"Biden's student loan vote buying scheme"
Not a single president in the history of the United States has ever asserted the authority to unilaterally deport someone outside of the procedures set by Congress until now.
Holy crap. The DOJ is arguing that the President can unilaterally deport anyone he wants without ANY statutory authority, just on his inherent authority as President over national security. That is a terrifying claim to make and not one that has ever been recognized before in US history.
-- Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social) March 15, 2025 at 4:12 PM
[image or embed]
Related ...
Judges raise concerns about threats to independence amid criticism of decisions, calls for impeachment (March 11, 2025)
www.cbsnews.com
... A pair of federal judges warned Tuesday of continued threats against members of the judiciary amid criticism leveled by Elon Musk and threats of impeachment by Republicans in Congress. They warned such attacks strike at judicial independence.
Judges Jeffrey Sutton and Richard Sullivan, who sit on the federal appeals courts, raised concerns about the increase in threats against judges in a call with reporters hosted by the Judicial Conference, the policymaking body for the federal judiciary.
Sullivan, who chairs the committee on judicial security, said the protection of judges and federal courthouses around the country is a top priority for the judiciary and recent cuts to the U.S. Marshals Service's budget is a concern. The agency provides security for federal courts and judges.
"Our system of government is premised on three independent branches and a judiciary that can function independently," he said. "That's what makes it work, and so it's crucial that people understand that." ...
Lex Rex... the Law is King, not Rex Lex where the King is Law.
Which is the very basis of constitutionalism.
www.google.com
Unless of course one is in a cult, then nothing else matters.
Manic Street Preachers - If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next (1998)
www.youtube.com
Lyrics excerpt ...
genius.com
...
The future teaches you to be alone
The present to be afraid and cold
So if I can shoot rabbits
Then I can shoot fascists
Bullets for your brain today
But we'll forget it all again
Monuments put from pen to paper
Turns me into a gutless wonder
[Chorus]
And if you tolerate this, then your children will be next
And if you tolerate this, then your children will be next
Will be next, will be next, will be next
...
Another view ...
'Oopsie, too late' - US courts tested by Trump's latest deportations
www.bbc.com
... On Saturday, the US government put hundreds of Venezuelans on planes which swiftly took off for the accused gang members' ultimate destination: an El Salvadorean mega-prison.
A judge then ordered the planes back, telling the government's lawyers verbally that they should do so "however that's accomplished " whether turning around the plane or not."
But the court order was never heeded, the planes stayed the course.
"Oopsie ... too late," El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, posted on X after the deportees landed in his country. He included an emoji crying with laughter. The post was reshared by the White House's director of communications, Steven Cheung.
Little information has been provided about the identities of those detained, but a large number were Venezuelan and the Trump administration alleges the deportees -- apparently rounded up at the weekend -- are all members of Tren de Aragua, a notorious transnational criminal gang.
Attorneys for some of the deportees refute that claim and human rights groups have raised concerns about the lack of due process.
This incident has ignited fears that the White House is willing to openly defy a federal court order, setting it on a potential collision course with America's judicial branch.
In America's system of government checks and balances, federal courts in the judicial branch have the responsibility of reviewing actions by the president and the government agencies in the executive branch tasked with enacting laws passed by Congress. An order issued by a judge is binding - and noncompliance can result in civil and criminal sanctions.
It very rarely gets that far, however, as involved parties traditionally defer to a judge's ruling. ...
#29 - So a pilot could fly through restricted airspace, refuse to land when ordered, and so many other things because:
91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
You're out on quit the limb with your interpretation of "operation of" when the Pilot is required to obey federal laws, is licensed by the FAA, and has to abide by the rules and laws - unless an emergence causes a deviation, which must then be noted (b and c):
www.ecfr.gov
@#24 ... When Biden bragged about defying SCOTUS ...
Got a link?
No link because Biden obeyed the judge's ruling - unlike Trump and his admin who are openly defying and stating they will not listen to or do as instructed by any judge if they don't like the ruling. Of course they demand that everyone else comply if the ruling is in their favor.
You turn around and follow the direction of your dispatcher.
Depends upon the orders, and what level they were issued, the pilot in command is the sole arbiter, and ultimately responsible for the safety of the flight/airplane.
You may catch alot of ---- for disregarding ATC or a dispatcher, but as PIC you do have the right to reply UNABLE.
Someone? Anyone can call a pilot? Anyone? No checks, nothing? Do pilots get all kinds of prank calls? This is rather fascinating to me. I want to know!
