The latest battle over student loans to reach the justices underscores the procedural, substantive, and optical consequences of how the Court has routinized emergency applications
As a parent of a newly graduated student who is currently enrolled in the SAVE program, I can’t say how much I appreciate your explanation/summary of this complicated, convoluted legal argument. Though am pretty depressed after reading this, thank you very much for the understandable-to-a-layperson info😉
Wow. Very impressive dissection of the issues and adjacent rulings, pertaining to the circuit's arguments and SCOTUS's docket. Happy Monday indeed. We are in this together.
Re note 1, "But what do I know?" That the SG of TX is a disrespectful, rude, intentionally offensive asshat. BTW, what's this with a "letter" -- with a request for substantive relief, no less? Do the Ct's Rules provide for that?
You've just told me more about my student loan than the government, the private lender who took over my federal loan, or the lender who took over from them have ever told me. I should pay you.
PS:
A slow, generational return to blood-based power worried us, the people, enough to expressly bar titles of nobility in separate clauses for Congress & for states. The text only allows titles needed to conduct the people's business. These must plainly state an office currently held. The title stays with the office to keep us one people, not two.
"The Honorable" confers no power today. It may sound harmless enough. But it separates us into two classes and favors one. People already continue to use it after leaving office. What might it mean in 200 years? We didn't leave that problem for posterity to walk back.
Representative Pelosi recently coerced Congress into creating a post-service title of nobility, "Speaker Emeritus," against the Constitution's express prohibition.
Congress broke the law.
Related PS2:
They've broken the law before. And the current propaganda campaign to term-limit justices without Article V is intense. I hope people will bear in mind that justices WANT term limits.
Presidents and members of Congress become consultants on leaving office. What kind of consultant? One who uses their former status (and possibly even their knowledge of classified information) to exert influence on current officers for the benefit of private entities. These entities pay to seven or even eight figures for this influence. Since the public no longer pays, these salaries are none of our business.
We need to address this problem.
In the meantime the last thing we need is to establish consultants to the Supreme Court.
What do we need? Enforcement.
28 USC §§351-361 break the supreme law, and badly.
They strip the House of the sole power vested in Article I §2 to investigate the people's Amendment I grievance petitions to impeach any US judge, justice, or magistrate.
And revest this sole power where? In the jurists themselves. The Judicial Conference of the United States is made up of appellate US jurists and justices. It is headed by the Chief Justice. People calling for House investigations of, for example, Justice Thomas, are out of luck. the enforcement of good behavior is now entirely political.
We need to repeal 28 USC §§352-361. We also need to repeal §351(c), replacing its text requiring anyone who receives such a petition to send it to the judiciary with text requiring sending it to the House of Representatives.
As courts like to excuse themselves from rules and laws, we should also demand a §351(d) spelling out that it applies to every US court established under any clause. We should expressly include the Supreme Court.
While we're at it we must dissolve FISC, the court whose establishment violates Article I §5's Secrecy clause barring secrecy in any branch but Congress. We did without it for 200 years. We can do without it now.
As a parent of a newly graduated student who is currently enrolled in the SAVE program, I can’t say how much I appreciate your explanation/summary of this complicated, convoluted legal argument. Though am pretty depressed after reading this, thank you very much for the understandable-to-a-layperson info😉
Steve,
Wow. Very impressive dissection of the issues and adjacent rulings, pertaining to the circuit's arguments and SCOTUS's docket. Happy Monday indeed. We are in this together.
Marvelous description of the growing self-indulged growth of SCOTUS fertilizing the growth of Standing to the Court.
Texas alone will soon represent the whole of Republican hunger to crush student loan forgiveness.
I can imagine this interference would have stifled Government sponsored education 1946-1960.
Re note 1, "But what do I know?" That the SG of TX is a disrespectful, rude, intentionally offensive asshat. BTW, what's this with a "letter" -- with a request for substantive relief, no less? Do the Ct's Rules provide for that?
To quote a favorite of Prof. Vladek’s better half, “I hate it here”.
—Geoff in San Antonio
many thanks for taking the time to explain these issues, we learn so much about our judicial system from you
You've just told me more about my student loan than the government, the private lender who took over my federal loan, or the lender who took over from them have ever told me. I should pay you.
PS:
A slow, generational return to blood-based power worried us, the people, enough to expressly bar titles of nobility in separate clauses for Congress & for states. The text only allows titles needed to conduct the people's business. These must plainly state an office currently held. The title stays with the office to keep us one people, not two.
"The Honorable" confers no power today. It may sound harmless enough. But it separates us into two classes and favors one. People already continue to use it after leaving office. What might it mean in 200 years? We didn't leave that problem for posterity to walk back.
Representative Pelosi recently coerced Congress into creating a post-service title of nobility, "Speaker Emeritus," against the Constitution's express prohibition.
Congress broke the law.
Related PS2:
They've broken the law before. And the current propaganda campaign to term-limit justices without Article V is intense. I hope people will bear in mind that justices WANT term limits.
Presidents and members of Congress become consultants on leaving office. What kind of consultant? One who uses their former status (and possibly even their knowledge of classified information) to exert influence on current officers for the benefit of private entities. These entities pay to seven or even eight figures for this influence. Since the public no longer pays, these salaries are none of our business.
We need to address this problem.
In the meantime the last thing we need is to establish consultants to the Supreme Court.
What do we need? Enforcement.
28 USC §§351-361 break the supreme law, and badly.
They strip the House of the sole power vested in Article I §2 to investigate the people's Amendment I grievance petitions to impeach any US judge, justice, or magistrate.
And revest this sole power where? In the jurists themselves. The Judicial Conference of the United States is made up of appellate US jurists and justices. It is headed by the Chief Justice. People calling for House investigations of, for example, Justice Thomas, are out of luck. the enforcement of good behavior is now entirely political.
We need to repeal 28 USC §§352-361. We also need to repeal §351(c), replacing its text requiring anyone who receives such a petition to send it to the judiciary with text requiring sending it to the House of Representatives.
As courts like to excuse themselves from rules and laws, we should also demand a §351(d) spelling out that it applies to every US court established under any clause. We should expressly include the Supreme Court.
While we're at it we must dissolve FISC, the court whose establishment violates Article I §5's Secrecy clause barring secrecy in any branch but Congress. We did without it for 200 years. We can do without it now.