Yesterday they made higher education less accessible to non-whites, today they made it harder for the poor…
I wonder if there’s a pattern here.
Yes, higher education is now less accessible to non-whites. Which is good, because affirmative action was never a fair solution to the issue and was simply unfair in principle imo. We shouldn’t raise the eligibility of people based on their race, college admissions and race should have nothing to do with one another. Class-based affirmative action actually makes sense instead of deciding off race.
I agree with you in theory, but striking down AA without a better solution in place is bad. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
Fair enough, I agree that in reality removing AA and not implementing a better system in it’s place will only lead to worse outcomes.
Your whole argument could have been just that last sentence and I’d bet you’d have significantly less downvotes.
Although I’m disappointed by the courts decision I do believe class basis is a better measuring stick for AA. That said, I think there would be a pretty close correlation between the people who benefit now and the people who would benefit if the system was based on socioeconomic class.
I wholeheartedly agree that minorities are often at a disadvantage in our society, and that there is a correlation between race and socioeconomic status in the USA. I think that if true equality is to be achieved, we need to stop separating people (at least in important processes like legal proceedings, college admissions, etc.) by their race at all. It sets a bad precedent, and I hope for a future where no race has any connotation with any socioeconomic class.
We have class based affirmative action. Rich people buy their kids into school all the time.
Yes, higher education is now less accessible to non-whites. Which is good,
Jesus H. Christ. Either stop being a racist or learn to organize your thoughts.
Lmao is reading comprehension not your thing? Because my meaning was very clear and not at all racist.
How was it not? How is non-whites having less access good?
You follow what I quoted by claiming it wasn’t fair (“imo”) because, as you say, “we shouldn’t raise the eligibility of people based on their race” which is great if you ignore the fact that nearly every institution in the US treats people differently based on race, whether intentional or not. It is exceedingly rare for that bias to swing in the favor of non-whites.
With no meaningful alternative to AA, what exacxtly is the win here?
Non-whites having less access is good in this context, because they were being unfairly given an advantage before. I agree with your premise about bias, but why should the solution to that be to artificially inflate the people being discriminated against, instead of trying to provide a system that doesn’t have room for discrimination?
Class based alternative action, along with anonymizing applicant details pertinent to their race is a meaningful alternative to AA.
I agree on the last point, but there isn’t a class based system in place, nor is there a plan to implement one (that I can find).
That, I shall continue to argue, makes this very not good.
I agree with no proper replacement this will overall have a negative effect. I think the method race-based AA uses was very flawed.
You literally cut his quote in the middle of the sentence. He says its good specifically because it was not a result of fair treatment, right after you cut him off.
The world is upside down when you can someone saying “it’s unfair to judge people by race” a racist.
I think you can call someone saying “it’s unfair to judge people by race” a racist when they’re using that line to applaud the removal of protections against institutional racism. We can argue the merits of AA as a form of protection, but it was protection nonetheless. To say that it was unfair is to entirely ignore the unfairness which necessitated its existence.
Why does this make it harder for the poor to access higher education? A debt forgiveness will make current debtors less burdened but will probably make it more expensive for new applicants. Isn’t it the other way around?
Relieving debt for the poor would allow them to spend their money on other things, or save it. Best case scenario, they’re able to support their kids’ educations and help break the generational cycle of poverty.
I believe he’s referencing the decision on the Harvard affirmative action case, not the student debt relief decision. Supreme Court has been busy this week!
Honestly, this decision wouldn’t probably impact future college attendees. But, there are other changes coming to federal borrowing that likely will. Income based repayment is being restructured and it’s looking pretty good.
However, this will probably hurt the economy. A lot of people are about to hit repayment at a period of high inflation. It’s not a great economy. And, if a lot of people decide to ignore their student loan bills a la 2008 financial crisis, were in for a global economic doozy.
The US has historically low unemployment, but real wages have stagnated for more than 50 years.
