Official Student Debt Cancellation Watch Thread

[T’Challa’s Heir]

It does not say life tenure:

What do you think hold office in times of good behavior means?

Edit

Good Behavior Clause: Doctrine and Practice

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[mastermind]

What do you think hold office in times of good behavior means?

That's called interpretation, innit?

That's why they write laws within the frame of the Constitution. That is why people have proposed bills regarding term limits for the judiciary.

Unless it says, "Shall be appointed to lifetime terms," or "are appointed until they do not feel they can do the job any more," etc, it is up for interpretation.

 

[Wargames]

What do you think hold office in times of good behavior means?

After what we seen from Alito and Uncle Thomas can we even say they are in good behavior? shyt is a joke. Clarence Thomas had a dude basically pay for everything in his life and Alito was getting comped massive vacations but they said fukk everyone else.

Idk how but shyt has to change, its not even like we can say the Republicans didn’t cheat to get the majority they have now.

 

[T’Challa’s Heir]

That's called interpretation, innit?

That's why they write laws within the frame of the Constitution. That is why people have proposed bills regarding term limits for the judiciary.

Unless it says, "Shall be appointed to lifetime terms," or "are appointed until they do not feel they can do the job any more," etc, it is up for interpretation.

After what we seen from Alito and Uncle Thomas can we even say they are in good behavior? shyt is a joke. Clarence Thomas had a dude basically pay for everything in his life and Alito was getting comped massive vacations but they said fukk everyone else.

Idk how but shyt has to change, its not even like we can say the Republicans didn’t cheat to get the majority they have now.

That’s literally been the interpretation of that phrase since 1789.

Good Behavior Clause: Doctrine and Practice

www.law.cornell.edu

How many other sources do you want?

 

[mastermind]

That’s literally been the interpretation of that phrase since 1789.

Good Behavior Clause: Doctrine and Practice

www.law.cornell.edu

How many other sources do you want?

I am well aware of what the interpretation is. Just like Abortion was interpreted to be constitutional and now it is not.

The point being made is that interpretation can be challenged because it is an interpretation and not an explicit statement.

 

[Wargames]

What code of ethics are the super court held by? There is no basis for the term behavior because there are basically no rules they are beholden too.

 

[T’Challa’s Heir]

I am well aware of what the interpretation is. Just like Abortion was interpreted to be constitutional and now it is not.

The point being made is that interpretation can be challenged because it is an interpretation and not an explicit statement.

What code of ethics are the super court held by? There is no basis for the term behavior because there are basically no rules they are beholden too.

1) the last time this issue came up was in 1992, w/ Nixon vs United States. Where they found they grounds to impeach and remove a judge to be extremely narrow. They confirmed that, impeachment was the only way to remove a judge.

2) I think you’re both arguing in bad faith or just don’t have a good enough understanding of constitutional law to make this a worthwhile conversation for me. Primarily based on your seemingly willful misunderstanding of how government works.

3) but for the sake of argument. Let’s go along. Let’s say, we get the law passed. Your first problem is going to be the previous Supreme Court case dealing w/ congressional term limits. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
There’s nothing expressly in the constitution saying congressmen can’t run in perpetuity, thus can’t have a law capping it.

4) but we’ll ignore that. And say we get our 20 years. Well, it would only apply to newly confirmed judges. It would be ex post facto law if applied to already sitting judges. So it doesn’t remove any other long serving justices or cap there terms.

5) so let’s say it applies going forward. We get to year 20 of a new judge, and he sues saying the law is unconstitutional. You two keep complaining about how justices do w/e they want. Is a Thomas or Alito, or any judge gonna agree with a congressional limit on their power?

You know what fixes these problems? An amendment introducing term limits. I get your frustrations, but raging and advocating for an ultimately ineffective and not fully thought out solution is not a productive use of attempting to get your goal.

 

[mastermind]

What code of ethics are the super court held by? There is no basis for the term behavior because there are basically no rules they are beholden too.

They don't have any code of ethics

The Supreme Court Can’t Even Agree on a Code of Ethics for Itself

Since the high court won’t police itself, it’s time for someone else to institute ethics reform for it—no matter what the naysayers argue.

www.thenation.com

 

[mastermind]

1) the last time this issue came up was in 1992, w/ Nixon vs United States. Where they found they grounds to impeach and remove a judge to be extremely narrow. They confirmed that, impeachment was the only way to remove a judge.

2) I think you’re both arguing in bad faith or just don’t have a good enough understanding of constitutional law to make this a worthwhile conversation for me. Primarily based on your seemingly willful misunderstanding of how government works.