#54 | POSTED BY YAV
Call them? No.
My understanding is that the pilots as final authority, are responsible for violating the order of the Judge.
My understanding reading the law as best I could, SCOTUS laid down it has no say in the matter of the Alien Act.
Just like an airplane, if the pilot (president) deems the the orders are against the safety of the flight (gang members) he/she can disregard those orders.
Under authority of the Act of 1798, the President, on July 14, 1945, directed the removal from the United States of all alien enemies "who shall be deemed by the Attorney General to be dangerous to the public peace and safety of the United States."
As Congress explicitly recognized in the recent Administrative Procedure Act, some statutes "preclude judicial review." Act of June 11, 1946, 10, 60 Stat. 237, 243. Barring questions of interpretation and constitutionality, 164*164 the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 is such a statute.
A war power of the President not subject to judicial review is not transmuted into a judicially reviewable action because the President chooses to have that power exercised within narrower limits than Congress authorized.
scholar.google.com
Really does seem like the court stepped over the line.
The Alien Sedition Act of 1798 is not applicable to the issue of complying to the order of the court. They are two different issues.
The Attorney General can not make any determination regarding "alien enemies" without a declaration of war and without the direction of the President: supreme.justia.com
"Under authority of the Alien Enemy Act of 1798, which empowers the President, whenever there is a "declared war" between the United States and any foreign country, to provide for the removal of alien enemies from the United States, the President, on July 14, 1945, directed the removal of all alien enemies "deemed by the Attorney General to be dangerous" to the public safety. The Attorney General, on January 18, 1946, ordered removal of petitioner, a German national, from the United States. Challenging the validity of the removal order, petitioner instituted habeas corpus proceedings in the Federal District Court to secure his release from detention under the order."
Not even the Trump admin is resting its justification on that. It is, instead, pretending it can use the Alien Sedition Act because we are "being invaded." That is, of course, laughable since we are not at war and in no danger of being invaded.
This hilarious.
Turns out the judges daughter works for 5013c that advocates that gives criminal illegal aliens and gang members legal advice.
www.partnersforjustice.org
These judges really don't know how powerless/disqualifying this makes them look.
Regarding Biden, he had a political incentive to make it sound like he was standing up to a conservative-controlled court to deliver student debt relief, these Lumpers ate it up, as usual.
They didn't know that when he said it, and actually thought he disobyed the courts, until Trump, then they had to reasearch the facts.
He simply used a different pre-existing programs.
You can definitely call a pilot on any VHF radio.
Its not a call in the normal definition of a call (person to person), its a radio broadcast
You would communicate with them the same manner as you do GA, its a open communication.
The plane has a N-Number or a callsign, which is unique identifier, typically a combination of letters and numbers, used to identify a radio station, operator, vehicle, or organization in broadcasting and radio communications.
As you stated, only in Ham radio is it called a "call", HAM radio is being disassembled and no longer used for emergency communications. I don't understand why, but that is the case.
Biden continued under the constraints of the SCOTUS ruling.
You may not like it, but that is a fact.
#93 | Posted by BellRinger
This statement is partially accurate but oversimplifies a complex situation. The Supreme Court did strike down President Biden's initial student loan forgiveness plan in June 2023[1][5]. However, the administration did not simply continue the same program. Instead, they pursued alternative approaches to address student loan debt within legal boundaries.
After the Supreme Court's ruling, the Biden administration developed new initiatives, such as the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, which aimed to reduce the burden on borrowers through different mechanisms[2]. This plan faced legal challenges as well, with the Supreme Court refusing to revive it in August 2024[2].
The administration has also approved targeted loan forgiveness through existing programs like income-based repayment and borrower defense to repayment[4]. As of January 2025, the Biden administration had approved $188.8 billion in student loan forgiveness for 5.3 million borrowers through various means[4].
It's worth noting that the characterization of these efforts as a "vote buying scheme" is subjective and politically charged. The administration has argued that these programs are intended to address issues in the student loan system and provide relief to borrowers[4].
More recently, under the Trump administration, there have been significant changes to student loan programs, including pausing applications for income-driven repayment plans and altering the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program[7]. These changes have resulted in increased payments for some borrowers and uncertainty about the future of loan forgiveness programs[7].
