For those hoping that the student loans would be paid off by the government prior the mid-term elections --- that hope is fading quickly. Student debt will not be canceled before October 23: Education Dept. https://www.businessinsider.com/when-will-student-debt-canceled-not-before-oct-23-biden-2022-10 In a new court filing, Biden said student debt will not be canceled before October 23. The filing was in response to a lawsuit filed by Republicans attempting to block the policy. A federal judge will hear arguments on whether to halt the debt relief this week. (More at above url)
Imagine that... Biden's student debt forgiveness web portal is so poorly built that it will ruin the Dems' mid-term chances. I mean, it's not like the Democrats have a history of launching non-functional websites to support major policy initiatives, right? How A Bad Website Could Kneecap Biden’s Push to Forgive Student Debt The administration is in a high-stakes rush to launch its portal for borrowers before the midterms. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/10/biden-student-debt-relief-site-dont-mess-this-up.html
Could be a strategy.... Announce the plan..get the media to promote it with out question.... Then find reality. Darn...website wont work Darn...court blocks it Darn ..Supreme court finds it illegal
If the whole thing shits the bed on steroids. NOT A PROBLEM!! Biden will just declare it an OUTSTANDING SUCCESS. Just as he did with the AFG botched withdrawal. Yeh. It's all good.
Supreme Court urged to halt Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...to-halt-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-plan/ A group of Wisconsin taxpayers on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to block the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program while an appeal plays out in a lower court. The emergency request, filed to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who handles emergency matters arising from Wisconsin, comes shortly after the administration began accepting applications for the program. The challengers, the Brown County Taxpayers Association, urged the court to rule that the president’s nationwide debt cancellation plan illegally encroaches on Congress’ exclusive spending power. “The assault on our separation of powers — and upon the principle that the spending power is vested solely in Congress — is extraordinary, and perhaps unprecedented,” they wrote in court papers. “We are witnessing a gargantuan increase in the national debt accomplished by a complete disregard for limitations on the constitutional spending authority.” President Biden announced in August that his administration planned to forgive $10,000 in student loan debt for those making under $125,000 annually and $20,000 for recipients of Pell grants, which assists students from lower-income families. The White House said its policy is authorized by a 2003 federal law known as the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act (HEROES Act), which both the Trump and Biden administrations have drawn upon to enact student debt relief policies amid the exigencies of the global pandemic. In a lawsuit filed in federal court earlier this month, the Wisconsin taxpayers argued that the HEROES Act does not authorize Biden’s debt cancellation policy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cost about $400 billion over 30 years. A U.S. District judge in Wisconsin dismissed the suit for lack of standing. An intermediate appeals court declined to halt that ruling while a formal appeal plays out, prompting the group’s emergency request to the Supreme Court. In their Wednesday filing, the challengers urged the Supreme Court to find that Biden’s debt cancellation policy would have major political and economic consequences, despite clear authorization by Congress — violating what the court last term dubbed the “major questions doctrine.” “There is no legal justification for this presidential usurpation of the constitutional spending power, which is reserved exclusively for Congress,” they wrote. “This step, which is certainly a major question … is predicated on a law passed under different circumstances to accomplish different purposes for different beneficiaries.”
It’s interesting this is filed in Barrett’s district, as she is a former college professor. We knew the legal challenges were coming through.
Plaintiff's standing is rather light and flaky. Not sure that will hold up. Be better to have a congressional committee or group or similar to bring the case as they are the legitimate protectors of legislative authority. Court would probably require a majority committee vote though - not easily done, just yet.
To be honest, no matter where standing may be and even under the best plead case I can’t tell if the conservatives have 3 or 6 votes.
Well, one does not have to be a conservative to necessarily believe that the issue is not for the president but for the legislature to decide. Refer to Nancy Pelosi for more on this. Or maybe that was your point. In any case, it is a point.