berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 33,804
- 27,532
- 2,820
I see the assertion about Joe quite a lot since trump has routinely done so. It's really not so complicated to figure out the answer.
To make a long story short, the Supreme Court did not agree, ruling 6-3 in June 2023 that the Biden administrationās cancellation went beyond the allowable āwaiving and modifyingā and instead constituted an āexhaustive rewriting of the statute.ā
After the ruling, the Biden administration did not carry forward with the program, but did try to relieve student loan debt in several other ways.
Because the Supreme Court did not rule in Biden v. Nebraska (the case that struck down the initial, most expansive plan) that the Biden administration could not cancel student loan debt. Rather, it ruled that the Biden administration could not cancel student loan debt in that specific way, under the authority of the HEROES Act. The two plans that also ended up being overturned relied on an entirely different law as justification, the Higher Education Act of 1965.
www.wakeuptopolitics.com
So, whether you agree his efforts to reduce student debt were legal or agree with the SC ruling blocking the plan his subsequent program was not a violation of the original court order. Meaning, trump fan's false "Biden did it too" assertion is, unsurprisingly, inaccurate.
Here is what a violation of a court order looks like.
In a pointed order on Tuesday evening, Judge Rita F. Lin wrote that the Trump administration had misleadingly framed its latest attempt to cancel the grants as suspensions.
āN.S.F. claims that it could simply turn around the day after the preliminary injunctionā and freeze āfunding on every grant that had been ordered reinstated, so long as that action was labeled as a āsuspensionā rather than a ātermination,āā she wrote. āThis is not a reasonable interpretation.ā
An appeal seems likely since the Roberts court is essentially part of the admin.
No, Biden didnāt defy the Supreme Court on student loans
As Iāve written before, if you read the law, itās fairly clear that the statuteās intent was to benefit members of the military (the lawās titular āheroesā), but regardless, the Biden administration argued that the text was broad enough to allow a much wider cancellation (with Covid-19 as the relevant ānational emergencyā).To make a long story short, the Supreme Court did not agree, ruling 6-3 in June 2023 that the Biden administrationās cancellation went beyond the allowable āwaiving and modifyingā and instead constituted an āexhaustive rewriting of the statute.ā
After the ruling, the Biden administration did not carry forward with the program, but did try to relieve student loan debt in several other ways.
- One such effort ā aimed at expanding existing loan forgiveness programs for specific groups (such as people who went into public service or people who attended fraudulent schools) ā succeeded in cancelling debt for 5 million borrowers.
- Two other attempts ā one a new income-driven repayment plan and the other a program to offer relief to a targeted group of borrowers ā were blocked by the courts.
Because the Supreme Court did not rule in Biden v. Nebraska (the case that struck down the initial, most expansive plan) that the Biden administration could not cancel student loan debt. Rather, it ruled that the Biden administration could not cancel student loan debt in that specific way, under the authority of the HEROES Act. The two plans that also ended up being overturned relied on an entirely different law as justification, the Higher Education Act of 1965.
No, Biden didnāt defy the Supreme Court on student loans
And neither did Trump on TikTok!
www.wakeuptopolitics.com
So, whether you agree his efforts to reduce student debt were legal or agree with the SC ruling blocking the plan his subsequent program was not a violation of the original court order. Meaning, trump fan's false "Biden did it too" assertion is, unsurprisingly, inaccurate.
Here is what a violation of a court order looks like.
Trump Administration Violated Order on U.C.L.A. Grant Terminations, Judge Says
A federal judge in California ordered the National Science Foundation to reinstate millions of dollars in grants awarded to the University of California, Los Angeles, finding that the agency had tried to circumvent a ruling in June requiring restoration of the funds.In a pointed order on Tuesday evening, Judge Rita F. Lin wrote that the Trump administration had misleadingly framed its latest attempt to cancel the grants as suspensions.
āN.S.F. claims that it could simply turn around the day after the preliminary injunctionā and freeze āfunding on every grant that had been ordered reinstated, so long as that action was labeled as a āsuspensionā rather than a ātermination,āā she wrote. āThis is not a reasonable interpretation.ā
An appeal seems likely since the Roberts court is essentially part of the admin.