Citations:
[1] www.texastribune.org
[2] www.nbcnews.com
[3] www.foxbusiness.com
[4] www.nasfaa.org
[5] www.scotusblog.com
[6] www.nasfaa.org
[7] www.newsweek.com
[8] www.reuters.com
[9] www.insidehighered.com
[10] www.bankrate.com
[11] www.ncsl.org
[12] www.highereddive.com
[13] www.scotusblog.com
[14] www.whitehouse.gov
Swallow it.
I have 3 copies of the Constitution in my house and one resides on my night stand. I periodically flip through it and have read it in its entirety on numerous occasions.
#167 | Posted by BellRinger
Meaningless. Your reading an outline for the formation of a government is meaningless. Governance is the experience of the three branches of government as interpreted by the Supreme Court for two hundred plus years. If you are only reading text then your education is meaningless. Here's a good place to begin a journey to learning about constitutional governance. www.law.cornell.edu
Btw, the Alien Enemies Act of 1789 has only been invoked like 3 times, always in the context of war with another government. Never to deport a drug gang. Don't be so assured about the legality of the Buffoon's invocation.
#201 | Posted by truthhurts
The statement in the query contains some inaccuracies and oversimplifications regarding the Supreme Court's decision on President Biden's student loan forgiveness program. Here's a breakdown of the relevant points:
1. **MOHELA's Role and Standing**:
- MOHELA (Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority) was central to Missouri's argument for standing in *Biden v. Nebraska*. The Supreme Court determined that MOHELA, as a quasi-governmental entity created by Missouri, would suffer financial harm from the forgiveness program, specifically losing $44 million annually. This harm satisfied the constitutional requirement for standing under Article III[1][5][8].
- While MOHELA itself did not voluntarily join the lawsuit, Missouri argued on its behalf, as MOHELA is considered an instrumentality of the state and subject to state supervision[1][2].
2. **Claim That MOHELA Stood to Benefit**:
- The assertion that MOHELA stood to make money off the forgiveness program contradicts the Court's findings. The Court explicitly noted that MOHELA would face financial losses due to reduced loan servicing revenue if the program proceeded[1][8].
3. **Supreme Court's Authority**:
- The Supreme Court ruled on the case because Missouri established standing through MOHELA's projected harm. Once standing was confirmed, the Court assessed whether the Department of Education had legal authority under the HEROES Act to implement sweeping loan forgiveness. The Court concluded that this exceeded the scope of "waive or modify" provisions in the Act, thus invalidating the program[1][3][5].
4. **Congressional Role**:
- Congress indeed has legislative authority over student loan policy, and critics of the decision argue that Congress could have acted to override or support Biden's plan. However, Congress did not file suit or pass legislation directly addressing this specific forgiveness program[5][6].
- The Supreme Court's decision was based on interpreting statutory authority under existing law, not legislating new policy. Critics like Justice Elena Kagan dissented, arguing that the decision effectively substituted judicial judgment for Congressional and executive policymaking[3][5].
In summary, while Missouri used MOHELA's financial harm to establish standing, MOHELA did not voluntarily join the case, and its projected losses were key to the Court's ruling. The Supreme Court acted within its adjudicative role by interpreting statutory limits under the HEROES Act rather than legislating policy changes. Congress retains ultimate authority over such programs but chose not to intervene directly in this instance[1][3][5].
Citations:
[1] www.ncsl.org
[2] protectborrowers.org
[3] time.com
[4] ago.mo.gov
[5] www.scotusblog.com
[6] www.cwla.org
After getting smacked down by SCOTUS Team Biden created a new justification to continue with their vote-buying scheme citing a different law to do what SCOTUS said they couldn't do.b
#232 | Posted by BellRinger
Once again: The follow-up comment contains some accurate elements but also oversimplifies and misrepresents key details about the Biden administration's actions following the Supreme Court's rejection of the original student loan forgiveness plan. Here's a breakdown:
1. **"After getting smacked down by SCOTUS..."**
- The Supreme Court did indeed strike down President Biden's initial student loan forgiveness plan in *Biden v. Nebraska* (June 2023), ruling that the administration overstepped its authority under the HEROES Act of 2003[6].
2. **"Team Biden created a new justification citing a different law..."**
- This is accurate. After the Supreme Court's decision, the Biden administration shifted its legal basis for student loan forgiveness to the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, which grants the Education Secretary authority to "waive or release" loans under certain conditions[2][5][7]. This was part of a narrower, revised plan to provide relief to specific groups of borrowers.
3. **"Vote-buying scheme..."**
- This is a subjective characterization rather than an objective fact. Critics of student loan forgiveness often frame it as politically motivated, but proponents argue it addresses systemic issues in the student loan system.
