On 7/1/23 10:01 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 5:42:29 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 6/30/23 10:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
What you won't hear is that everyone, including Joe knew this. It
was all a ploy to influence an election. And it worked. After the
stupid gullible young college debtors get the rug yanked out from
under them, Joe will just blame those damn republican appointed
justices for adhering to the constitution when it comes to
appropriations.
The decision relies on tortured logic in applying an excluded middle
reading of "modify or waive."
It's not even clear congress can grant that in their poorly written law without going through the constitutional amendment process.
"Modify or waive" (or "amend or waive") is standard language for laws
and there's nothing unConstitutional about the executive choosing how to perform legislatively authorized tasks:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/5141
Any Federal agency charged with the administration of a Federal
assistance program may, if so requested by the applicant State or local authorities, modify or waive, for a major disaster, such administrative conditions for assistance as would otherwise prevent the giving of
assistance under such programs if the inability to meet such conditions
is a result of the major disaster.
Fortunately for student loan holders, as seen in the NYT, the Higher
Education Act gives the secretary of education the power to “compromise, >> waive or release any right, title, claim, lien or demand, however
acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.”
Meaningless gibberish without congressional appropriation of the funding
as required by the constitution.
That might be the case if student loans were forgiven entirely, but not
for the small amounts proposed. The HEA path:
https://www.theregreview.org/2021/04/19/jackson-mark-executive-authority-forgive-student-loans-not-simple/
"Superficially, the question seems a simple one. Everyone agrees that
the Secretary of Education is empowered to make adjustments on federal
student loans. The debate turns on the precise meaning of provisions of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) which confer upon the Secretary
the power to “consent to modification” of, and to “compromise, waive, or release,” amounts due on certain student loans. These powers are often referred to as the Secretary’s “compromise authority.”
Advocates of broad executive authority to forgive student loans see in
these provisions unbridled discretion—that is, plenary compromise
authority. Under this view, the Secretary can forgive any amount of
student debt, including debts of borrowers perfectly capable of repaying
their loans.
The alternative—and traditional—view is that these provisions grant only constrained compromise authority, available where borrowers lack the
financial capacity to service their student loans or other equitable considerations warrant debt relief."
Here's part the SCOTUS majority took on:
"Similarly, the word “modify” can connote modest adjustments, although
it might also be understood to embrace full forgiveness."
But nothing in between, says Roberts.
"This kind of indeterminacy might lead some lawyers to conclude that the
courts should defer to the Secretary’s own interpretation of the
language, thus allowing Cardona to embrace plenary compromise authority."
Follow the link for good arguments for and against, a prescient
consideration of a court battle and a recommnendation.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)