Your thoughts on SCOTUS decision on student loan denial

[Wrestleknownothing]

51 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

So basically, when you boil it down, the advantage comes nor from college but from the work/talen/merit you put in during hs

Its like college wrestling. If you bring in the best, you can be the best. If you bring in the best and have them taught by the best, you will be the best.

Schools like Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, MIT, etc. bring in the best and have the best professors, so they produce the best grads.

Virtuous cycle.

[VakAttack]

1 hour ago, Husker_Du said:

So basically, when you boil it down, the advantage comes nor from college but from the work/talen/merit you put in during hs

Sort of.  Beyond just the legacy admission problem you and others have discussed in this thread, you also have the issue of gifted students from poor communities with fewer resources, and how do you sift thru and find them?  Their scholastic resumes aren't going to be AS good, but that doesn't mean they aren't superior academic prospects.

[Husker_Du]

i'm anti-legacy admits, but how pervasive is that problem?

i see (mostly lefties) railing against them but how many per year are we talking? my assumption is that it isn't significant. 

gifted students from poor communities with fewer resources, and how do you sift thru and find them? 

they apply?

[billyhoyle]

3 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

So basically, when you boil it down, the advantage comes nor from college but from the work/talen/merit you put in during hs

Exactly, except it is possible to go to a community college or state school that admits almost everyone (like Arizona State), work hard in college, and be very successful as well. But the real problem is when you have predatory colleges convince people who probably aren’t interested in college to take out a ton of debt.
 

But you’re right that this whole thing is solved if students were better prepared coming out of HS. 

1 hour ago, Husker_Du said:

i'm anti-legacy admits, but how pervasive is that problem?

i see (mostly lefties) railing against them but how many per year are we talking? my assumption is that it isn't significant. 

gifted students from poor communities with fewer resources, and how do you sift thru and find them? 

they apply?

It’s a huge problem at the ivies and other elite universities. Not really a problem at what I consider to be the “very good” universities. Legacy admit is a bit of a misnomer though because it’s not really the students who are children of alumni that get a big advantage, but the ones who are kids of the very rich that make donations to buy admission spots. 
 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by billyhoyle

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Husker_Du said:

i'm anti-legacy admits, but how pervasive is that problem?

i see (mostly lefties) railing against them but how many per year are we talking? my assumption is that it isn't significant. 

gifted students from poor communities with fewer resources, and how do you sift thru and find them? 

they apply?

It came out in the Supreme Court case that Harvard's admission rate for legacies is 34% and for non-legacies it is 6%. So legacy status is a big leg up. I always knew it was my father's fault I didn't get into Harvard.

[mspart]

I just read Jonathan Turley's take on this and Constitutionally he is correct in my layman's' opinion.  Granted I am no scholar on Constitutional Law, but I don't think you need to be to understand that the House controls the purse, Reps have to be 25 years old minimum, Senators 30 years old, and the President 35 years old.  It really is fairly straight forward.   I will highlight just a few key paragraphs of his to show my point.  

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4076993-constitutional-cruelty-how-democrats-now-oppose-a-democratic-process-on-student-loans/

Constitutional cruelty: Democrats now oppose a democratic process on student loans

by Jonathan Turley, Opinion Contributor - 07/01/23 10:30 AM ET

“Disappointing and cruel.” Those words from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) after the Supreme Court’s rejection of the Biden administration’s loan forgiveness program may say more than the opinion itself.

The court’s “cruelty” was in supporting Congress’s core constitutional power of the purse. Schumer’s disappointment in having to address and vote on the forgiveness of hundreds of billions of dollars in loans speaks volumes about the collapse of our constitutional values.

... In his response to the court, Biden declared that “the hypocrisy is stunning” and that the court had “misinterpreted the Constitution.” However, during the last presidential campaign, Biden himself acknowledged that this effort would be unconstitutional. 

Chief Justice John Roberts even cited former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in the opinion for stating the obvious: “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.”

... Biden was undeterred after that ruling and promised, “I will stop at nothing to find other ways to deliver [the] relief.” Perhaps, but the Constitution has once again stopped him from becoming a government unto himself.

