SCOTUS rules it is not legal, 350 people will have charge gone. Interesting to see how this plays out. Glad to see it going to SCOTUS.
How about letting the SCOTUS rule and something actually happen before shooting the whole thing happen.
It isn't a thing, until it is.
The Supreme Court's "NO" seems to be every bit as powerful as Joe Biden's "DON'T."
Those programs were in place for decades, since at least the 90's, at least the Public Service Loan Forgiveness. That is the prevue of the Executive Branch. He changed the way the payments were counted and when you can register, the rules not the program. Under the old rule, you had to make 10 years worth of payments on time. If you were late, it set back to 0. on 1% ever made it through. That is a bad program. Now, they count 10 years (a decade!) of payments. Those loans are more than paid back, interest got waived if you worked in the Public Sector.
That is not ignoring SCOTUS.
Exactly
But for those hoping others will pay off their debts; any word game will suffice .
Frank Galvin said:GrowlTowel said:Like all statutes, you have to read the whole statute to give meaning to the specific clause at issue. Much like reading a contract.Frank Galvin said:
Interesting to see how the strict constructionists handle the issue. The language (imho) is pretty clear. The defendant is alleged to have corruptly impeded an official proceeding, which fits the plain language of the statute. That is not what Congess was thinking about when it passed the law. To rule, however, that the statute does not apply because it was not in Congess' contemplation despite the plain language one has to jump over Scalia's gravestone.
The title of the statute is - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.
Not exactly how Scalia saw it.
https://lawprose.org/lawprose-lesson-247-what-is-the-title-and-headings-canon-of-construction/#:~:text=If%20no%20rules%20prescribe%20the,to%20limit%20the%20plain%20meaning.
The account I saw of the oral argument was the conservative justices likely see the theory on which some J6 defendants are charged (that they "otherwise" obstructed an official proceeding) as being controlled by the clause before it (which outlaws evidence destruction or witness tampering).
I don't get that. The clauses are separated by "or" and there is no grammatical reason to view the second phrase as dependent on the first. And "otherwise" means something other than what Congress described in the first phrase so it makes sense that the conduct reached by the second phrase would extend beyond documents and witnesses.
The foothold they try to give themselves is that the first phrase obviously describes things that impact lawsuits and therefore Congress must have meant the statute to apply only to lawsuits. Certification of the electoral vote is not a lawsuit, so statute does not apply. But if so, why did Congress choose "official proceeding" instead of "lawsuit"?
interesting..Frank Galvin said:
Interesting to see how the strict constructionists handle the issue. The language (imho) is pretty clear. The defendant is alleged to have corruptly impeded an official proceeding, which fits the plain language of the statute. That is not what Congess was thinking about when it passed the law. To rule, however, that the statute does not apply because it was not in Congess' contemplation despite the plain language one has to jump over Scalia's gravestone.
I dont think they will overturn but it will be interesting to read the reasoning why they validate the ruling or overturn it
I think the Jan 6ers absolutely violated that statute but I dont know if violating that statute is allowed under 1st amendment as Govt shall make no law that prohibits free exercise of freedom of speech or the right to peacefully assemble and right to petition
Scalia thought that petitions should be directed at the executive or legislature.
Some could argue that these peoples rights to speak, assemble(associate), and petition was impeded
Edwards v south carolina (1962) reversed 187 convictions under similar grounds stating the state infringed on their rights to speech, assemble, and petition..
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
As far as I know the defendant did not challenge the statute on First Amendment grounds. That doesn't mean he couldn't if the indictment is upheld, only means he would do so after a conviction, if that happens.4th and Inches said:interesting..Frank Galvin said:
Interesting to see how the strict constructionists handle the issue. The language (imho) is pretty clear. The defendant is alleged to have corruptly impeded an official proceeding, which fits the plain language of the statute. That is not what Congess was thinking about when it passed the law. To rule, however, that the statute does not apply because it was not in Congess' contemplation despite the plain language one has to jump over Scalia's gravestone.
I dont think they will overturn but it will be interesting to read the reasoning why they validate the ruling or overturn it
I think the Jan 6ers absolutely violated that statute but I dont know if violating that statute is allowed under 1st amendment as Govt shall make no law that prohibits free exercise of freedom of speech or the right to peacefully assemble and right to petition
Scalia thought that petitions should be directed at the executive or legislature.