3) but for the sake of argument. Let’s go along. Let’s say, we get the law passed. Your first problem is going to be the previous Supreme Court case dealing w/ congressional term limits. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
There’s nothing expressly in the constitution saying congressmen can’t run in perpetuity, thus can’t have a law capping it.

4) but we’ll ignore that. And say we get our 20 years. Well, it would only apply to newly confirmed judges. It would be ex post facto law if applied to already sitting judges. So it doesn’t remove any other long serving justices or cap there terms.

5) so let’s say it applies going forward. We get to year 20 of a new judge, and he sues saying the law is unconstitutional. You two keep complaining about how justices do w/e they want. Is a Thomas or Alito, or any judge gonna agree with a congressional limit on their power?

You know what fixes these problems? An amendment introducing term limits. I get your frustrations, but raging and advocating for an ultimately ineffective and not fully thought out solution is not a productive use of attempting to get your goal.

I actually believe that there is a need of a constitutional amendment that will make it explicitly clear.

And I do have an understanding of constitutional law. I am not a constitutional scholar and don't pretend to be, but I do understand it.

The only point I have been making is that it's an interpretation that can be challenged and changed. Passing a law that says the judiciary should have term limits is now a test of that interpretation.

And just like they've done in the past, the court can go against past interpretations and precedence.

Lastly, I am not angry about this decision. America is a very cruel country and the Supreme Court has lead the cruelty for most of this nation's history. I have felt this way since I first learned about the Court.

What I don't like is this meekness that politicians have shown to the court the last 40 years as if it isn't a political body when it quite clearly is.

 

[Spidey Man]

There was no standing whatsoever for this case to make it to the supreme court to begin with and that's what makes this hurt more.

They cited damage to the moehla as the reason for the lawsuit, but moehla themselves, were not a part of the case and came out stating they weren't hurt by the forgiveness. It should never have made it this far, and we all know that the HEROES act was written in plain English. Every aspect of the law was on the side of the Biden administration.

We can argue about fairness all day, but the law is clear. Elections have consequences and people need to vote more Dems in. You have to humor the manchins of the world with a 1 seat majority. You get 60 senators and now you got a filibuster proof majority, and the manchins of the world don't matter

 

[T’Challa’s Heir]

I actually believe that there is a need of a constitutional amendment that will make it explicitly clear.

And I do have an understanding of constitutional law. I am not a constitutional scholar and don't pretend to be, but I do understand it.

The only point I have been making is that it's an interpretation that can be challenged and changed. Passing a law that says the judiciary should have term limits is now a test of that interpretation.

And just like they've done in the past, the court can go against past interpretations and precedence.

Lastly, I am not angry about this decision. America is a very cruel country and the Supreme Court has lead the cruelty for most of this nation's history. I have felt this way since I first learned about the Court.

What I don't like is this meekness that politicians have shown to the court the last 40 years as if it isn't a political body when it quite clearly is.

Fair enough, it’s about as ingrained as Judicial Review, from Marbury v Madison to where I don’t think there’s any serious legal challenge to it or possibility of it being overturned.

To go w/ the Roe comparison. Abortion was illegal in several parts of the country before the ruling. And there were movements to reverse Roe from the minute the ink dried on the decision. Presidents and judges openly campaigned on overturning it. And there was the death by a thousand cuts incrimental rulings that got us to Dobbs. There’s nothing similar to that with lifetime tenure.

 

[T’Challa’s Heir]

There was no standing whatsoever for this case to make it to the supreme court to begin with and that's what makes this hurt more.

They cited damage to the moehla as the reason for the lawsuit, but moehla themselves, were not a part of the case and came out stating they weren't hurt by the forgiveness. It should never have made it this far, and we all know that the HEROES act was written in plain English. Every aspect of the law was on the side of the Biden administration.

We can argue about fairness all day, but the law is clear. Elections have consequences and people need to vote more Dems in. You have to humor the manchins of the world with a 1 seat majority. You get 60 senators and now you got a filibuster proof majority, and the manchins of the world don't matter

*filibuster proof majority that doesn’t include
-A Senator on his death bed missing votes
-99 year former KKK member also on his death bed
-not having a Senator seated until 6 months into his term
-a Senator that was almost the Republican VP nom, spoke at the RNC and campaigned against the president
-more than 45 working legislative days with all 60 senators available

Just a little clarification on the last time we had one

 

[Arianne Martell]

How long you have to work for the government to have loans forgiven?

10 years

 

[Wargames]

oof

Blue checks are meaningless, this guy is a nobody with a blue check

 

[the cac mamba]

Blue checks are meaningless, this guy is a nobody with a blue check

who cares who tweeted it. entirely irrelevant to the content

let me know when anderson cooper tweets that out, ill replace it for you