.... That brings us back to Schumer. James Madison designed a constitutional system with a frank understanding of the factional and petty impulses of politicians. Yet he believed that he had created a system of checks and balances that could rely on the institutional self-interest of members to jealously protect their powers under Article I. Madison believed that, despite party or ideological affiliations, “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

In all of his study of the ancient Greek and Roman states and contemporary politics, Madison never encountered the likes of Schumer and his colleagues. Their ambition runs elsewhere, and they view the support of their authority to be an act of constitutional “cruelty.” They are calling on a president to turn them into institutional nonentities — legislators who engage in a type of empty performance art as the president governs alone.

It is a curious position for those who have campaigned on protecting “democracy.” These same figures are now calling on a president to avoid presenting this major program to Congress because they know that the majority would oppose it. 

... All of this is meant to avoid the one option left to the president — going to Congress. After all, the last thing you want in the defense of democracy is to have an outbreak of democratic process.

... What is left, to paraphrase Schumer, is a cruel joke. But the ultimate joke is on the American people. Half of their representatives in Congress are struggling to make themselves (and those they represent) entirely irrelevant at this key moment. That is a constitutional debt that should not be forgiven.

This is an interesting opinion, because he is going at the D's for trying to go around the Constitution to get this thing done.   These are the same D's that cried "we will lose our Democracy" if Rs are voted in.   It is the height of hypocrisy to say that and now say that the right thing is to not do what democracy dictates.   Go through Congress, get it appropriately funded, and then give it to the President to sign.   

Losing our Democracy is allowing the Executive to do what he/she wants whenever he/she wants.   And that is what the D's are advocating for now along with throwing their own legislative power away.   Turley is not taking sides I don't think, he is just showing how the whole thing was unconstitutional and those that are boldly declaring this is a miscarriage of justice, when it is so apparent it is not, are the Ds.  He is shows that these Ds are not jealously holding onto their power but instead abdicating it.  Maybe surprised is the wrong word.  

mspart

 

[Plasmodium]

Politics at its finest.  The Republicans look like cruel and greedy scrooges while the Democrats look like victims - much the same as the serfs indebted to a cruel and greedy system. Didn't cost a dime and nets millions of votes while the Republicans joyfully declare Pyrrhic victory. Biden 2024 - check but not quite mate in his game of 4d chess.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Plasmodium

[Paul158]

On 7/2/2023 at 11:43 AM, Husker_Du said:

isn't part of the problem the decreasing value of a college degree?

at one time it put you ahead - got a good job that made up the expense pretty much out of the gate.

 

Absolutely Yes. Colleges are selling a product that is way  over priced and in some instances worthless.

[mspart]

1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

Politics at its finest.  The Republicans look like cruel and greedy scrooges while the Democrats look like victims - much the same as the serfs indebted to a cruel and greedy system. Didn't cost a dime and nets millions of votes while the Republicans joyfully declare Pyrrhic victory. Biden 2024 - check but not quite mate in his game of 4d chess.

Again, this is the problem.  Calling Biden's play as 4D chess is 1) not based in reality as he can't play 2D chess with any amount of skill and 2) this is saying that circumventing the Constitution is a good thing, which it is not.  

What is wrong with getting a bill through Congress and signing it?   There is nothing inherently wrong with that.   The idea  of loan forgiveness stinks in my opinion but it could become law.   The Supreme Court could not use Constitutional reasoning to take it down, I don't think they would take it up, other than to say Congress passes bills and if signed they become law.   Just like everyone knew before.  

Trying to do this some sneaky way and calling that 4D chess is not what it is.   You could call it dishonest, you could call it anti-democratic, you just call it just plain wrong.   And you would be correct in all three cases.    What it is not is 4D chess. 

mspart

[headshuck]

A whole generation of voters being manipulated is not much different than those that feel strongly about abortion, immigration, economy, education, etc.

[Plasmodium]

9 minutes ago, mspart said:

Again, this is the problem.  Calling Biden's play as 4D chess is 1) not based in reality as he can't play 2D chess with any amount of skill and 2) this is saying that circumventing the Constitution is a good thing, which it is not.  