The economy is actually pretty great – for those at the top. Not so much for those doing the real work:
It will impact future college attendees insofar as being more poor impacts your chances of going to college. It won’t directly impact future college attendees, but there is a knock on effect which will to some extent.
Chances are loan forgiveness would push a conversation regarding tuition fees in general, and would ultimately make university free / affordable instead.
Maybe.
There is 0 chance that would happen with our current political climate.
Well, around 20 states right now offer free community college if you’re a resident through first/last dollar programs. Meaning, they will cover the costs after any other financial aid. Other qualifications vary.
Some States schools offer debt relief if you hold a regional residency for X-years (usually 5) after graduation. So for example, if there’s an area of a State that needs more investment (like Upstate NY versus Downstate), these programs are designed to increase GDP and strengthen the talent pool.
Of course, you can get a tuition waiver in like half the states if you’re over 60. 🙄
I’m not saying any of this is ideal by any stretch if the imagination. Just saying there’s some headway here and there in terms of precedent for tuition-free college education.
Fuck Trump and his supreme court. We’re going to be suffering the effects of Republican stupidity for the next 40 years.
It’s Republican moral bankruptcy and cruelty that we will all suffer. If anyone’s stupidity got us here, it’s the Democratic Party’s stupid leadership since AT LEAST 2000, if not earlier. Republicans have telegraphed their intentions for 50 fuckin years and Democrats continued over and over to attempt reaching across the aisle, trying to pass bipartisan wins, “take the high road,” … all the while the Republican party continued putting their racist, xenophobic, mysoginistic, jingoistic, classist platform out year after year, abandoning all sense of decorum and norms, gerrymandering the fuck out of every district possible, blocking every bill that helps anyone aside from billionaires and corporations, and generally lying and cheating their way to what we have today.
since AT LEAST 2000
Democrats: It’s just a coincidence that two lawyers who worked on the Supreme Court case that handed Bush the election in 2000 happen to be Supreme Court Justices today!
I think, if there’s independent historians in the future looking back, they’ll be mentioned in the same sentence as Neville Chamberlain often.
If you need any reason not to believe in god, it’s that Trump got to appoint THREE FUCKING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
I don’t know enough about US politics, but can’t Biden change the court justices? If the answer is no, how did Trump change?
Justices need to die or retire in order for there to be a vacancy for a President to appoint a new Justice to. There was a vacancy at the start of Trump’s term due to a death during Obama’s that the Republicans refused to confirm an appointment for, and then there was a retirement (Kennedy) and death (RBG) during his term as well.
For anyone who isn’t familiar, RBG was a liberal Supreme Court justice that was getting very old, and a lot of people thought she should have retired during Obama’s term, where she could have been replaced by him. Some accuse her of stubbornness/hubris for not stepping down when it was “safe”, and point out that her whole legacy is now being undone.
Others point out that common wisdom at the time was that Hillary was going to he a shoe in as the next president, and nobody expected a Republican to win, including RBG.
Anyway, I’m not taking a stance but just fleshing that out for anyone who is interested in the controversy.
Others point out that common wisdom at the time was that Hillary was going to he a shoe in as the next president
Just to also point out. This “common wisdom” is part of why Hillary lost and why a lot of people argued that RBG should have resigned during her term because the next Democratic President wasn’t a shoe-in, and people couldn’t just rely on that.
People also seem to forget that both a Bush and a Clinton were running in 2016 and in a way, Trump being elected was a initially a rejection of “political dynasties” as Presidencies (which then immediately turned to his followers wanting him as a forever king, but that’s a different issue entirely). I had a Bush or a Clinton as President for twenty years of my life (roughly a third of the average lifespan for a US citizen). From my youth until I was no longer considered a youth, well into adulthood. I remember being frustrated at being faced with both a Bush and a Clinton in the primaries. I know lots of other people, on both sides of the aisle, did too. Nobody wanted more of the same (I know Hillary didn’t view herself as “more of the same” of her husband, and for good reason, but that wasn’t common opinion).
