United States Supreme Court Watch

[Prince Ire]

You have in no way responded to my point.

Why do you think that agreeing with the left on one point is somehow going to convince a bunch of lefty college students/grads, who are quite possibly the hardest left group of people in the entire world, to vote conservative?

If you want to get into foundational concepts of what does or does not make a good government policy and why, unfortunately that should probably be taken to the Philosophy forum.

Only 60% of college graduates voted for Biden, and that was an unusually high amount compared to previous elections. The idea that college graduates are some immovably Democratic voting bloc is simply false.

 

[Sergeant Foley]

I don't get people's attitudes towards student loans on either side of the isle to be honest. On one hand you have the left who's wanting the government (one of the groups that helped put them in this position to begin with) to bail them out...yet on the right side you have people almost bragging about how many jobs they had to take to pay off their loans as if getting hosed over that much harder is some sort of mark of pride.



Here are some things to keep in mind:

1. Whether it's through student loans that colleges then turn around and give to their buddies in Washington or direct taxes. The suits in Washington get your money either way so if you hate one you should just as equally despise the other.

2. The educational system tries to groom kids early to be loan piggies. I mean like 11 years old they constantly bang into kids' ears how important college is (Especially university) as opposed to things like trade school or even working right out of high school with no bills and if they can't target the kids they'll target the parents. "You don't want little Timmy to end up in poverty, do you? After all statistics show..." and when that doesn't work they will straight up lie about how much a degree costs and how viable it actually is. This isn't just a case of "Kids these days don't want to pay their loans" The educational system is a government-backed parasitic monster that will latch onto vulnerable people who are just trying to think of their future and such them dry before they even have a future and if it sounds similar to how big pharma is treating gender dysphoria it's because it is.

it's like the left can't realize that all these institutions are run by the same people...and the right can't admit that these same institutions are using their own pride and morality against them to hose them over.

Just pay off the loans and you'll be thrilled to get it out of the way!

Pearl-clutching stilp escalating on CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc.,

Triggered snowflakes now think the US Supreme Court will ban marriage equality and interracial marriages next at the rate the Supreme Court is going.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

A number of years ago, I was told that there was 11 teachers graduating in NSW, Australia (Where I live) for every jobs for them.

That's including both Gov and commercial ones.

So, how many of those degrees are worth the money and time that they required?



A few years later, I was chatting with a Uni Prof who was an old friend of my dad's, and he was retiring, partly from age, but a large part was that he had classes who half the class couldn't pass. Just not capable.

And he was allowed to fail just one every class, no matter how useless they were. It really pissed him off.


So, how many of those degrees are worth the money and time that they required?



There's other issues in our Uni's, from political manipulation, to massive overseas money, but it all says that nobody should go to Uni for at least the next 10 years.

I wish I could say it was only in Australia. My father taught at the College level for over 40 years. He left for very similar reasons.
I'm glad he did, b/c now he and my mother can enjoy their retirement together, spending as much time as they can with their loved ones.

 

[LordsFire]

Only 60% of college graduates voted for Biden, and that was an unusually high amount compared to previous elections. The idea that college graduates are some immovably Democratic voting bloc is simply false.

I never said that college graduates at large are some immovably democratic voting block.

I said that forgiving student loans isn't going to get lefty college grads to shift to voting Republican.

Those who are already conservative do not need a financial incentive to vote for what is better for them and everyone else besides.

 

[Largo]

I never said that college graduates at large are some immovably democratic voting block.

I said that forgiving student loans isn't going to get lefty college grads to shift to voting Republican.

Those who are already conservative do not need a financial incentive to vote for what is better for them and everyone else besides.

It could persuade those on the fences or those politically unaligned.

I will say that I could be persuaded to accept some sort of college loan forgiveness program...if serious reforms were also implemented to make sure such a thing never happened again. But the Democrats don't want to do that, because that means taking an axe to the universities and to the students who are their political and ideological shock troops.

But if a Republican argued something along those lines, that could be an interesting tactic.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

It could persuade those on the fences or those politically unaligned.

I will say that I could be persuaded to accept some sort of college loan forgiveness program...if serious reforms were also implemented to make sure such a thing never happened again. But the Democrats don't want to do that, because that means taking an axe to the universities and to the students who are their political and ideological shock troops.

But if a Republican argued something along those lines, that could be an interesting tactic.

this.