Some could argue that these peoples rights to speak, assemble(associate), and petition was impeded
Edwards v south carolina (1962) reversed 187 convictions under similar grounds stating the state infringed on their rights to speech, assemble, and petition..
havent looked into the case at all.. it would have been my challenge but then again I was smart enough to not go in the first placeFrank Galvin said:As far as I know the defendant did not challenge the statute on First Amendment grounds. That doesn't mean he couldn't if the indictment is upheld, only means he would do so after a conviction, if that happens.4th and Inches said:interesting..Frank Galvin said:
Interesting to see how the strict constructionists handle the issue. The language (imho) is pretty clear. The defendant is alleged to have corruptly impeded an official proceeding, which fits the plain language of the statute. That is not what Congess was thinking about when it passed the law. To rule, however, that the statute does not apply because it was not in Congess' contemplation despite the plain language one has to jump over Scalia's gravestone.
I dont think they will overturn but it will be interesting to read the reasoning why they validate the ruling or overturn it
I think the Jan 6ers absolutely violated that statute but I dont know if violating that statute is allowed under 1st amendment as Govt shall make no law that prohibits free exercise of freedom of speech or the right to peacefully assemble and right to petition
Scalia thought that petitions should be directed at the executive or legislature.
Some could argue that these peoples rights to speak, assemble(associate), and petition was impeded
Edwards v south carolina (1962) reversed 187 convictions under similar grounds stating the state infringed on their rights to speech, assemble, and petition..
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch nukes Joe Biden's DOJ over January 6th sentences:
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 16, 2024
Gorsuch lists multiple cases of folks who "obstructed a Congressional proceeding" without receiving a 20 year sentence.
1. Sit-ins at a trial (Kavanaugh protests)
2. Pulling a fire alarm (Rep.… pic.twitter.com/DWETkzi7JI
Gorsuch's argument is a political one, not a legal one.Redbrickbear said:Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch nukes Joe Biden's DOJ over January 6th sentences:
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 16, 2024
Gorsuch lists multiple cases of folks who "obstructed a Congressional proceeding" without receiving a 20 year sentence.
1. Sit-ins at a trial (Kavanaugh protests)
2. Pulling a fire alarm (Rep.… pic.twitter.com/DWETkzi7JI
They all swear to call "balls and strikes." Then they want to officiate a result. Decide the case that is front of you.
Nothing would give me more pleasure knowing your tax dollars were used to pay off some Lit majors loans. I would laugh my ass off. That program is worth it just for that thought.KaiBear said:Wangchung said:If they were "more than paid back" there would be no loan to "forgive."FLBear5630 said:No, he did not forgive Loans.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Three words: Student Loan Forgiveness. The Supreme Court said NO. Joe Biden gave them the finger and did it anyway.FLBear5630 said:Here we go again.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:China Joe has made it very clear on more than one occasion that he has no intention of following the rulings of the Supreme Court. His Department of Justice will continue to run roughshod over political opponents. Apparently nobody is going to stop him.FLBear5630 said:
This is interesting, if the SCOTUS rules it is not legal, 350 people will have charge gone. Interesting to see how this plays out. Glad to see it going to SCOTUS.
How about letting the SCOTUS rule and something actually happen before shooting the whole thing happen.
It isn't a thing, until it is.
The Supreme Court's "NO" seems to be every bit as powerful as Joe Biden's "DON'T."
Those programs were in place for decades, since at least the 90's, at least the Public Service Loan Forgiveness. That is the prevue of the Executive Branch. He changed the way the payments were counted and when you can register, the rules not the program. Under the old rule, you had to make 10 years worth of payments on time. If you were late, it set back to 0. on 1% ever made it through. That is a bad program. Now, they count 10 years (a decade!) of payments. Those loans are more than paid back, interest got waived if you worked in the Public Sector.
That is not ignoring SCOTUS.
Exactly
But for those hoping others will pay off their debts; any word game will suffice .