The entire thing about it being “common wisdom” was spoken from a position of privilege by elite Democrats and ignoring that common people weren’t every excited about either Bush or Clinton but Clinton got shoehorned in anyway while Bush had his “please clap” moment. It’s not a shoe-in if you have to use a shoehorn, mind you.
That says nothing about the existence or lack of a deity, only that if there is one he’s a HUGE piece of shit.
Rabbits
We’ll see. I think the courts gonna get nuked soon one way or another.
But the forgiven PPP loans are A-OK, right? Fuck this shit.
On top of that 1.7 trillion in tax breaks for the rich over ten year. Benifits like 600 people. The same 1.7 trillion could wipe out debt 43 million people and that is debt accumulated over 40 years.
Unless the dems take back court we would be all living through a nightmare.
Maybe Hilldawg could have campaigned in Wisconsin or taken seriously that even if she won the popular vote, that the Electoral College actually mattered.
Reminder, she did win the popular vote. The majority did vote for her.
Or maybe Obama could have kept his campaign promise that codifying Roe vs. Wade in law was his first order of business.
This has been the Democrat strategy for a long time now: make wonderful promises they don’t intend to keep, then blame everyone else when they don’t come to fruition. People keep voting for them despite this obvious fact, because Republicans make terrible promises that they actually try to keep.
We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. The only winning move is to
not playflip the table and play a different game.I just posted this thought before scrolling to see yours. Absolutely their strategy. They don’t actually give a fuck about us or the promises we expect them to keep.
The dem politician’s tactic. Pretend like you give a fuck (pretending bc they dont actually do the things to solve the issue), and then hold your constituency hostage during elections. Then continue to pretend like you give a fuck.
Or maybe Obama could have kept his campaign promise that codifying Roe vs. Wade in law was his first order of business.
I don’t disagree that Democrats should have done this, but I doubt any Senate during his presidency would have passed it. The Democratic super majority lasted only a few months and he used that to pass the ACA. I don’t think it would have passed if it had codified Roe.
Right, he spent his political capital on… *checks notes… Romneycare.
While it has helped out many who are destitute, it has still resulted in many, many people struggling with their health insurance, paying monthly bills that are so high and deductibles so high that they literally can’t afford to use their healthcare.
He also promised a public option but I guess forgot about that too, when push came to shove.
I fail to see why you’re turning this around on her. She simply stated a fact that became reality.
This happens every election cycle. We do our job by electing them. They are privy to what will happen and fail to act when they have the power to do so. Who else do we blame? The universe?
If Hillary were president instead of Trump we wouldn’t see this stacked court.
That has nothing to do with Obama’s promise or whatever.
It has everything to do with Obama’s promise. By not following through on his promise to legislate it into law, the opportunity to reverse the previous court decision was always a thing that could happen. Acting like them not taking the opportunity when they had it means its the fault of the voting public is pure bullshit.
Instead, Obama used his political capital to pass Romneycare, which while it helped a lot of poor people, has made the insurance market even worse for many, who still have insurance that they can’t afford to actually use.
Dont forget to thank RBG, who refused to retire under Obama for some fucking reason, only to get owned by COVID after officiating a wedding for some dumb liberals (while having an immune system shredded by cancer)
Well it gave us the funniest trump interview imo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knlJWu815C0
If there is a minimum age in government, there needs to be a maximum. I’m over these 70 year olds running things.
Downvoted by people who refuse to look at when Democrats make stupid decisions that fuck us.
I thought Lemmy was supposed to be full of tankies, not milquetoast centrist capitalist apologists…
Just like when Dems had congress and the presidency but refused to make law to defend abortion saying the supreme court wouldn’t overrule it. Oopsy poopsy.
They can downvote away, I will never not shit on Ginsberg (also libtards infect spaces just like right wingers)
libtards
I’m onboard with the spirit of the post, but I encourage you to find another insult
agree, how do you feel about shitlib?
