this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
138 points (100.0% liked)

United States Politics

12 readers
1 users here now

### Welcome to US Politics! This magazine primarily focuses on US Politics and world politics from the US perspective.

founded 1 year ago
 

The majority then announced, with an opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts, that it was overthrowing the student loan forgiveness program, granting a request from six Republican state attorneys general on behalf of a loan servicer, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, that did not want to be used as a plaintiff. Without MOHELA, the states did not have standing to bring the suit—they are not directly harmed.

Roberts and the majority weren’t going to be bothered by the fact that their plaintiff was an unwilling participant in this highly partisan scheme. "By law and function, MOHELA is an instrumentality of Missouri ... The [debt forgiveness] plan will cut MOHELA's revenues, impairing its efforts to aid Missouri college students,” Roberts wrote. “This acknowledged harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself."

Never mind that in oral arguments the state admitted that MOHELA wasn’t aiding Missouri college students because it hadn’t paid into that fund in 15 years, and “said in its own financial documents that it doesn’t plan to make any payments in the future.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Seraph@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

There's no way out of this without expanding the court right? There are no easy ways to get these lifetime appointments removed, are there?

Edit: actually I just read they are trying to impose supreme court term limits!

[–] HipHoboHarold@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The only other option is to bust out the guillotine. Waiting for them to die naturally is gonna take too long, they clearly will never retire if their own free will, and no one in charge seems to care enough to do anything about their crimes.

So either we expand or revolt.

[–] Anna@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you calling for killing members of the Supreme Court?

[–] HipHoboHarold@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Less "calling for", and more so realizing that a lot of regimes in the world only got taken care of through people rising up. Sometimes violence has been needed, and that can be shown throughout this countries history.

[–] NotTheOnlyGamer@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

So, yes, you are calling for a violent insurrection against a part of the government.

[–] ExecutiveStapler@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Absolutely not true, another option besides just murdering them is to place term limits on the court. Link is a bill introduced by Ro Khanna that'd have the most senior judge replaced every 2 years. If there were enough dems in the House and Senate reforms would absolutely be possible.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

term limits wont stop them enriching themselves as much as possible.

[–] HipHoboHarold@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

So while not as likely to happen, glad to see someone trying to do something about it

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was under the impression they could be impeached.

[–] chinpokomon@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, but only for an impeachment offence. Even if there was unanimous consent for everyonebut the majority Justices, we're talking 300000000 to 5, that disagreed with a decision, the decision still stands and isn't an impeachable offense. So a Justice would have to do something egregious. Then impeachment would have to have a majority consent of the House and 2/3rds consent of the Senate, and the Senate would then have to make a motion to remove that Justice. So it isn't realistic that this would happen, especially with the razor thin margins of control in both chambers. Party politics would block the removal.