big jonny
Max KennerlyIn the student loan case, SCOTUS held that the text of the law passed by Congress allowed Biden to do exactly what he did, but the GOP Justices didn't feel like he should, and therefore they were not going to let him.
Paul Botts@maxkennerly Just read the opinion and the dissents and....for me, the majority has the better argument. "the words 'waive or modify' do not mean 'completely rewrite' " -- that seems pretty obviously correct.
OpenDNA⚙️@PaultheFossil @maxkennerly Please consult a dictionary, because you do not know what "waive" means. You are literally, definitionally, wrong.
Darwin Woodka@PaultheFossil @maxkennerly what exactly does "waive" mean to you?
@darwinwoodka @maxkennerly
This was a legal proceeding, in courts of law. What's relevant is the meaning of a given term in statute or case law, full stop.
And anyway that particular point is moot in this case because the Biden Administration _agreed_ that "waiver", as used in the HEROES Act, cannot refer to “waiv[ing] loan balances” or “waiving the obligation to repay” a student loan. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 9, 64.
david m kim@maxkennerly maybe he should just do it again ... but bigger.
Realworldrj@maxkennerly mitch didnt block the black guy and pack the courts with federalist society shitbirds for nothing
E Warren Fan@maxkennerly why not redo but cite the 1965 Act instead of Heroes ? And just do it.
Sirpushalot@maxkennerly justice for sale
Steve Hersey@maxkennerly
Sounds about right. Subtext: "Textualism means whatever we say it means, regardless of what the text sys or what Congress intended."
Sounds about right. Subtext: "Textualism means whatever we say it means, regardless of what the text sys or what Congress intended."
Paul Koenig@maxkennerly @alysondecker Following the well tested and well respected legal doctrine of “I know it when I see it.”
Jack Kissir@maxkennerly The Supreme Court sucks!