• derf82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    A very poor application of standing doctrine. Kagan cuts right to the heart of it when she asks “Where is MOHELA” as well as if anyone honestly thinks Missouri is there over MOHELA losing some fees. Heck, MOHELA wanted nothing to do with the suit and that the payments Missouri claimed MOHELA made back actually were never paid.

    Then the recurrence of the “major questions doctrine,” this invented idea that lets them throw out the plain text when they disagree.

    That said, I did disagree with the plan. It was poorly targeted, hitting wealthier grads that still had loans, while ignoring poor people that never went in the first place, or were frugal and had limited loans. As someone that saw the Great Recession hit just after graduation, I wonder where my relief was from that emergency, as my lifetime earning took a massive hit, all while still having to pay my loans, with not so much as a payment pause or interest forbearance. To me, it was a thinly veiled attempt to buy votes for the midterm. Had it any other goal, Biden wouldn’t have waited so long.

    • minorsecond@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand how someone can sue over someone else being harmed. Doesn’t the person or entity suing have to be directly harmed in order to sue?

      • Ado@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yep, they upended the standing doctrine that requires you to be the party injured to sue the party causing the injury. But also these aren’t true judges, they’re political advocates. They will uphold standing doctrine where they see fit, and strike it down where they don’t like here.