What is wrong with getting a bill through Congress and signing it?   There is nothing inherently wrong with that.   The idea  of loan forgiveness stinks in my opinion but it could become law.   The Supreme Court could not use Constitutional reasoning to take it down, I don't think they would take it up, other than to say Congress passes bills and if signed they become law.   Just like everyone knew before.  

Trying to do this some sneaky way and calling that 4D chess is not what it is.   You could call it dishonest, you could call it anti-democratic, you just call it just plain wrong.   And you would be correct in all three cases.    What it is not is 4D chess. 

mspart

Of course it is dishonest.  It is politics.  I'm not convinced you understand the actual intentions of his executive order.

[headshuck]

I wonder what percentage of young voters will see they’ve been used as a political pawn? Combine this with inflation, rising interest rates, urban destabilization, funding wars, etc., some might feel they were better off with the prior administrations policies.

[VakAttack]

14 minutes ago, headshuck said:

I wonder what percentage of young voters will see they’ve been used as a political pawn? Combine this with inflation, rising interest rates, urban destabilization, funding wars, etc., some might feel they were better off with the prior administrations policies.

"My political opposition are all foolish pawns, unlike the independent thinkers on my side of the aisle."

[headshuck]

Well duh.

But it seems we have some new factors in play this time around. We’re sending billions to Ukraine instead of paying off college debt is just an example.

[Plasmodium]

3 hours ago, headshuck said:

Well duh.

But it seems we have some new factors in play this time around. We’re sending billions to Ukraine instead of paying off college debt is just an example.

It is going to take decades for Russia to recover from a war they started and nobody else wanted, with no American blood shed.  One of a few examples of bipartisan support.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

18 hours ago, headshuck said:

Haha, nice try. This forum is chock full of Twitter links. Mike Parrish made a daily habit of posting Twitter links to rile up conservatives. Followed by an lololol of course.

How about you stop following me and leaving me personal messages.

 

"Haha, nice try"?

Wake up. Twitter changed policy. What you're referring to is the past. Snap out of it.

"Following" and leaving PM's? Neither is happening, you weirdo. 

 

[mspart]

On 7/3/2023 at 4:04 PM, Plasmodium said:

Of course it is dishonest.  It is politics.  I'm not convinced you understand the actual intentions of his executive order.

Actual intention of his executive order?   Because he couldn't get the loan forgiveness through Congress, he decided to go it alone, which is not constitutional.   His intention was to reduce the burden on those with student loans, while at the same time, increasing the power of the Executive with executive orders as if they were legitimate law.  Obama did it after saying he couldn't do it constitutionally with the Dreamers.   Biden acted upon that same playbook.  Fortunately for all of us, SCOTUS just put Biden in his place.   Unfortunately, they did not so the same with the Obama EO.  It is telling that Biden is saying he will get it done by hook or by crook regardless of SCOTUS opinion.  

Intention of it was a power move.   Pure and simple.  Buying votes and increasing the power of the executive. 

mspart

[Paul158]

13 minutes ago, mspart said:

Actual intention of his executive order?   Because he couldn't get the loan forgiveness through Congress, he decided to go it alone, which is not constitutional.   His intention was to reduce the burden on those with student loans, while at the same time, increasing the power of the Executive with executive orders as if they were legitimate law.  Obama did it after saying he couldn't do it constitutionally with the Dreamers.   Biden acted upon that same playbook.  Fortunately for all of us, SCOTUS just put Biden in his place.   Unfortunately, they did not so the same with the Obama EO.  It is telling that Biden is saying he will get it done by hook or by crook regardless of SCOTUS opinion.  

Intention of it was a power move.   Pure and simple.  Buying votes and increasing the power of the executive. 

mspart

Your last sentence says it all.  Buying VOTES and increasing the power of the executive branch.

[jross]

Which type of 4D chess is this?  The sarcastic kind where the strategy does not make sense and is doomed for failure, or the clever kind, where Biden is positioning himself as the student debt hero against the villain republicans?

