The executive branch didn’t give out the loan themselves. The whole federal government did. The executive branch are only the administrator of the loan.
In this context, the executive branch is literally saying they don’t want to do their job. And a branch of government cannot legally refuse to do their job.
It’s the same legal theory as to why they can’t just declare that they won’t prosecute people for illegal immigration. They can choose to do a really bad job at stopping it, and can delay processing people for the crime of it (current backlog is >10 years for a court date if you skip the border today). But they cannot simply say they refuse to enforce immigration law.
In this context, the executive branch is literally saying they don’t want to do their job
That seems… tenuous? This strikes me as a traffic-ticket kind of situation where there are multiple equally legal courses of action that the official can choose to apply. If the department is charged with enforcing the terms of a loan contract and that contract contains a cancellation clause, on what basis is the court ruling that invoking cancellation is any different from acceptable actions like invoking a lien?
Those sort of loopholes are what contract law is all about. You can only use loopholes when the justification is that both parties could reasonably assume that was the intent of the words written on the document.
There’s no reading of a student loan document that leads to the conclusion that “this is free money from the government that other people will pay back for you”.
No this isn’t really it in this case. There was a law passed by congress called the heroes act. It explicitly gave the power to the executive branch to “waive or modify” loans in response to national emergencies. Corona virus pandemic was legally declared a national emergency, so Biden invoked the law to waive and modify the loans. The supreme court is really out here in left field, bending over backwards as to why the executive branch can’t use the heroes law in this way. John Roberts wrote some ridiculous stuff about how “waive” and “cancel” aren’t the same or something. The conservatives claim to be “textualists” but this is a false front, they just claim whatever partisan republican priority at the time they feel like.
Saying that the pandemic is some sort of emergency that can be addressed by forgiving student loan debt is… One of the most insane arguments I’ve seen.
Sure it might be legal. But it’s an excuse to twist the intent of the law to your own purposes and you know it. It’s no different than making jaywalking a felony so you can arrest anyone you want. It’s legal, but insane.
Your argument is literally the same argument Sovereign Citizens use. Where they have a collection of unrelated laws that they cite for the literal letter of the law, with no care for the context or the intent.
The pandemic caused serious financial burden to the average American, and the only reason why it wasn’t significantly worse for millions of people is because the federal government paused interest and repayment deadlines for federal student loans.
Loan forgiveness is another method of providing relief for people whose economic means took a hit as a result of the pandemic, and is something a lot of people were counting on the day it was announced. If this is unconstitutional, then so were paycheck protection program (PPP) loans that were forgiven by the Fed due to the pandemic as well. The only difference between the two is that the GOP likes big business owners who benefitted from PPP loans (and several GOP politicians and their families took out millions in PPP loans that were forgiven) and they don’t give a shit about college students who aren’t likely to vote red.
This is just another way the conservatives are “sticking it to the libs”, so they have something to brag about during next year’s election.
The executive branch didn’t give out the loan themselves. The whole federal government did. The executive branch are only the administrator of the loan.
In this context, the executive branch is literally saying they don’t want to do their job. And a branch of government cannot legally refuse to do their job.
It’s the same legal theory as to why they can’t just declare that they won’t prosecute people for illegal immigration. They can choose to do a really bad job at stopping it, and can delay processing people for the crime of it (current backlog is >10 years for a court date if you skip the border today). But they cannot simply say they refuse to enforce immigration law.
That seems… tenuous? This strikes me as a traffic-ticket kind of situation where there are multiple equally legal courses of action that the official can choose to apply. If the department is charged with enforcing the terms of a loan contract and that contract contains a cancellation clause, on what basis is the court ruling that invoking cancellation is any different from acceptable actions like invoking a lien?
Those sort of loopholes are what contract law is all about. You can only use loopholes when the justification is that both parties could reasonably assume that was the intent of the words written on the document.
There’s no reading of a student loan document that leads to the conclusion that “this is free money from the government that other people will pay back for you”.
No this isn’t really it in this case. There was a law passed by congress called the heroes act. It explicitly gave the power to the executive branch to “waive or modify” loans in response to national emergencies. Corona virus pandemic was legally declared a national emergency, so Biden invoked the law to waive and modify the loans. The supreme court is really out here in left field, bending over backwards as to why the executive branch can’t use the heroes law in this way. John Roberts wrote some ridiculous stuff about how “waive” and “cancel” aren’t the same or something. The conservatives claim to be “textualists” but this is a false front, they just claim whatever partisan republican priority at the time they feel like.
Saying that the pandemic is some sort of emergency that can be addressed by forgiving student loan debt is… One of the most insane arguments I’ve seen.
Sure it might be legal. But it’s an excuse to twist the intent of the law to your own purposes and you know it. It’s no different than making jaywalking a felony so you can arrest anyone you want. It’s legal, but insane.
Your argument is literally the same argument Sovereign Citizens use. Where they have a collection of unrelated laws that they cite for the literal letter of the law, with no care for the context or the intent.
The pandemic caused serious financial burden to the average American, and the only reason why it wasn’t significantly worse for millions of people is because the federal government paused interest and repayment deadlines for federal student loans.
Loan forgiveness is another method of providing relief for people whose economic means took a hit as a result of the pandemic, and is something a lot of people were counting on the day it was announced. If this is unconstitutional, then so were paycheck protection program (PPP) loans that were forgiven by the Fed due to the pandemic as well. The only difference between the two is that the GOP likes big business owners who benefitted from PPP loans (and several GOP politicians and their families took out millions in PPP loans that were forgiven) and they don’t give a shit about college students who aren’t likely to vote red.
This is just another way the conservatives are “sticking it to the libs”, so they have something to brag about during next year’s election.