FLBear5630 said:Nothing would give me more pleasure knowing your tax dollars were used to pay off some Lit majors loans. I would laugh my ass off.KaiBear said:Wangchung said:If they were "more than paid back" there would be no loan to "forgive."FLBear5630 said:No, he did not forgive Loans.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Three words: Student Loan Forgiveness. The Supreme Court said NO. Joe Biden gave them the finger and did it anyway.FLBear5630 said:Here we go again.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:China Joe has made it very clear on more than one occasion that he has no intention of following the rulings of the Supreme Court. His Department of Justice will continue to run roughshod over political opponents. Apparently nobody is going to stop him.FLBear5630 said:
This is interesting, if the SCOTUS rules it is not legal, 350 people will have charge gone. Interesting to see how this plays out. Glad to see it going to SCOTUS.
How about letting the SCOTUS rule and something actually happen before shooting the whole thing happen.
It isn't a thing, until it is.
The Supreme Court's "NO" seems to be every bit as powerful as Joe Biden's "DON'T."
Those programs were in place for decades, since at least the 90's, at least the Public Service Loan Forgiveness. That is the prevue of the Executive Branch. He changed the way the payments were counted and when you can register, the rules not the program. Under the old rule, you had to make 10 years worth of payments on time. If you were late, it set back to 0. on 1% ever made it through. That is a bad program. Now, they count 10 years (a decade!) of payments. Those loans are more than paid back, interest got waived if you worked in the Public Sector.
That is not ignoring SCOTUS.
Exactly
But for those hoping others will pay off their debts; any word game will suffice .
Bizarre how obsessing about my tax bill gives you the most 'pleasure'.
Irregardles it's going to require one hell of a lot of laughter to lose that rear echelon sized ass.
Better get started .
Frank Galvin said:Gorsuch's argument is a political one, not a legal one.Redbrickbear said:Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch nukes Joe Biden's DOJ over January 6th sentences:
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 16, 2024
Gorsuch lists multiple cases of folks who "obstructed a Congressional proceeding" without receiving a 20 year sentence.
1. Sit-ins at a trial (Kavanaugh protests)
2. Pulling a fire alarm (Rep.… pic.twitter.com/DWETkzi7JI
They all swear to call "balls and strikes." Then they want to officiate a result. Decide the case that is front of you.
And he may just do that
This after all is him asking questions (not making a ruling yet)
And he is pointing out the selective prosecution going on at the Federal level.
Once again your scab has torn off and your liberalism is bleeding out. Why should anyone have to pay off anyone else's loans? Just because you don't like them? That way of thinking seems prevalent these days in the Democrat Party.FLBear5630 said:Nothing would give me more pleasure knowing your tax dollars were used to pay off some Lit majors loans. I would laugh my ass off. That program is worth it just for that thought.KaiBear said:Wangchung said:If they were "more than paid back" there would be no loan to "forgive."FLBear5630 said:No, he did not forgive Loans.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Three words: Student Loan Forgiveness. The Supreme Court said NO. Joe Biden gave them the finger and did it anyway.FLBear5630 said:Here we go again.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:China Joe has made it very clear on more than one occasion that he has no intention of following the rulings of the Supreme Court. His Department of Justice will continue to run roughshod over political opponents. Apparently nobody is going to stop him.FLBear5630 said:
This is interesting, if the SCOTUS rules it is not legal, 350 people will have charge gone. Interesting to see how this plays out. Glad to see it going to SCOTUS.
How about letting the SCOTUS rule and something actually happen before shooting the whole thing happen.
It isn't a thing, until it is.
The Supreme Court's "NO" seems to be every bit as powerful as Joe Biden's "DON'T."
Those programs were in place for decades, since at least the 90's, at least the Public Service Loan Forgiveness. That is the prevue of the Executive Branch. He changed the way the payments were counted and when you can register, the rules not the program. Under the old rule, you had to make 10 years worth of payments on time. If you were late, it set back to 0. on 1% ever made it through. That is a bad program. Now, they count 10 years (a decade!) of payments. Those loans are more than paid back, interest got waived if you worked in the Public Sector.
That is not ignoring SCOTUS.
Exactly
But for those hoping others will pay off their debts; any word game will suffice .