[Plasmodium]

32 minutes ago, mspart said:

Actual intention of his executive order?   Because he couldn't get the loan forgiveness through Congress, he decided to go it alone, which is not constitutional.   His intention was to reduce the burden on those with student loans, while at the same time, increasing the power of the Executive with executive orders as if they were legitimate law.  Obama did it after saying he couldn't do it constitutionally with the Dreamers.   Biden acted upon that same playbook.  Fortunately for all of us, SCOTUS just put Biden in his place.   Unfortunately, they did not so the same with the Obama EO.  It is telling that Biden is saying he will get it done by hook or by crook regardless of SCOTUS opinion.  

Intention of it was a power move.   Pure and simple.  Buying votes and increasing the power of the executive. 

mspart

You are missing the part where Biden set up - in his mind - a no lose situation.  Democrats want to make higher education more affordable, so his executive order is perfectly consistent with supporting the policies of Democrats.  Had the order passed legal muster, he perhaps would have bought some votes.  Not how it turned out, so he didn't buy anything.  However, in the minds of millions the Republicans look like absolute schmucks.  Big win.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Plasmodium

[VakAttack]

The Biden angle of this is really simple and y'all are trying to make it complicated.  It was a campaign promise, he tried very publicly to deliver on it and Republicans killed it.  Straight-forward politics.

[Offthemat]

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts cited comments by ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"People think that [the President] has the power for debt forgiveness," she said in 2021. "He does not."
 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-supreme-courts-conservative-chief-justice-cited-nancy-pelosi-in-his-opinion-striking-down-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-program/ar-AA1dgAYP
 

The Orwellian spinners will try to make every biden failure look like a strategic accomplishment of competence.  They may soon wish they’d done more to protect the justices from being attacked at their homes.  

[VakAttack]

3 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts cited comments by ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"People think that [the President] has the power for debt forgiveness," she said in 2021. "He does not."
 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-supreme-courts-conservative-chief-justice-cited-nancy-pelosi-in-his-opinion-striking-down-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-program/ar-AA1dgAYP
 

The Orwellian spinners will try to make every biden failure look like a strategic accomplishment of competence.  They may soon wish they’d done more to protect the justices from being attacked at their homes.  

This is just classic political debate.  If Nancy Pelosi said anything left-leaning, people who agree with your apparent political leanings would either ignore it or blast it.  Because she agrees with your pre-existing opinion, her words now have value?

 

EDIT:  I'm not even sayin that you're the only person or that conservatives are the only ones who do this.  I'm just talking about the value of this type of discussion without something of substance beyond their statements.  She also issued this (also valueless) statement after the decision:

https://pelosi.house.gov/news/press-releases/pelosi-statement-on-supreme-court-decision-on-president-biden-s-student-loan

Edited July 5, 2023 by VakAttack

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Paul158 said:

Your last sentence says it all.  Buying VOTES and increasing the power of the executive branch.

I am shocked that there is gambling going on here,

This isn't some uniquely Biden thing. Every President in the history of presidents has used executive orders.

And some have been as a direct result of a campaign promise (i.e. buying VOTES). And some have been challenged in court. Including Trump's travel bans and orders against sanctuary jurisdictions (fulfilling campaign promises).

Everything is buying votes. Every time a politician says something you like they are buying your vote.

Hopefully you can now un-clutch those pearls.

[mspart]

Like Obama with Dreamers, seeing he couldn't get it through Congress, he decided to do it by EO.   The problem with EOs is that they have the seeming force of law until such time as it is challenged and stopped by a judge or justice somewhere. 

That is really the root of it.  EOs are supposed to be a declaration to the executive branch on how to operate within the bounds of established law.   They are not supposed to be law and Constitutionally speaking, they cannot be law. 

Sure it was a campaign promise designed to buy votes.   But it also was a naked attempt to gain power for the executive branch at the detriment to the Legislative branch.   SCOTUS was right to call a halt to this.   The lower judge was right to put a halt to this until SCOTUS could weigh in.   Go through Congress.   If the people vote in people opposed to this, then the people have spoken. 

mspart