Politics And Current Events

[Gaucho]

Give him a break, he tends to hold off until his COB. He's not a schmuck like us spending daylight hours complaining about the end of work-from-home ruining our productivity while we add 50 posts a day to our personal tallies on a chat board.

Nah, I have a sleep-cycle issue where I'm an extreme night owl, and my firm doesn't really care about when I work, so when I start posting in the late afternoon or early evening, that's because I just started working. That's also why you'll see posts from me at like 4:00 am eastern time.

Does this issue bother you or is it something you don't mind?

[Shyster]

Does this issue bother you or is it something you don't mind?

It sucks if I have to do something early in the morning, because for me that's the equivalent of a regular person waking up at like 3:00 am, but most of the time it doesn't matter. I would say that I'm probably more irritated than most that the grocery stores that used to be open 24 hours are no longer open 24 hours. Same with fast-food places that used to be open to 2:00 am but now close at 10:00.

I've unintentionally scared the heck out of quite a few janitorial workers in my building because they don't expect that someone will still be here after midnight.

[nocera]

[Shyster]

Like like that was another suit that was attempting taxpayer standing. No surprise that it was dismissed.

[willeyeam]

Isn't that the point

[Shyster]

None of these decisions are evaluating the merits of the loan-cancellation plan, such as whether the Biden administration has the ability to execute that plan via executive order, or whether the cited statutes authorize such a plan. Rather, the court decisions are based on whether the plaintiffs in the cases have standing to challenge the law. Federal standing is a complex concept, but basically it says that not just anyone can sue over a government policy or program; rather, only those directly and sufficiently injured by the policy or program can sue. That plaintiffs are having a problem establishing standing is not a surprise, because the Biden administration has been modifying the loan-cancellation plan (which still doesn't have an official written executive order) on the fly in overt attempts to defeat standing. For this case, the plaintiffs argued that they had standing because they would pay state taxes on the forgiveness, which would be automatic and mandatory. After they filed suit, the Biden administration changed the loan-cancellation plan such that it would no longer be mandatory and people could opt out. That doesn't mean the rest of the plan is legal. It was done purely to deny these plaintiffs standing to sue and thereby deny judicial review of the loan-cancellation plan. Bascially, the Biden administration is doing whatever it can to keep judges from actually being able to look at the merits of this program.

[willeyeam]

Again that's the point. If no one is harmed, then this ain't going nowhere

[Shyster]

Everyone is harmed by the government breaking the law and spending taxpayer money on an illegal program. The problem is that the SCOTUS has said that taxpayer status is not enough for standing (it absolutely is enough for standing in Pennsylvania for suits over the state government). It's not that no one is harmed; it's that the courts have created a very narrow definition of "harmed."

For example, remember when Trump ordered that money be taken from other programs and spent it on his stupid border wall? Suits from groups like the Sierra Club and ACLU that sought to block that ran into the same standing issues as we have here. The SCOTUS denied several applications from plaintiffs who were seeking the exact same sort of emergency relief that they just denied for the loan-cancellation suit. But eventually, a court upheld standing and blocked the program. Trump left office before the SCOTUS could hear the merits, and Biden immediately stopped the wall, so the case ended up moot before there was a merits ruling. But would anyone here say that Trump should have been permitted to spend whatever he wanted on his border wall because no one was harmed by that spending?

[obhave]

@Shyster - who would have standing?

[Shyster]

I think for the student loans, the suit brought by Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina is the most likely to succeed. Those states basically have state offices that process and manage certain student loans that would be subject to forgiveness, and the forgiveness of those loans would cost them fees. While a district judge held that they lacked standing, I think there's a very good chance that decision will be reversed on appeal by the Eighth Circuit.

Both the Biden student-loan dispute and the Trump border-wall dispute highlight a hole in current standing doctrine, which the SCOTUS will eventually have to resolve. It is well-accepted that it is Congress that has the power of the purse and chooses what to spend money on. The president is then responsible for spending the money as allocated by Congress. But if a president goes "off the reservation" and starts spending money in ways that Congress arguably never authorized, current standing jurisprudence makes it very difficult for anyone to file a lawsuit to stop that behavior. Currently, it is not enough to show that the government is doing something that harms everyone—even if it is perfectly clear that what's going on does in fact harm everyone. Rather, a plaintiff must show that he or she has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct, personal injury that is over and above a general injury. But for some situations, it's very difficult to point to any persons who are harmed more than anyone else in the public at large. That was the problem for the Trump wall, and it's the problem for the student loans.

I don't think it makes sense to have a rule that basically says, "Sure, the president did something illegal, but no one can do anything about it because it hurt everyone equally." Pennsylvania's rules on standing have an exception where even if a particular plaintiff might not squarely meet the requirements for standing, a court can nonetheless permit a suit to go forward if:

1. The governmental action would otherwise go unchallenged;
2. Those directly and immediately affected by the complained of expenditures are beneficially affected and not inclined to challenge the action;
3. Judicial relief is appropriate;
4. Redress through other channels is unavailable; and
5. No other persons are better situated to assert the claim.

See, e.g., Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth, 888 A.2d 655, 662 (Pa. 2005). There is no "the governmental action would otherwise go unchallenged" exception for federal standing, but I certainly think there should be.

[dodint]

You mean: "Sure, the president did something illegal, but no one can do anything about it because no one was hurt."

[Shyster]

Let's say Trump took $100 million that had been allocated for cancer research at the NIH and and distributed that money exclusively to MAGA election deniers. Would you still argue that no one should be able to sue to block that? I mean, it didn't cost you anything other than the expenditure of your tax money on something illegal, so what's the harm to you.

[dodint]

We'll, it was Trump, so, obviously it should be blocked.

[Pavel Bure]

Let's say Trump took $100 million that had been allocated for cancer research at the NIH and and distributed that money exclusively to MAGA election deniers. Would you still argue that no one should be able to sue to block that? I mean, it didn't cost you anything other than the expenditure of your tax money on something illegal, so what's the harm to you.

Is this about his charity that he stole money from cancer patients?

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

I feel like Dan Crenshaw could’ve picked a cooler looking eyepatch than one he has

[Tomas]

Kyrie Irving just accomplished the full "Barbra Streisand effect." The book that lead to the movie he promoted now No. 1, 2, and 4 on Amazon bestseller list...

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Boo ... 3377866011

[tifosi77]

"$0.00 Free with Audible trial"

[count2infinity]

At first I was like “nah… they wouldn’t wear a MAGA hat like that. It’s like spray painting a house ‘Biden 2020!’ In a ‘I am antifa’ shirt.” Then again… I’ve seen some of these psychos houses and pick up trucks. It all seems a bit too on the nose because it is.

Anyways. Hope they find him.

[NTP66]

Imagine being so triggered that other people having fun doing what they want to do in private earns you a felony.

[King Colby]

What's the yellow stuff on the bill of his MAGA hat mine doesn't have that

[willeyeam]

That's the deluxe version you get 15 extra patriot points

[faftorial]

Dude throws his mc's like a girl.

[mikey]

Swings the bat like a school boy b*tch too...

[meow]

I hope they catch him then someone throws a molotov into his jail cell

[NTP66]

We’re calling them MC’s now, meow.