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
The Supreme Court questioned a novel legal approach used to charge hundreds of defendants who participated in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, in a case that could have ramifications for election-interference charges against former President Trump https://t.co/Q544RaSt93
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) April 16, 2024
Let's cut the BS and get to the crux of the matter: The transfer of debt obligation from the signatory to the proletariat.FLBear5630 said:No, he did not forgive Loans.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Three words: Student Loan Forgiveness. The Supreme Court said NO. Joe Biden gave them the finger and did it anyway.FLBear5630 said:Here we go again.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:China Joe has made it very clear on more than one occasion that he has no intention of following the rulings of the Supreme Court. His Department of Justice will continue to run roughshod over political opponents. Apparently nobody is going to stop him.FLBear5630 said:
This is interesting, if the SCOTUS rules it is not legal, 350 people will have charge gone. Interesting to see how this plays out. Glad to see it going to SCOTUS.
How about letting the SCOTUS rule and something actually happen before shooting the whole thing happen.
It isn't a thing, until it is.
The Supreme Court's "NO" seems to be every bit as powerful as Joe Biden's "DON'T."
Those programs were in place for decades, since at least the 90's, at least the Public Service Loan Forgiveness. That is the prevue of the Executive Branch. He changed the way the payments were counted and when you can register, the rules not the program. Under the old rule, you had to make 10 years worth of payments on time. If you were late, it set back to 0. on 1% ever made it through. That is a bad program. Now, they count 10 years (a decade!) of payments. Those loans are more than paid back, interest got waived if you worked in the Public Sector.
That is not ignoring SCOTUS.
Depends on what you are talking.ABC BEAR said:Let's cut the BS and get to the crux of the matter: The transfer of debt obligation from the signatory to the proletariat.FLBear5630 said:No, he did not forgive Loans.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Three words: Student Loan Forgiveness. The Supreme Court said NO. Joe Biden gave them the finger and did it anyway.FLBear5630 said:Here we go again.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:China Joe has made it very clear on more than one occasion that he has no intention of following the rulings of the Supreme Court. His Department of Justice will continue to run roughshod over political opponents. Apparently nobody is going to stop him.FLBear5630 said:
This is interesting, if the SCOTUS rules it is not legal, 350 people will have charge gone. Interesting to see how this plays out. Glad to see it going to SCOTUS.
How about letting the SCOTUS rule and something actually happen before shooting the whole thing happen.
It isn't a thing, until it is.
The Supreme Court's "NO" seems to be every bit as powerful as Joe Biden's "DON'T."
Those programs were in place for decades, since at least the 90's, at least the Public Service Loan Forgiveness. That is the prevue of the Executive Branch. He changed the way the payments were counted and when you can register, the rules not the program. Under the old rule, you had to make 10 years worth of payments on time. If you were late, it set back to 0. on 1% ever made it through. That is a bad program. Now, they count 10 years (a decade!) of payments. Those loans are more than paid back, interest got waived if you worked in the Public Sector.
That is not ignoring SCOTUS.
Blanket forgiveness with no strings attached? I am with you, 100%. Should not happen and goes against the good of the Nation.
Forgiveness tied to National Service, such as the existing military and other "Corps" service? I am good with that. If the Nation determines that National service is worth offsetting National other obligations and both parties meet the requirements. As far as I am concerned Paid in full.
Public Service Loan Forgiveness, such as the existing programs that require work in an area determined to be of need, such as government, teaching, or another area. If the Nation determines that National service is worth offsetting National other obligations and both parties meet the requirements. In this case when these programs went into place, getting quality people to go into Government and Teaching was an issue. So, they made an incentive. As far as I am concerned Paid in full. Just for the record, this one requires ten years of payments AND 10 years of public service, it is not a free ride.
Future Programs? I can see a Public Service type for various areas of need, such as science, tech, medical and vocational areas (machinist, welding, heavy equipment, medical tech). If they serve a need, I have no problem with it.
I also understand that I am not the only arbiter of what is a need, a great example was in the movie Monuments Men. Was culture worth saving? Really good book. Is there a public value on that? Or do those only belong to the chosen that have private investment "watch collections" and only they because they deemed themselves worthy can enjoy it? But since they seem to believe that "they" should be the arbiter of what is worthy of public expenditures, I would assume that there is no public value.