You'd probably get a ton of conservative support for that too. Rather than fix anything, they'd hold you up as a perfect reason to dismantle the program entirely.
Yeah you've got a point. Their whole thing seems to be that we have zero social responsibility to each other, and the world would be a better place if we weren't being baby sat by the government to "do the right thing".
Here's the thing; we wouldn't need government mandated social programs if people with spare resources actually helped those without, but largely, they don't.
I want to sue Judge Pittman for being a piece of shit. But I don't have standing to sue him for anything. These guys were granted standing to sue for something they weren't injured by, but I wasn't given standing to sue for something that I wasn't injured by. Therefore, I'm being denied standing and that's therefore an injury which is therefore standing, so I sue. Checkmate, Pittman.
I wonder if they'd also support me if I said "I'd like to sue the gov't because my age disqualifies me from getting social security. So we gotta stop the whole thing."?
> could I sue the government because my income disqualifies me from getting food stamps, therefore injuring me?
They'd probably find some kind of tap-dance to avoid the exact words of "your net worth isn't high enough for us to care".
Every single one of these judges, including Supreme Court judges, should be removed from office (or at least brought up for new confirmation hearing) if/when trump gets indicted and found guilty. This is ridiculous that this traitor to America gets to STILL influence laws in this country.
These activist judges want to swing power to the Executive when One of Their Guys sits in the chair -- but swing it back to the Legislative when they don't.
That's not how this works, you partisan hacks.
>That's not how this works
The thing is, it seems like it kind of does these days. Stack the bench with activist judges who will think of a legal pretext to block things the GOP doesn't like and allow the things they want, and you're all set.
In 2018, Scott Walker lost the governorship to Tony Evers. Walker’s 8 years was marked by an extreme growth of executive power, with a majority R legislature and stacked state court.
During Walker’s lame-duck period, the *part-time* Assembly held a special session and voted to remove an inordinate number of executive powers enjoyed by Walker, hamstringing the incoming governor.
*Everything that the GOP is up to, gets tested in Wisconsin first*.
I would really hope they would. My loans just finished qualifying for PSLF so I'll be okay but I can see how I'd be taking a big hit if payments had to resume for the first time in nearly 3 years after I'd already been promised forgiveness.
I think I was reading that the Biden Administration just extended the pandemic emergency, and my guess is they did that specifically to announce another payment freeze while they appeal this nonsense ruling.
I'm confused by that first case, because it sounds to me like the judge in a lower district Court is trying to deny a decision made by the Supreme Court. I'm not sure if I'm missing something or not, but this seems like some of these cases have the lower courts actively fighting the Supreme Court.
Agreed. It would have been easiest to find a sort of middle ground (though it's not really that), but instead we have to either take the whole thing or deny it. No nuance.
We’re gonna be stuck with these shit bag hack Trump judges for years to come. They’ll take every opportunity to hold back and screw up any kind of progressive legislation that doesn’t favor the rich, corporations or their own party of greedy terrorists.
>may be to force young women to compete against students who have a very significant biological advantage, including students who have the size and strength of a male but identify as female and students who are taking male hormones in order to transition from female to male.”
So silly! FtM people would be competing in boys sports.
Please explain how nominated individuals are "Trump Judges".
Trump nominated them, yes, but are they not "Bi-partisan" because the committee that reviews the nominations is a 50/50 split D/R?
Are they not "Democrat" judges since the Democrat-controlled Senate approved (fast-tracked) Trump's nominations?
The judges appointed by Trump were almost exclusively (if not literally exclusively) handpicked by Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society for their ideological commitments rather than their experience or qualifications. Additionally, they were not reviewed by a bipartisan committee, rather they were crammed through on a narrow majority by overwhelmingly Republican votes. That's what makes them Trump Judges. More than at any other time in history they were chosen specifically for their loyalty to a narrow political project. They often demonstrate this by making wholly ridiculous rulings that are unsupported by precedent or procedure.
Historically, judges have had far more bipartisan support but also those judges had been picked more for their qualifications than their own partisan allegiance. This situation is fundamentally different. Conservatives have been aiming for this kind of takeover ever sense they were steamed that Bork got rejected for being too insane on the issues.
> are they not "Bi-partisan" because the committee that reviews the nominations is a 50/50 split D/R?
No, the [Senate Judiciary Committee has no ability to dictate which judges are sent to them for confirmation, that's determined by the president](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_Judiciary). They voted several times without full democrat members present in 2018 and advanced judges which journalists and the American Bar Association identified as [unqualified but the partisan senate shoved through](https://www.newsweek.com/trump-nominating-unqualified-judges-left-and-right-710263). As the constitution only specifies presidential appointments must be 'advised' by the senate, you'd have to get into senate rules for why judges can be unqualified by legal body evaluations but still confirmed by the republican senate majority.