I quite like “milquetoast liberals” although it has more syllables.
He’s not wrong, just an asshole.
Your hyperlink is wrong, it’s pointing back to the post.
for some fucking reason
The reason is that she expected Hillary to win and the satisfaction of the first female president appointing her replacement.
It’s a great example of how these justices aren’t as wise or smart as they seem to think they are.
Expecting Hillary to be a shoe-in was just so naive. I know hardly anyone democrat or republican that actually liked her.
Wow. The SCOTUS is firing through all sorts of shitty changes this week. They’re like the koolaid man on meth.
Gonna be this way for the foreseeable future
OH YEAH!!!
Vote! Encourage those around you to vote. Help drive someone to the polls. If you know a young person who’s never voted, get them to vote.
Don’t care who they vote for, just get them to the ballot box.
The more people vote, the better things turn out for the majority.
I know this will likely upset many Dems but:
Dems have the Senate and the Presidency and are completely within their power to pack the Supreme Court and basically alter all of the terrible rulings the Supreme Court has made lately. The problem is that many Dems do not think it is worth packing the court for women, students, or the environment. You can’t just vote your way out of this as you would literally have to pack up and move to West Virginia to vote for a Senator who would be ultimately determining this.
The system is ultimately flawed and just voting isn’t enough.
Addition after some research:
It looks like the Supreme Court is set in size by law and FDR had some of the same problems so it would be likely that this would take an act of congress and not just the Senate.
Ultimately I feel this is certainly more difficult and makes my criticism of inaction now invalid as Dems do not hold enough of a majority to pass legislation; however I do still see them as responsible for inaction when majorities have been held throughout my lifetime.
A) They need 50 senators willing to entertain that notion. They only have 49. B) If there were one action that I think would be most likely to kick off Civil War 2, it would be packing the court.
That’s a very selective way of saying the Dems aren’t responsible because Dems wont support students, the environment, or women’s rights.
Civil War 2 is already happening, you must not be paying attention.
It’s time to rip off the fucking band-aid and do something about it instead of letting the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, and others run around terrorizing the country through wanton violence and death.
All those “lone wolves” mysteriously all seem to be right-wing nutjobs, too…
Just because it’s not a “hot” civil war yet doesn’t mean it’s not happening. One side isn’t fighting back, that’s for sure.
With that being said, you’re also correct that voting is NOT enough. Protesting and direct action, mutual aid, and more are all required!
Democrats wouldn’t pack the courts
That would be uncouth, you know, decorum is after all VERY important
I also think the Parlementarian said no
They are not completely within their power to pack the court, sadly. They would have done so already if this were the case. They need 60 in the senate as well as a majority in the house and the presidency. Then they could.
Excuse me but to my knowledge the House is not needed for appoint judges, the president nominates and the Senate votes to appoint. The Senate would simply need a majority and I’m pretty sure Dems have the majority in the Senate.
Unfortunately the dems do not have a true majority in the senate either. It hasn’t been as easy as we hoped to get everyone on the same page.
Damn. If only the system gave representation per capita instead of for arbitrary reasons to get slave owners to agree. Shucks. I guess we just have to accept it and get back to work. /s obviously.
The House is not needed to appoint justices, but the size of the Supreme Court is set by federal law, and you need the House to change that law to go beyond nine justices.
I’m sorry but I can’t find anything on there being law setting the size of the Supreme Court but only precedent.
Would you happen to have the name of this law?
Found it and it looks like FDR had some fights of a very similar nature.
I’m fairly sure they would need the house to expand the court and add more justices.
I think you’re probably right as it looks to be something involving the Judiciary Act of 1869 but I’ve also heard that only the senate is needed to do this even today.
Obviously not a lawyer and ultimately it could have been done by Dems prior to the midterms so they would still be responsible for not packing the court earlier.