4. **"Citing a different law to do what SCOTUS said they couldn't do..."**
- The revised plan is not identical to the original and is narrower in scope. The administration tailored it to target specific groups, such as borrowers facing financial hardship or those who have been repaying loans for decades[2][4][7]. By using the HEA instead of the HEROES Act, the administration sought to address the Supreme Court's concerns about executive overreach.
5. **Legal and Political Context**:
- The new plan underwent a formal rulemaking process, which included public input, to bolster its legal defensibility[2][5]. The administration believes this approach has a stronger legal foundation, though it has still faced legal challenges[9].
In summary, while it is true that the Biden administration pursued a new legal strategy after the Supreme Court's ruling, characterizing it as merely "doing what SCOTUS said they couldn't do" oversimplifies the changes made to align with legal constraints. The claim of "vote-buying" reflects political opinion rather than an objective assessment of policy intent.
Citations:
[1] www.nasfaa.org
[2] www.cnbc.com
[3] www.pbs.org
[4] money.com
[5] www.nbcconnecticut.com
[6] www.scotusblog.com
[7] apnews.com
[8] budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu
[9] www.scotusblog.com
You've been corrected on this countless times. STFU about it.
#239 | Posted by jpw
Swallow it, JEFF.
His team cited a different law as justification to do what SCOTUS forbade them from doing under the HEROES Act.
#259 | Posted by BellRinger
The statement, "His team cited a different law as justification to do what SCOTUS forbade them from doing under the HEROES Act," is partially accurate but oversimplifies the situation. Here's a detailed analysis:
1. **"Cited a different law as justification"**:
- This is accurate. After the Supreme Court struck down President Biden's initial student loan forgiveness plan, which relied on the HEROES Act of 2003, the administration shifted its legal foundation to the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965. The HEA grants the Secretary of Education authority to "compromise, waive, or release" federal student loans under certain conditions[1][3][7].
2. **"To do what SCOTUS forbade them from doing under the HEROES Act"**:
- This is partially accurate but misleading. The Supreme Court did not categorically forbid student loan forgiveness; rather, it ruled that the HEROES Act did not provide sufficient authority for such sweeping debt cancellation. The administration's new plan under the HEA is narrower in scope and targets specific groups of borrowers, such as those facing financial hardship or who have been repaying loans for decades[1][3][5]. The shift to the HEA reflects an effort to address the Court's concerns about overreach under the HEROES Act.
3. **Key Differences in Legal Approach**:
- The HEROES Act was tied to national emergencies (e.g., COVID-19), which the Court found insufficient to justify broad loan forgiveness. The HEA provides a more general authority for loan adjustments but requires a formal rulemaking process, which the administration is pursuing to strengthen its legal position[1][3][7].
4. **Oversimplification**:
- The statement implies that the administration is merely attempting to bypass the Supreme Court's decision without addressing its legal concerns. In reality, the new plan represents a narrower approach and follows a more involved regulatory process designed to withstand legal scrutiny[1][3].
While it is true that the Biden administration cited a different law (the HEA) after the Supreme Court's rejection of its original plan under the HEROES Act, framing it as simply "doing what SCOTUS forbade" oversimplifies both the legal nuances and differences in scope between the two plans.
Citations:
[1] www.cnbc.com
[2] crsreports.congress.gov
[3] apnews.com
[4] www.ncsl.org
[5] www.pbs.org
[6] www.insidehighered.com
[7] www.cnbc.com
[8] en.wikipedia.org
This is so easy, you ------- ----.
All of the forgiveness programs enacted after the SCOTUS decision was well within the power of a POTUS to force a government agency to perform as intended by their statutory mandate under federal law.
Again, you've been corrected on this tons of times. Stop chirping ignorant bulls(*&.
#266 | Posted by jpw
The statement contains partial truth but oversimplifies the legal landscape.
Key Context from the Supreme Court's 2023 Ruling
The Supreme Court rejected Biden's original $430 billion forgiveness plan in *Biden v. Nebraska* (2023), ruling it exceeded statutory authority under the **HEROES Act**[1][4][5]. The Court emphasized that "waive or modify" under the HEROES Act did not authorize sweeping debt cancellation, calling it a "novel and fundamentally different program"[5].
Post-SCOTUS Loan Forgiveness Programs
After the ruling, the Biden administration pursued narrower debt relief through alternative statutory pathways, such as:
1. Revised Income-Driven Repayment Plans (e.g., the SAVE Plan): Adjusted repayment terms under the **Higher Education Act (HEA)** to cap monthly payments at 5% of discretionary income.