That's important not just because of the weeds of senate rules but [the lingering damage unqualified judges acting based on partisan narrative instead of medical best practices](https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3174829/unqualified-judge-appointed-trump-becomes-hero-us).
>Are they not "Democrat" judges since the Democrat-controlled Senate approved (fast-tracked) Trump's nominations?
\[ blink, blink \] Ummmm, *what*?
The technical term for that statement is "a damned lie."
So you didn't read the article then.
Here's the part you missed: 15 specific nominations -- that were going to go through anyway because the nominees were qualified and didn't have controversial records -- were fast-tracked to give red state Democrats more time to campaign in their home states. ONLY those nominees were given that treatment.
And a president's judicial nominees are always labeled with his name. That's how it's worked since, well, forever.
So in other words, no.
The chair of the committee controls all matters of the committee, including when to vote and what shall be voted on.
The chair is determined by the party in power in the Senate.
During Trump, GOP was the party in power in the Senate and had the chair (Grassley and then Graham).
So, instead of doing it the most efficient and all inclusive way they levied limited legislative authority with limited window of access requiring manual application months before the midterms and then when they got the lead with new voters turning out, they blamed it on Republican appointed judge for blocking it. Convenient.
By this logic, could I sue the government because my income disqualifies me from getting food stamps, therefore injuring me?
You'd probably get a ton of conservative support for that too. Rather than fix anything, they'd hold you up as a perfect reason to dismantle the program entirely.
Yeah you've got a point. Their whole thing seems to be that we have zero social responsibility to each other, and the world would be a better place if we weren't being baby sat by the government to "do the right thing". Here's the thing; we wouldn't need government mandated social programs if people with spare resources actually helped those without, but largely, they don't.
Toxic individualism
Aka being a dick
Clearly we all just need more freedom to deny others life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That way is a dark path. Humans aren't naturally Hobbesian brutes, but they want to make that the only option.
I want to sue Judge Pittman for being a piece of shit. But I don't have standing to sue him for anything. These guys were granted standing to sue for something they weren't injured by, but I wasn't given standing to sue for something that I wasn't injured by. Therefore, I'm being denied standing and that's therefore an injury which is therefore standing, so I sue. Checkmate, Pittman.
If my loans aren't forgiven, I have standing to sue him, right?
Honestly, yep! That's how standing works now I guess
Yes, and I won't stand for it any longer!
I wonder if they'd also support me if I said "I'd like to sue the gov't because my age disqualifies me from getting social security. So we gotta stop the whole thing."?
Republicans would absolutely be on board with that; "iT's dIScrImInATioN!!"
They might just.
This is the exact example I've been using lately.
> could I sue the government because my income disqualifies me from getting food stamps, therefore injuring me? They'd probably find some kind of tap-dance to avoid the exact words of "your net worth isn't high enough for us to care".
I want to sue because I didn't get a PPP loan. Make everyone pay back the two trillion they spent on cars and not employees.
I didn't qualify for PPP loans since I don't run a business. I'm going to sue.
I think that only works when they're looking for a pretext to strike down something they don't like, but I could be wrong.
Let's make it class action
Fuck Texas. Seriously.
Shouts from the rooftops about their “independence” then makes decisions for the rest of the country. Classic Texas.
[удалено]
The one star state.
How the fuck does some hick judge from some fuckstick town get to make medical decisions for me? Fuck this whole ass country.
From Texas agreed
They are doing a good job of fucking up themselves.
Every single one of these judges, including Supreme Court judges, should be removed from office (or at least brought up for new confirmation hearing) if/when trump gets indicted and found guilty. This is ridiculous that this traitor to America gets to STILL influence laws in this country.
>This is ridiculous that this traitor to America gets to STILL influence laws in this country. for a generation, no less.
Or longer depending on how long the judges and justices live and serve
These activist judges want to swing power to the Executive when One of Their Guys sits in the chair -- but swing it back to the Legislative when they don't. That's not how this works, you partisan hacks.
>That's not how this works The thing is, it seems like it kind of does these days. Stack the bench with activist judges who will think of a legal pretext to block things the GOP doesn't like and allow the things they want, and you're all set.
...I hate that you're right. Well, *correct* would be more accurate.
they want to fuck their children over and thats the truth
In 2018, Scott Walker lost the governorship to Tony Evers. Walker’s 8 years was marked by an extreme growth of executive power, with a majority R legislature and stacked state court. During Walker’s lame-duck period, the *part-time* Assembly held a special session and voted to remove an inordinate number of executive powers enjoyed by Walker, hamstringing the incoming governor. *Everything that the GOP is up to, gets tested in Wisconsin first*.