Technically, they don’t need 60. The cloture rule is what necessitates a 3/5ths supermajority to pass bills, but the cloture rule is not itself a law and so Senators can just… change it with a simple-majority vote. This has already happened twice in the recent past: once in 2013 when the Democrat-led Senate voted to eliminate the cloture rule when nominating federal circuit judges and once more in 2017 when the Ruplican-led Senate voted to eliminate the cloture rule when nominating supreme court justices.
FWIW: Senators tend to really hate doing this. They call it the “nuclear option” because they normally like to get a 2/3rds supermajority agreement before changing any standing Senate rules – not to mention that the cloture rule itself is often treated as a total third-rail even among the other important Senate procedures. Combining the nuclear option and killing cloture is a massive political powderkeg waiting to explode… but maybe it should?
I guess full throated fascism and authoritarianism isn’t enough to consider a “nuclear option.”
It’s a shared norm. Part of the deal is an implied promise that the other guys also ignore the big red button. Really, though… that ship had already sailed years ago leaving the cloture rule to hang on by the barest of threads. I’m half-convinced that the current Senate would have already done away with it if only they had a slightly more reliable voting margin.
IMO: cloture is a dumb rule because we already have a robust system of checks in the form of a bicameral legislature plus presidential veto. The requirement for a 2/3rd supermajority in addition to these for regular everyday business is odious and something that no other large democracy does. I’m anti-gridlock on principle alone, even if I acknowledge the absolute chaos it will probably plunge the Senate into for the next dozen years or so.
I like how when Democrats are in power, they’re unable to do anything…
But when Republicans are in power, they break the law at lightning speed, do things they’re not supposed to do, and nobody stops them because actually the only thing staying in their way are “rules” and “decorum” and not “laws” and yet mysteriously the Democrats are always beholden to “laws” that prevent them from doing the same.
It’s a fucking farce.
Wouldn’t the Rs just do the same thing next time they have power? I get what you’re saying, but isn’t setting that precedent dangerous?
You’re saying that as if the Rs won’t do the same thing anyway without prior provocation. They’ve literally already broken the law to pack the court and the Democrats sat on their hands. They denied Obama picking a justice because it was “too close to an election” when the election was like six months away, but let Trump pick one when an election was already underway.
Take off the fucking blinders, the Republicans already do these kind of things.
They already set the precedent.
Republicans are channeling full fucking fascism and you think the only thing keeping them from packing the already packed republican court is because Dems haven’t done it first?
Fair enough.
Yes- the court is an illegitimate anti-democratic institution and the long-term goal should be its abolishment.
It is the final tool of the American oligarchs to prevent needed structural change in the country.
Anything to highlight this is a good thing. Playing ping-pong with court expansion would be great to accelerate its necessary demise.
I agree
R’s don’t care about precedent. That’s why they actually get what they want. If Democrats actually got things done, they would consistently win elections and it would be be an issue anyway.
It’s not going to happen anyway, though.
Voting put three justices in-place with last president.
Yeah 3 million fewer votes too. Just vote your way out of an oligarchy guys! The ruling class totally will let you and wont gerrymander or make constitutional amendments to give term limits to only Presidents…
Of course it upsets the Dems knowing that they’re on the only side that has to govern well and we honest.
But the alternative is for our side to be as much of a malignant tumor on the country as the other side is.
I’ll take this version of the Democratic party, despite the fact the Republicans are trying to destroy the US and rebuild it in their own image.
Our side?
I’m sorry, I don’t side with oligarchs.
I don’t side with oligarchs.
Joe Manchin sure does. Nancy Pelosi sure does. Chuck Schumer sure does.
Oopsie poopsie.
Gotta make sure your investments are safe by being a member of congress.
Without a socialist party (as in, completely purged and free of all bourgeois influence), there’s isn’t a whole lot worth voting for at the federal level. Democrats repeatedly show that they are incapable of resisting the Republicans and take L’s constantly (see here).
