Posted On: Wednesday - July 5th 2023 1:35PM MST
In Topics:   University  US Feral Government  Zhou Bai Dien
Peak Stupidity has enough to write about that we not only can't write about all US Feral Gov't happenings, but I don't even follow some fairly important happenings that are Peak Stupidity concerns. I know there were a couple(?) of other SCROTUS cases decided along with the one most written about - OK, on my corner corner of the internet* - on Affirmative Action.
There was another favorable decision made during the same session - sincere thanks, Donald Trump - on the moral hazard and travesty known as university student loan forgiveness.
Yeah, I can't pay you right now, well, ever. "You'll get it when I get it.", what I'd been told by a guy who owed me money long ago, was a little better. Still, what was going on with his other financial dealings wasn't my problem. He did pay me back. The people in the picture above don't look like they'll ever be able to NET pay back anyone. By "net", I mean that they will likely work, if at all, in jobs that are parasitic of the taxpayers anyway.
I'm getting this off a totally, totally, I tell you, NON-political financial site, CNBC. (Didn't the financial types used to be less political?) CNBC reports Supreme Court strikes down Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. (Actually, though it deals in the politics more than the finances, this article by one Annie Nova, gives opinions from both sides.)
Near the beginning of this blog, over 6 years ago, Peak Stupidity had a series on the Global Financial Stupidity (financial doomer stuff) aspect of the student loan business. Besides offering an initial section, University Bubble101: , we provided a short remedial class, University Bubble 99 - Remedial Global Financial Stupidity at the U in 5 parts: Part 1 - - Part 2 - - Part 3 - - Ben Folds Five musical intermission, and Part 4 . More recently, with this forgiveness talk and actual efforts by Zhou Bai Dien we posted the one linked-to above along with AOC on Student Loan Forgiveness.
The SCROTUS never got the real bottom of the issue in this case, which will appear at the bottom of this post for you. They did at least call Bai Dien out for misuse of Executive Branch power. Since he is administrator of the Dept. of Education - which should NEVER have been there in the first place - he figures he can change Feral Education policy around to help
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Joe Biden’s federal student loan forgiveness plan, denying tens of millions of Americans the chance to get up to $20,000 of their debt erased.That's my bolding, as that's the point that's the actual Constitutional issue that was ruled on. In detail the case was about something, something, some Missouri financial outfit getting screwed, hence the State of Missouri getting screwed... whatever... the President doesn't have the power to just blow off university deadbeat graduates' debts to the taxpayers.
The ruling, which matched expert predictions given the justices’ conservative majority, is a massive blow to borrowers who were promised loan forgiveness by the Biden administration last summer.
The 6-3 majority ruled that at least one of the GOP-led six states that challenged the loan relief program had the proper legal footing, known as standing, to do so.
The high court said the president didn’t have the authority to instruct his Education secretary to cancel such a large amount of consumer debt without authorization from Congress.
"So let be scribbled, so let it be done!" - Chief Justice Roberts to AA SCROTUS reporter. But, but ...
Consumer advocates slammed the ruling, and accused the court of bias.Or, they could have refrained from signing on the dotted line, knowing getting a huge student loan for anything but certain engineering/science degrees is a stupid move. They've been betrayed alright, but that's by the university admission bullshitters who've been promoting this bubble for 3 decades or more. I think a lawsuit against the U's would not be much more solid, but it'd be pointing the finger in the right direction. (There's one other direction in which to point, again, discussed at the bottom here.)
“Today’s decision is an absolute betrayal to 40 million student loan borrowers counting on an impartial court to decide their financial future based upon the established rule of law,” said Persis Yu, deputy executive director at the Student Borrower Protection Center, an advocacy group.
We gotta give Senator Tim Scott a little credit:
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., a Republican presidential contender, called the loan forgiveness plan an “illegal and immoral” bid to “transfer student debt to taxpayers.”The amount of money involved is not insignificant, but then it's about 10% of the "CARES ACT", "HEROES ACT" and whatever other smarmy-named huge spending bills that have been in effect with the excuse of the King Flu. The Kung Flu excuse was used by a "brilliantly performing" lawyer on the side of Zhou Dien also, per this CNBC article. Here's a graph of the total amount of loan money outstanding:
“If you take out a loan, you pay it back,” Scott said in a statement.
As for those who've already taken advantages of the taxpayers:
Even before the Covid-19-related public health crisis, when the U.S. economy was enjoying one of its healthiest periods in history, there were still problems plaguing the federal student loan system."You'll get it when I get it."
Only about half of borrowers were in repayment in 2019, according to an estimate by Kantrowitz. Around 25% — or more than 10 million people — were in delinquency or default, and the rest had applied for temporary relief measures for struggling borrowers, including deferments or forbearances.
Good on the majority 6 SCROTUS judges here, but nobody got down to the gist of the matter, Constitutionally. Is a Federal Department of Education Constitutional? No. Is the loaning out of taxpayers' and future taxpayers' money to university students Constitutional? No, it most certainly is not. Is the absence of any that discussion due to that these judges must only base their decisions on the details of this specific case? Hell, maybe one of the opinions does mention the unConstitutionality of the whole shebang. I don't have time to read all that. If it were in there somewhere, I'd bet on it being in the writings of Clarence Thomas. Clarence, mah man!!
* See also Part 2.