2. Targeted Forgiveness for Specific Groups:
- Borrowers defrauded by for-profit colleges (*Borrower Defense to Repayment*)
- Public servants via the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program
- Borrowers with disabilities or long-term repayment histories
These programs rely on **existing statutory authority** explicitly granted by Congress, such as:
- The HEA's provisions for "compromise, waiver, or release" of loans[3].
- The PSLF program established by Congress in 2007[3].
Accuracy of the Claim
- Partially Correct: Many post-2023 forgiveness measures operate under **longstanding statutory authority** (e.g., PSLF, Borrower Defense) that Congress explicitly authorized. These programs align with the Court's directive to avoid overreach.
- Overly Broad: The claim ignores that some post-2023 efforts (e.g., a 2025 Eighth Circuit case) were struck down for exceeding statutory limits, similar to the original plan[2]. Courts have repeatedly ruled that unilateral mass forgiveness without congressional approval remains unconstitutional.
Legal Boundaries
- Executive Power: The president can direct agencies to implement congressionally authorized programs but cannot invent new ones. For example, the HEA allows incremental adjustments (e.g., adjusting repayment terms) but not blanket debt cancellation[3][5].
- Ongoing Challenges: Even narrower programs face lawsuits. In 2025, the Eighth Circuit blocked a $188.8 billion forgiveness effort, reaffirming that the executive branch lacks "unilateral authority to erase hundreds of billions in debt"[2].
The statement oversimplifies by implying all post-2023 forgiveness programs were lawful. While many targeted relief efforts (e.g., PSLF) fall within statutory mandates, others (like the 2025 plan) repeated the overreach the Supreme Court condemned. The administration's authority remains contingent on specific congressional authorization, not unilateral executive power.
Citations:
[1] www.texastribune.org
[2] www.mackinac.org
[3] sc.edu
[4] www.nasfaa.org
[5] www.scotusblog.com
[
Citations:
[1] www.texastribune.org
[2] www.nasfaa.org
[3] www.scotusblog.com
[4] protectborrowers.org
[5] fedsoc.org
[6] www.cato.org
[7] library.nclc.org
[8] www.cnn.com
"Student loans are fraudulent"
Where's the fraud?
Did you mean Mohela, the loan servicing company, defrauded student loan recipients?
MOHELA Was Caught Lying to Student Loan Borrowers, and Now it is Quietly Forcing Them to Waive Their Rights
protectborrowers.org
When Biden bragged about defying SCOTUS (in this case we are talking about a single federal judge with an ideological axe to grind, not SCOTUS) over student loan forgiveness, you all cheered it on.
#24 | Posted by BellRinger
I'm just glad some Democrats have figured out that Republicans aren't going to listen to you anymore and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
Keep having your activist judges flail there arms in the air and we will just keep laughing.
#36 | Posted by Bluewaffles
Judge Boasberg was SC Justice Kavanaugh's roommate in law school and was first appointed to the federal bench by George W. Bush. Roberts appointed him to the FISA court:
During Boasberg's formal investiture ceremony elevating him to a federal judge, he sat beside Brett Kavanaugh, his close friend and housemate at Yale Law School and then a federal appeals judge in the D.C. Circuit. Kavanaugh conducted the rites at the ceremony.
www.nbcnews.com$3p=e_sailthru&_branch_match_id=1431258110183286659
Sorkel @sorkel3.bsky.social
In recent years, Judge Boasberg has:
- ordered the release of Hillary's emails
- ensured Trump's tax returns never became public
- restricted disclosure from the Mueller investigation
- limited disclosure of grand jury material in the Trump classified docs case.
The resistance, he ain't.
Drudge Retort Headlines
Free Kilmar (125 comments)
CDC: Autism Rates have Risen (110 comments)
Senator Blocked from Visiting Abrego Garcia in El Salvador (74 comments)
Lisa Murkowski: 'We Are All Afraid' of Retaliation (69 comments)
Harvard Rejects 'Unprecedented' Trump Demands over Funding (62 comments)
Speaker Johnson Is Eyeing Big Cuts to Medicaid (29 comments)
Blue Origin Flight Showcases Utter Defeat of US Feminism (22 comments)
Trump Bars AP from White House Despite Court Order (22 comments)
Mass Shooting at Florida State University (21 comments)
Trump Nominee Appeared 150 Times on Russian TV (21 comments)