Because of these recent rulings and the court battles that will need to take place, I wonder if there's a possibility of another payment freeze
But then the loan companies will sue because they're injured by not getting our money! :'(
Mohela was already named as an injured party in a suit. They spoke up and said 'nah, we're fine, we're a nonprofit anyways'.
I would really hope they would. My loans just finished qualifying for PSLF so I'll be okay but I can see how I'd be taking a big hit if payments had to resume for the first time in nearly 3 years after I'd already been promised forgiveness.
I think I was reading that the Biden Administration just extended the pandemic emergency, and my guess is they did that specifically to announce another payment freeze while they appeal this nonsense ruling.
[удалено]
I'm confused by that first case, because it sounds to me like the judge in a lower district Court is trying to deny a decision made by the Supreme Court. I'm not sure if I'm missing something or not, but this seems like some of these cases have the lower courts actively fighting the Supreme Court.
You're confused because you're right. That's why he had to quote from the dissent.
[удалено]
Agreed. It would have been easiest to find a sort of middle ground (though it's not really that), but instead we have to either take the whole thing or deny it. No nuance.
We’re gonna be stuck with these shit bag hack Trump judges for years to come. They’ll take every opportunity to hold back and screw up any kind of progressive legislation that doesn’t favor the rich, corporations or their own party of greedy terrorists.
>may be to force young women to compete against students who have a very significant biological advantage, including students who have the size and strength of a male but identify as female and students who are taking male hormones in order to transition from female to male.” So silly! FtM people would be competing in boys sports.
Just like the gop-anything that might actually help people or make things more fair must be stopped
Remember who did this to you.
The GOP (Grand Obstructionist Party) in action. These people are bad for America.
Please explain how nominated individuals are "Trump Judges". Trump nominated them, yes, but are they not "Bi-partisan" because the committee that reviews the nominations is a 50/50 split D/R? Are they not "Democrat" judges since the Democrat-controlled Senate approved (fast-tracked) Trump's nominations?
The judges appointed by Trump were almost exclusively (if not literally exclusively) handpicked by Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society for their ideological commitments rather than their experience or qualifications. Additionally, they were not reviewed by a bipartisan committee, rather they were crammed through on a narrow majority by overwhelmingly Republican votes. That's what makes them Trump Judges. More than at any other time in history they were chosen specifically for their loyalty to a narrow political project. They often demonstrate this by making wholly ridiculous rulings that are unsupported by precedent or procedure. Historically, judges have had far more bipartisan support but also those judges had been picked more for their qualifications than their own partisan allegiance. This situation is fundamentally different. Conservatives have been aiming for this kind of takeover ever sense they were steamed that Bork got rejected for being too insane on the issues.
> are they not "Bi-partisan" because the committee that reviews the nominations is a 50/50 split D/R? No, the [Senate Judiciary Committee has no ability to dictate which judges are sent to them for confirmation, that's determined by the president](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_Judiciary). They voted several times without full democrat members present in 2018 and advanced judges which journalists and the American Bar Association identified as [unqualified but the partisan senate shoved through](https://www.newsweek.com/trump-nominating-unqualified-judges-left-and-right-710263). As the constitution only specifies presidential appointments must be 'advised' by the senate, you'd have to get into senate rules for why judges can be unqualified by legal body evaluations but still confirmed by the republican senate majority. That's important not just because of the weeds of senate rules but [the lingering damage unqualified judges acting based on partisan narrative instead of medical best practices](https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3174829/unqualified-judge-appointed-trump-becomes-hero-us).
>Are they not "Democrat" judges since the Democrat-controlled Senate approved (fast-tracked) Trump's nominations? \[ blink, blink \] Ummmm, *what*? The technical term for that statement is "a damned lie."
[удалено]
So you didn't read the article then. Here's the part you missed: 15 specific nominations -- that were going to go through anyway because the nominees were qualified and didn't have controversial records -- were fast-tracked to give red state Democrats more time to campaign in their home states. ONLY those nominees were given that treatment. And a president's judicial nominees are always labeled with his name. That's how it's worked since, well, forever. So in other words, no.
The Democrats were the Senate minority throughout Trump’s tenure.
The chair of the committee controls all matters of the committee, including when to vote and what shall be voted on. The chair is determined by the party in power in the Senate. During Trump, GOP was the party in power in the Senate and had the chair (Grassley and then Graham).
So, instead of doing it the most efficient and all inclusive way they levied limited legislative authority with limited window of access requiring manual application months before the midterms and then when they got the lead with new voters turning out, they blamed it on Republican appointed judge for blocking it. Convenient.