Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Do Republicans Ever Fight Back?
While Republicans were dithering around, trying to figure out if they could stop Biden’s Executive Order for canceling student loan debt, a creative Libertarian identified a way to stop the legislation. Especially valuable was that he identified that he had standing to sue, which was anticipated as a major roadblock to this kind of challenge.
The EO should not have come as a surprise to anyone. Biden first mentioned it during his campaign and then in March 2020. Apparently, no one took him seriously:
Conservative groups have been threatening to challenge debt cancellation since Biden first aired the idea, saying it’s legally questionable and unfairly cancels student debt at the expense of Americans who didn’t attend college. One of the main challenges has been finding someone who faces personal harm as a result of Biden’s plan, giving them legal standing to sue.
Some attorneys general finally decided they’d better discuss the possibility of Biden’s taking action, now that the applications for loan forgiveness will be given out at the beginning of October.
The person filing suit is Frank Garrison, who argues he will be harmed “due to quirks in the federal loan repayment plans and Indiana law.” Here’s more:
Mr. Garrison is enrolled in the federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which limits his monthly payments to a share of his income and discharges the remaining debt after 10 years of payments. The President’s loan forgiveness will immediately cancel $20,000 in debt. But this won’t reduce his monthly payments since they are already capped.
However, it will require him to pay more than $1,000 in state tax on the canceled debt this year. Indiana doesn’t tax Public Service Loan Forgiveness, so he wouldn’t face a state tax liability several years from now. Thus, he won’t receive an ‘additional benefit from the cancellation—just a one-time additional penalty,’ according to his suit.
He can’t avoid this hit since the Education Department says it will automatically cancel loans for eight million borrowers for which it has income data on file, namely those in income-based repayment plans. Mr. Garrison’s injury is also imminent because the Department said it plans to begin canceling debt for borrowers by early October.
Biden is trying to use the “pandemic national emergency” as an excuse for the loan forgiveness, even though he told us the other day that the pandemic was over. And then there is Biden’s usurping Congress’ power to handle economic decisions.
Nice try, Mr. Biden.
Six states (including Indiana) are going to be subject to the tax penalty unless they change their current laws: Arkansas, California, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina and Wisconsin. And Conservatives are voicing their protests but still have not filed a lawsuit:
Conservatives have called the debt forgiveness plan fiscally irresponsible and unfair to the millions of Americans who never attended college or already paid off their education loans. Republicans have also said the plan is illegal because it wrests spending powers given to Congress, arguing that the 2003 law was never intended to give the executive branch such unilateral, broad authority.
Fortunately, Frank Garrison’s employer, the Pacific Legal Foundation, has stepped up to represent him. They have characterized Biden’s action and the foundation’s response in this way:
Loan cancellation is incredibly controversial—and very unpopular when Americans consider the cost. It will inevitably lead to greater divisions among Americans, as those who paid their loans or did not attend college—typically older and blue-collar Americans—will have good reason to think that we no longer have a government of, by, and for the people, but one that serves those with the loudest voices at any given moment or are most like those in power.
This is why the Framers designed the Constitution as they did. The separation of powers ensures that no department of government can make unilateral decisions, and that laws come from the body that represents the people: Congress. Even when Congress does the wrong thing, the lawmaking process ensures that the people’s voices are heard. Ramming expensive and divisive programs down the throats of Americans through executive fiat is never a good idea.
On behalf of Frank and other borrowers like him, Pacific Legal Foundation filed the nation’s first lawsuit challenging the Education Department’s unacceptable abuse of executive authority to restore the rule of law and to enforce the Constitution’s separation of powers.
* * * *
Aside from Biden’s usual abuse of the powers of the Executive Branch, and his usurpation of Congress’ powers, I am extremely disappointed once again to see the fecklessness of the Republicans at the federal and state levels. They knew this was coming weeks ago, even months ago. Why couldn’t they figure out how to be assertive and to act? Why were they only talking with each other instead of finding some way to find standing like Frank Garrison? Why can’t we have Republicans who stand up for the legislative branch, and more importantly, for the people of this country?
Is there anyone we can count on anymore to take seriously the welfare of the citizenry?
Published in Politics
What does this have to do at all pray tell with the courts usurping the rights of the legislature to set election policy. Something which is explicitly set down in the Constitution. Just because you hate Trump don’t lose sight of the bigger picture.
Is this your sock puppet account, Gary?