I encourage everyone to instead organize with local political orgs that can eventually build this power. The DSA being the largest currently available (and just as flawed as the other options one may have, ofc)
If you don’t feel it’s worth keeping as many Rs out of Federal roles, then no amount of examples are going to change your mind.
You can’t ignore the federal level because the Dems aren’t liberal enough.
deleted by creator
I agree with your assesment of the DSA, but our audience here isn’t ready for that. I want them to get into the DSA where we can continue trashing on them until they do something more useful.
They aren’t going to go from defending Democratic Party failures to Maoist Third-Worldist guerilla fighters (the correct sect of socialists, of course) overnight.
Your see here link is empty and you accidentally double-posted this comment, friend.
Yeah just fixed that, “see here” was meant to refer to this student debt situation in the OP
Damn, I was hoping for a well documented compendium of Democrat L’s that have been taken because they’re too cowardly to stand up for their constituents.
Could expand on that? Any good methods to vote out a Supreme Court Justice?
deleted by creator
My “favorite” part of the majority ruling is how the loan forgiveness was struck down because it would harm the loan servicers. Not the government, not the people, the companies that have been contracted to collect the loans. That’s who SCOTUS is most concerned with. Should tell us everything we need to know about who’s interests are most important - capitalists
Not only did they admit that MOHELA didn’t have standing, MOHELA itself said this wouldn’t impact them and they didn’t ask to be part of the case.
Funny how it turns out that standing doesn’t matter when they don’t want it to.
Kinda similar to the other case they dropped this morning, allowing LGBT discrimination… despite the fact that it turns out that no gay person ever actually asked this bakery to make them a cake for their wedding. When contacted, the man who purportedly sent the email claimed he never sent it and has been married to a woman for years. They don’t even give a shit if it’s made up they will sign off on it.
Who here still thinks republicans should be allowed to vote and hold elected office and write and pass laws?
Show of hands?
Great, everyone who raised their hand deserves this shit. Everyone wants to hate on Republicans, but when it comes to the voting booth, everyone defends them to the death. Well this is what you get. But DeMoCrAcY is more important than anything and everything, right?
Come on, you play right into their bullshit propaganda with that message. If they go low we don’t stoop to their level. We do not win elections by removing voting rights for those we disagree with - that is an authoritarian tactic.
there isn’t really any ‘nobility’ in ‘taking the high road’ while marginalized communities continue to get owned and killed. Trans kids are being targeted, women are being targeted, BIPOC are being targeted.
what good is civility? authoritarian leftism is the only way to get results
Using authoritarianism is a fast track to ensuring that new generations of people see leftism as the enemy, if they don’t already feel that way.
Taking away agency of people doesn’t create lasting social systems; the masses aren’t inspired to uphold the values by fear of consequence alone. People en mass will never accept being told what to do if they feel it takes away their agency. If anything you only breed resistance and contempt for your system of choice.
Who would you even trust to have such power? How could they be expected to uphold their values? How do you know that authoritarian power can’t/won’t be corrupted? Are you going to allow the murder of others if it cast as ‘just’ in the eyes of that power?
Authoritarianism had its hour, and in that time blighted all it touched. If it weren’t for authoritarian leftists muddying the waters of the term ‘Communist’, Id imagine we’d have seen a lot more societies adopting those ideas instead of equating ‘communism’ with authoritarianism and rejecting it outright
“sure, we let fascism run rampant over society, but that was the respectable thing to do”
What? Of course they should be allowed to vote, if you don’t like it, leave the US
I personally think it doesn’t suddenly stop being “democracy” because you decided to make laws about disallowing people who are trying to dismantle democracy and replace it with authoritarianism to participate in democracy, because they’re obviously participating in bad faith.
I don’t think you should lose voting rights for felonies. I think you should lose voting rights for trying to dismantle the state and remove hard-fought for citizens rights. But maybe I’m a crazy person for thinking that a lot of these people are pretty dumb motherfuckers, and for the pretty dumb motherfuckers, its pretty easy to prove that they’re acting in bad faith and to deny them voting rights until they get their ass educated accordingly.
