- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Joe Biden did not ignore/defy the Supreme Court re: Student Loans
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:30 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's more of an issue for Congress. Congress defines what jurisdictions and procedures the lower courts have.
agreed
quote:
Again, this is ultimately an issue of Congress. Rule by EO is due to Congress largely abdicating its rulemaking portion of the federal government.
agreed
quote:
See OP. They have the power to analyze the constitutional or statutory propriety of the executive action.
agreed......but saying...he cant audit spending, make changes to spending or take down websites is not that....
you know that...its 100% court over reach maybe the biggest over reach ever by a lower court like this.
2
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:31 am to SlowFlowPro
I made it to that part that said…Posted by SlowFloPro and stopped reading.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
PSLF is a legitimate avenue to forgive student loans and was created by Congress in 2007 with GWB signing it into law.
Correct. When a loan is in forbearance, is the payor “making payments?”
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:41 am to SlowFlowPro
No one is reading all those lies. From Biden's own mouth, he did. Get fricked, fig.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:42 am to SlowFlowPro
Joe said himself that he was not listening to the courts ruling and he had other ways to accomplish it. If you don't like the talking point, take it up with Joe.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:44 am to SlowFlowPro
It’s amazing to continue to see you melt day after day while your “clients” pay for your 200 posts a day thinking you’re sorting g out their family issues.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:44 am to lsu777
quote:"I haven't commented on the merits of the actual case. "
agreed......but saying...he cant audit spending, make changes to spending or take down websites is not that....
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:45 am to The Eric
quote:
It’s amazing to continue to see you melt d
You define "melt" strangely.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:46 am to the808bass
quote:
When a loan is in forbearance, is the payor “making payments?”
That depends on how Congress defined it, and if they didn't, how the executive issues regulations and policy defining it (within the framework of the statutory authority).
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:46 am to SlowFlowPro
Right. And we’re back to lawyers making up shite.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:46 am to lsu777
quote:SFP knows this.
agreed......but saying...he cant audit spending, make changes to spending or take down websites is not that.
It is his usual tactic of making a statement that every single case like this is the exact same.
“The Republican’s shopped around for someone to rule on Biden’s plan to mandate all government employees receive a vaccine and to unilaterally forgive student loans. That is the exact same thing as Democrats shopping around for a judge to force the government to put transgender care websites back up.”
The contrast between the actual characters of the cases are so vastly different that to even remotely compare them makes the statement of “comparing apples to racecars” inapplicable.
SFP’s inability to focus on minutiae or contrasting details while constantly asserting that he is correct in every thread he is in is one of the major issues I have with him.
It is his fervor to remain “non-partisan” that he is unable to actual give an actual opinion on anything, resulting in idiotic hijacks of 99% of the threads he posts in.
This post was edited on 2/12/25 at 8:51 am
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Irrelevant distinction from lower courts.
Really? So if a lower court ruled against an action, it obviously may be appealed... Correct?
If the USSC rules against someone, to what court does one appeal?
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:47 am to texag7
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:48 am to SlowFlowPro
DV 168
This post was edited on 2/12/25 at 8:49 am
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:49 am to Scruffy
quote:
SFP knows this.
I'm waiting for the appellate ruling, but I'd wager they agree.
quote:
It is his usual tactic of making a statement that every single case like this is the exact same.
No. It's to prevent digression (like you're doing right now) from the point of the thread (which is agnostic to a discussion of the underlying merits).
quote:
“The Republican’s shopped around for someone to rule on Biden’s plan to mandate all government employees receive a vaccine and to unilaterally forgive student loans. That is the exact same thing as Democrats shopping around for a judge to force the government to put websites back up.”
Now you're trying to create a new digression. Dopamine deprived this morning?
quote:
SFP’s inability to focus on minutiae or contrasting details
I do, when it's called for.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:50 am to SlowFlowPro
It seems like the majority of people on PT think you melt as well.
Which would mean you define “melt” strangely.
Which would mean you define “melt” strangely.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:51 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Always defending the lefts actions
Always melting about Orange
Yet you are 100% not a lefty totally for cereal
We should have a GFM set up to pay him to create a counter argument for himself. Would be funny to watch, as we all know that if you pay a lawyer enough he'll find a way to find a counter, even if its his own.
If he says he couldn't, then thats proof he's just touting his own far leftie views.
This post was edited on 2/12/25 at 8:54 am
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:52 am to LCA131
quote:
Really? So if a lower court ruled against an action, it obviously may be appealed... Correct?
Yes and the legal decision changes with each tier of the decision-making tree.
These preliminary injunctions haven't even gotten to a full trial court decision yet.
quote:
If the USSC rules against someone, to what court does one appeal?
None. That's the top-tier of the decision-making tree. They can overrule the district or circuit level. Nobody is disputing that.
Until these escalatory review tiers rule, the district court ruling is binding.
When it reaches a new tier, that ruling is binding.
The apex is the Supreme Court.
Regardless of which tier the decision remains, the President/executive is bound to follow the decision until a new tier rules. Trying to pretend that a President only has to follow the Supreme Court is bad rhetoric at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:52 am to The Eric
quote:
It seems like the majority of people on PT think you melt as well.
Emotional thinking has overtaken the board as well as echo chamber group think. That's exactly why I try to educate them with threads like this.
Posted on 2/12/25 at 8:52 am to SlowFlowPro
Did you know that Trump has also never ignored a judicial order? I don’t know why the media and all the extremist leftists like you are bleeding over something that hasn’t even happened.
Page 4 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News