It’s not so simple, if you read the lawsuit. They are saying that the law has been violated and the actions are also unconstitutional. Biden has usurped the responsibilities of Congress. “Standing” just gets him in the door.
You can read the lawsuit here .
Right.
But if you remove the “harm” of having to pay the state tax, then standing goes away and the suit is dismissed, regardless of its merits.
Not talking about Trump, but GOP candidates for the House and Senate.
Thanks!
Never let it be said that Mitt Romney has ever violated his principles. He doesn’t have any, which makes it easy.
Mitt is an over-achiever he is managing to make me think less of him than I already did – breaking new ground!
Maybe 3-4 in the House and 2-3 in the Senate. Other than that, the answer is, sadly, a resounding No.
Simple question: why in the world are you still a “Republican”, holding views like this? I am a person with a very unsophisticated mind, but I see comments like this and comments from another “Republican” on Ricochet who is actively helping the far-far-left candidate in his state defeat one of the most solid Republican candidates his state has had in years, and I have to wonder why you stay in a party you seem to –I’ll us as euphemistic a word as I can here — despise everything it stands for and yet you remain in a party which is, according to your own words, “soiled” by two of the most prominent spokesmen for what I consider (as an actual Republican) to be the main principles of the party. I am just, in all good faith, puzzled by this kind of mindset.
RE the bolded: A judge cannot simply wave a black-robed arm and presto! a state’s tax law vanishes in a puff of smoke.
Good point, Fritz. And why would the state give up their revenue because Biden messed up? This is about Biden’s overreach, not the state’s.
Sure they can – Federal supremacy. Judges strike down laws all the time. The State law conflicts with a Federal priority – “poof”. Remember when Arizona passed a law to enforce laws against people crossing the border from Mexico?
Yes, I know there’s a difference when it gets into state tax law. When has that stopped judges? Remember when a District judge in Hawaii(?) put a nationwide injunction on one of Trumps orders?
I don’t think your analogies work. As I recall, the law Arizona passed was going to take precedence over federal law–a jurisdiction that belonged to the federal govt. And with Hawaii, did that injunction hold up? I think there is a difference between actions that judges take and whether they hold up.
The Hawaiian judge who singlehandedly negated Trump’s immigration enforcement would beg to differ.
HW strikes me as a neocon/globalist who wants Congress to give Ukraine a blank check to defend its borders, but wants our own borders wide open.
That was a federal (activist) judge enjoining a federal EO/rule. This is a state court matter dealing with state tax law. Believe me, state courts are not easily persunded to deprive their own state of tax revenue.
Every once in a while, but it’s not often enough. Trump showed you have to fight every day on all levels, and most Republicans are either too lazy or lack the testicular fortitude to do it. Heck, Republican women fight back better than the men . . .
Guess what? Several state attorneys general are suing the Biden administration over the student loan forgiveness:
In a remarkable reversal that will affect the fortunes of many student loan borrowers, the U.S. Department of Education has quietly changed its guidance around who qualifies for President Biden’s sweeping student debt relief plan.
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/29/1125923528/biden-student-loans-debt-cancellation-ffel-perkins
The change will affect around 800,000 debtors.
Fascinating how they crafted that sentence to engender sympathy in a favored direction.
Isn’t it? There are still lots of questions. How many will still qualify? Will the Republicans have standing to sue? There is harm to the states who would lose revenue, but what about everyone else? What about Biden usurping Congress’ powers? So aggravating . . .
Remember that old Swahili proverb that says “The daughters of lions are lions too.”
Yes, Republicans will fight back. If their base gets too uppity, they will fight their base.
Or just stop listening to them . . .
Same song, different verse. We saw the same with Obamacare. Failure theater.
No. The AZ immigration law conflicted with federal law on the same subject and was obviously at risk of violating a standard doctrine of federal supremacy under certain conditions. Injunctions against executive orders rely on a finding that the order does not conform to a relevant law under which that order was issued. None of this gets to federal courts striking down or rewriting state tax law.
Exactly what is happening with Mitch and the Gang right now.
If you are a single-issue voter (eg, Ukraine uber alles), then you are not a Republican or a member of any party. That’s fine, but it means your opinion on the parties is biased. I think it Trump and Tucker have helped shift the GOP from the party of WASPs to a party of hard-working patriots, people I view as under-represented in government. We do not need a country where the two parties represent the AWFLs and WASPs.
People like Tucker and Trump are the only reason I give a damn about the GOP.
When they retire their principles, voters need to retire them.