I’m with you, at this point it doesn’t make sense to let literal fucking terrorists be involved in democracy, because it’s already no longer democracy when they’re threatening you at the voting booth with their guns so you “vote right.”
Democracy is bad when I don’t get what I want. Interesting take.
Gotta be a troll, right?
How many were paid off by the student loan companies.
I was under the impression the student loan companies did not care. They were getting paid regardless.
Maybe that is correct. I’m not sure who was giving the money back.
The government was going to pay off the loans. This is why MOHELA publicly said it was all the same to them. Internally they projected increase revenue from forgiveness.
Friendly reminder Biden lost the battle but he hasn’t lost the war. He is currently working out an income related savings plan and doing a hail mary long shot roundabout come in the back door play using the Authority he has from the Higher Education Act to create debt forgiveness regulation. He’s still out there trying, though anything through the Dept of Education will take a while because of how policy works there.
I’m typically a swing voter, but not anymore
Roe, Affirmative Action, LGBTQ protections, this is why you should vote in every election, including (perhaps especially) midterm elections. It’s the composition of Congress that makes these things happen, and you can’t pass on voting if you want to prevent it.
A very poor application of standing doctrine. Kagan cuts right to the heart of it when she asks “Where is MOHELA” as well as if anyone honestly thinks Missouri is there over MOHELA losing some fees. Heck, MOHELA wanted nothing to do with the suit and that the payments Missouri claimed MOHELA made back actually were never paid.
Then the recurrence of the “major questions doctrine,” this invented idea that lets them throw out the plain text when they disagree.
That said, I did disagree with the plan. It was poorly targeted, hitting wealthier grads that still had loans, while ignoring poor people that never went in the first place, or were frugal and had limited loans. As someone that saw the Great Recession hit just after graduation, I wonder where my relief was from that emergency, as my lifetime earning took a massive hit, all while still having to pay my loans, with not so much as a payment pause or interest forbearance. To me, it was a thinly veiled attempt to buy votes for the midterm. Had it any other goal, Biden wouldn’t have waited so long.
I don’t understand how someone can sue over someone else being harmed. Doesn’t the person or entity suing have to be directly harmed in order to sue?
Yep, they upended the standing doctrine that requires you to be the party injured to sue the party causing the injury. But also these aren’t true judges, they’re political advocates. They will uphold standing doctrine where they see fit, and strike it down where they don’t like here.
I don’t have kids but am perfectly happy to pay more tax to make education free or cheaper. How can anyone argue that a less educated society is better? The more people that can experience higher education is plainly a good thing. There could be someone out there who could make a medical or technological breakthrough but doesn’t get the chance because they can’t afford to go to college.
I think the main argument is that this isn’t the way to go about that. The universities are totally out of control and need to be forced to curb their spending to make things more affordable before we just start handing them public funding like this.
need to be forced to curb their spending to make things more affordable
How? Students are choosing more expensive places. The market is driving this.
Well I think this move is only going to hurt people in the short run, it was just asking for further dive in a recession, I do agree with this sentiment of it.
Tuition prices are absolutely insane. Colleges and universities are spending money on ridiculous nonsense, and that needs to be reigned in severely before Just throwing billions more taxpayer dollars at them.
That said, these funds weren’t going to the universities. They were going to the banks, so cutting this off isn’t going to influence tuition rates in any way.
I don’t really think anyone in the government has a good solution for this, do they?
Remove the available money? Only the rich go to college. Add more money? The prices go up.
You could try regulating it, but then you just get colleges that refuse to accept government money, while simultaneously asking for the same amount.
I’m sure someone has a solution that would work, but it’s not anyone with the power to implement it, that’s for sure.
just make public universities cheaper, private sector will feel the competition and lower prices.
I honestly don’t think so. Private universities are already more expensive, why would they care if that gap widened more?