 

[hyperspacewizard]

Couldn’t we just remove the interest rate for all the college loans. it may be a small thing but I feel it could do a lot of good. At least then they can chip away at it instead of it growing to an unreasonable degree

also government back loans for college should be done away with entirely so no more future students can be involved with this problem

 

[King Arts]

Couldn’t we just remove the interest rate for all the college loans. it may be a small thing but I feel it could do a lot of good. At least then they can chip away at it instead of it growing to an unreasonable degree

also government back loans for college should be done away with entirely so no more future students can be involved with this problem

The first part is a great idea.

The second is not. Removing ALL government backed loans is a bad idea, again you want to incentivise people to do things. This lazie faire government idea is dumb. The government wants to give loans or bennefits to people who have kids, or people who go into certain jobs or whatever.

You can certainly argue that the government should cut down it's loans or even close it to the public so you can't get a loan for everything and instead change it to. "The government will now provide interest free loans or will just give a free ride for people who go to college to get certain degrees we want, like engineering or STEM or whatever." No more underwater basket weaving however. That would be much better thought out.

 

[Prince Ire]

The first part is a great idea.

The second is not. Removing ALL government backed loans is a bad idea, again you want to incentivise people to do things. This lazie faire government idea is dumb. The government wants to give loans or bennefits to people who have kids, or people who go into certain jobs or whatever.

You can certainly argue that the government should cut down it's loans or even close it to the public so you can't get a loan for everything and instead change it to. "The government will now provide interest free loans or will just give a free ride for people who go to college to get certain degrees we want, like engineering or STEM or whatever." No more underwater basket weaving however. That would be much better thought out.

I know people like to meme about underwater basket weaving and the like, but things like gender studies are not popular majors.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

It's a point of pride because they PAID OFF THEIR LOANS...however they had to do it.

the fact that you had to have a loan at all should have told you that either your ancestors or your government have hosed you. Everything should be payable either through cold hard currency or at least liquid assets. The fact that taking out debt is so acceptable in society to begin with, is the bigger problem.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

The fact that taking out debt is so acceptable in society to begin with, is the bigger problem.

Not wrong

 

[bintananth]

The fact that taking out debt is so acceptable in society to begin with, is the bigger problem.

The problem is two-fold:
- the widespread borrowing for dumb shit
- all the lenders lining up to let people do it

Normally, the possibility of not getting paid due to a bankruptcy or statute of limitations forces lenders to show at least some restraint.

Thanks to Congress' *spit* "reforms" *spit* those will almost never ever make an outstanding student loan go away.

 

[Captain X]

Well, I can just barely afford to add on to an existing garage I have. Can't afford to build the house I want without a loan of some kind.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Well, I can just barely afford to add on to an existing garage I have. Can't afford to build the house I want without a loan of some kind.

Either

A. The Dollar should have enough buying power you could afford a house with a year's wage or two. Something that can't happen due to the energy production sector being gutted like a fish.

OR

B. You'd inherit the family home as it got passed down from generation to generation. Something that is sadly just not prioritized in modern consumerist culture and completely gutted thanks to inheritance tax. Every generation should be either building on or at least maintaining the wealth that was accumulated before.

Most people who's beyond a 2nd gen American should be living comfortably in an already established home. Not scraping by to pay rent.

 

[Abhorsen]

NRA v Vullo (about if the NRA was discriminated against by NY State, violating the First Amendment) (Answer: Yes)
US v Rahimi (Do domestic violence restraining orders removing gun rights violate 2A? This is not a case we'd like to see before SCOTUS.) (Answer: No, but Bruen still holds, so a very minor loss).
Garland v Cargill (Bumpstock Ban) (Answer: the ATF can't redefine the definition of Machine gun at will. Bump stock ban overturned.)
Relentless v Department of Commerce (Should the Chevron Doctrine be overruled?) The most important case this term. Chevron Doctrine (AKA Chevron Deference) is current legal precedent that administrative agencies get to decide how to interpret the law affecting them instead of a court. (Answer: Yes, no more Chevron!)
Murphy v Missouri (did government action make social media a government actor? I don't think this is going to be a yes from SCOTUS, sadly) (Answer: Doesn't matter, standing failed. Try again with another case entirely.)
Moyle v US (Is Idaho's Defense of Life act preempted by federal law?) (Answer: Punted via DIG, try again).

Not decided yet:
Trump v US (The Trump Federal Immunity Case)
A few NetChoice cases (about the first amendment, and can you force companies to have content neutral moderation?)

