Courts are more public—confirmations, decisions published (albeit convenience behind a paywall at times), but there is a greater chance of cleaning house for agencies. At worst, these appointees are nothing more than bought campaign supporters. At best, these appointees are qualified campaign supporters. A new set *could* come every four years.
Ignoring stare decisis for politics (the new judicial era) creates uncertainty. Most of my law professors are ending class with “it’ll be interesting to see the fallout y’all will have to handle.” It’s odd how courts are both expanding their power and changing the weight of precedence.
Your point that this is an opportunity for reform for transparency offers a better call to action than the fear-mongering of the dems. The work of hope lol
yeah, that's the best I could do. I wasn't for or against the decision, but I assumed it was coming and had actually prepared much of this a few years ago (hence rushing it out on Friday).
and you're correct, these appointees - possibly competent; who knows? - can at least say "enforce this" or "don't enforce" that and the rank-and-file lifers will go along, perhaps grudgingly in some cases (my uncle worked in the department of commerce up until his death in 2015).
having gone to a "faith-based" (lol) law school two decades ago, much of my classroom time was spent hearing about roe v. wade (profs like Richard Stith were correct that Harry Blackmun is a terrible writer, or at least a sloppy/weird one) and why "stare decisis" is bad. to them, a precedent is either right (and worth keeping) or wrong (and needs to be jettisoned). SD only matters insofar as it means preserving "wrong" decisions for the sake of certainty (which I think is a virtue, but I got to watch the opposition to this kind of consensus view coalesce, regrettably because certain decisions I'd regard as "right," like Brown and Roe, could be easily poked full of holes from a reasoning perspective...even if all you're doing is collecting 5+ votes, the reasoning can serve as good marketing/PR/spin, if nothing else).
Yes indeed, which isn’t the way I’d go with it (I’d forgive all that outstanding federal debt and then sunset the program) but is the way some folks would like to proceed
Yeah, they should just do that, but what if they did go the other route? That could be big. 45 million Americans have student loan debt. I'd guess a fair portion would default.
It would be a major economic disaster, probably along the lines of the subprime bubble bursting. And since the debt can’t be discharged — and no one would attempt to change this short of a civil war — it would be a far bigger mess for a longer time. Someone stands to benefit, though, so I’m not ruling it out. Punishing debtors for life while simultaneously ensuring that creditors enjoy permanent promises of repayment for money the government stupidly loaned and schools greedily took…that’s the work
Yeah, they'd really have to lean into that fuck you, I'm gonna get mine mentality. It wouldn't surprise me, especially considering how stupid things have been lately. You really do love to see it.
Hearing the automated voice say “Elena Kagan is here for it” made me laugh out loud at the gym
You love to see it
And hear it, thanks to the work of modern technology
On a more “serious” note:
Courts are more public—confirmations, decisions published (albeit convenience behind a paywall at times), but there is a greater chance of cleaning house for agencies. At worst, these appointees are nothing more than bought campaign supporters. At best, these appointees are qualified campaign supporters. A new set *could* come every four years.
Ignoring stare decisis for politics (the new judicial era) creates uncertainty. Most of my law professors are ending class with “it’ll be interesting to see the fallout y’all will have to handle.” It’s odd how courts are both expanding their power and changing the weight of precedence.
Your point that this is an opportunity for reform for transparency offers a better call to action than the fear-mongering of the dems. The work of hope lol
yeah, that's the best I could do. I wasn't for or against the decision, but I assumed it was coming and had actually prepared much of this a few years ago (hence rushing it out on Friday).
and you're correct, these appointees - possibly competent; who knows? - can at least say "enforce this" or "don't enforce" that and the rank-and-file lifers will go along, perhaps grudgingly in some cases (my uncle worked in the department of commerce up until his death in 2015).
having gone to a "faith-based" (lol) law school two decades ago, much of my classroom time was spent hearing about roe v. wade (profs like Richard Stith were correct that Harry Blackmun is a terrible writer, or at least a sloppy/weird one) and why "stare decisis" is bad. to them, a precedent is either right (and worth keeping) or wrong (and needs to be jettisoned). SD only matters insofar as it means preserving "wrong" decisions for the sake of certainty (which I think is a virtue, but I got to watch the opposition to this kind of consensus view coalesce, regrettably because certain decisions I'd regard as "right," like Brown and Roe, could be easily poked full of holes from a reasoning perspective...even if all you're doing is collecting 5+ votes, the reasoning can serve as good marketing/PR/spin, if nothing else).
That's something. I read it could also put IDR plans in jeopardy.
Yes indeed, which isn’t the way I’d go with it (I’d forgive all that outstanding federal debt and then sunset the program) but is the way some folks would like to proceed
Yeah, they should just do that, but what if they did go the other route? That could be big. 45 million Americans have student loan debt. I'd guess a fair portion would default.
It would be a major economic disaster, probably along the lines of the subprime bubble bursting. And since the debt can’t be discharged — and no one would attempt to change this short of a civil war — it would be a far bigger mess for a longer time. Someone stands to benefit, though, so I’m not ruling it out. Punishing debtors for life while simultaneously ensuring that creditors enjoy permanent promises of repayment for money the government stupidly loaned and schools greedily took…that’s the work
Yeah, they'd really have to lean into that fuck you, I'm gonna get mine mentality. It wouldn't surprise me, especially considering how stupid things have been lately. You really do love to see it.