I'll probably clean this up later.

 

[Zachowon]

NRA v Vullo (about if the NRA was discriminated against by NY State, violating the First Amendment) (Answer: Yes)
US v Rahimi (Do domestic violence restraining orders removing gun rights violate 2A?)
Garland v Cargill (Bumpstock Ban)
Relentless v Department of Commerce (Should the Chevron Doctrine be overruled? The most important case this term).
A few NetChoice cases (about the first amendment, and can you force companies to have content neutral moderation?)
Murphy v Mississippi (did government action make social media a government actor? I don't think this is going to be a yes from SCOTUS, sadly)
Moyle v US (Is Idaho's Defense of Life act preempted by federal law?)
Trump v US (The Trump Immunity Case)


I'll probably clean this up later.

The immunity case is huge deal for the entirety of the future presidents

 

[The Whispering Monk]

NRA v Vullo (about if the NRA was discriminated against by NY State, violating the First Amendment) (Answer: Yes)

This one was pretty interesting. I'm curious is this ruling is one that would transfer to effect govt. involvement in Social Media during Covid.

 

[Abhorsen]

This one was pretty interesting. I'm curious is this ruling is one that would transfer to effect govt. involvement in Social Media during Covid.

It is a positive sign, but they might hold that the government actor burder wasn't met.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

It is a positive sign, but they might hold that the government actor burder wasn't met.

True. NY was using a cudgel and the threat of future action...not sure that can be shown with what happened between the Feds and FB/Twitt/etc...

 

[bullethead]

Here's an interesting article on some reforms for the Supreme Court that would hit both sides fairly equally:

Article:

My new Article, titled Bilateral Judicial Reform, offers ten neutral proposals that would equally weaken the right and the left. The article will be published in the Texas A&M Journal of Law and Civil Governance.

Most of these reforms, including expansion of mandatory jurisdiction, would require statutory amendments, though some proposals could be achieved through court rules. Here at least, I'm agnostic where the reform comes from. It is always better if courts self-regulate. I'll admit up front that some of these proposals are off-the-wall, and are primarily intended to stimulate debate, rather than to create a decisive action plan. A few of these proposals may create problems with judicial independence and the separation of powers, though I think they ultimately pass muster, or at least occupy a gray zone. My hope is that through some outside-the-box thinking, I can put ideas into the ether that eventually coalesce into tangible proposals.

This article is still in draft form, so I welcome feedback and comments.

Part I introduces the first grouping of reforms about the Supreme Court Justices.

Proposal #1: Require Justices to ride circuit and preside when federal courts of appeals sit en banc.

Proposal #2: Impose statutory caps for outside income earned through book royalties, advances, and other similar business dealings.


Part II introduces the second grouping of reforms about the Supreme Court's docket.

Proposal #3: Mandate that the Supreme Court remains in session year-round, with at least one public sitting for oral argument and one conference per calendar month.

Proposal #4: Establish a standard timeline for review of petitions and applications on the merits, emergency, and capital dockets.

Proposal #5: Appeals in the Court's mandatory jurisdiction must be scheduled for oral argument.


Part III introduces the third grouping of reforms about litigation in the lower courts.

Proposal #6: Cases seeking a temporary restraining order can be decided by a single district court judge but can only yield relief to the named parties, and are limited to no more than seven days in duration.

Proposal #7: Cases seeking a preliminary injunction or equivalent relief against the federal government or a state government are referred to the en banc court, which appoints a randomly-drawn three-judge panel with two circuit court judges and one district court judge.

Proposal #8: Injunctions of statutes against the federal and state governments are automatically stayed, and if a three-judge panel submits a "certificate of division," the case is appealed to the Supreme Court's mandatory jurisdiction, with oral argument and decision based on emergency docket timeline.

Proposal #9: En banc circuit courts and state courts of last resort could submit cases to Supreme Court's mandatory jurisdiction with a "certificate of split" (actual split of authority on question of federal law) or a "certificate of importance" (case presents an exceedingly important, and unresolved question of federal law).

Proposal #10: When Circuit Judge reaches "Rule of 80," she is no longer able to vote on en banc court, and new judgeship is automatically created.

Source: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/03/new-article-bilateral-judicial-reform/

The link has full explanations of what the proposals due and how they'd work, this is just a (hopefully) copyright friendly copy of the list.

Personally, I don't know about the first part, but the other two sound pretty good to me.