Yesterday, we told you about CNN’s “analysis” by Devan Cole looking at the fact that “the fate of Biden’s student loan forgiveness program […] lies in the hands of 9 relatively wealthy people who graduated from a short list of elite private schools.”
The fate of Biden’s student loan forgiveness program that would impact scores of borrowers from a wide array of colleges and socioeconomic backgrounds lies in the hands of 9 relatively wealthy people who graduated from a short list of elite private schools https://t.co/vdauyJAl1o
— CNN (@CNN) February 27, 2023
Almost 24 hours later, we still haven’t figured out why we’re supposed to be upset that the Supreme Court has a decision to make. That’s kind of what they do. But then, maybe we’re the problem. Maybe, because we’re not journalists, we just don’t understand what’s at stake here. Maybe we should ask The Economist’s SCOTUS expert Steven Mazie to explain it to us:
If the Supreme Court throws out Biden’s student debt relief plan, some 20-30 million Americans are going to look at five or six justices as costing them $10k or $20k. That could drive SCOTUS’s popularity still lower.
— Steven Mazie (@stevenmazie) February 28, 2023
Working for a publication called “The Economist,” you’d think that Steven Mazie would be a little more well versed in the economics of student debt “forgiveness.” But clearly he is not, nor does he understand that wiping out student loans by executive fiat is just straight-up illegal. And that his take is just straight-up embarrassing and weird.
I can't believe you are even saying this.
— Jacqueline (@Jacquel92286926) February 28, 2023
Recommended
Steven what in the world is this
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) February 28, 2023
It’s a take that’s too hot to handle with bare hands!
And then what happens?
— jimtreacher.substack.com (@jtLOL) February 28, 2023
What happens is Steven gets his butt kicked.
What an up-yourself way to frame the question of whether an unprecedented, sweeping executive move is constitutional or not. https://t.co/CF6ITb1aLw
— Grant Addison (@jgrantaddison) February 28, 2023
Or it saves money for everyone who paid off their own loans like I did.
— Adrienne (@AdrienneRoyer) February 28, 2023
"Costing them"? Really? If I embezzle $20k from work, get caught, and a court tells me I have to disgorge it, do I get to say "no, you're costing me $20k"? https://t.co/LInoO9J9Uw
— Boo (@IzaBooboo) February 28, 2023
If my kid finds $20 on the ground and I tell him he needs to give it back to its owner, can he rightfully say "Hey, mom, you're costing me $20!"?
No. He can't.
— Boo (@IzaBooboo) February 28, 2023
They get so caught up and details and “constitutionality” 🙄 that they forget what really matters is their popularity.
— 🫃🏼💉🇺🇦Hollaria Briden, Esq. (@HollyBriden) February 28, 2023
Those SCOTUS justices will never win reelection now. https://t.co/XO2VkqqEBp
— Fusilli Spock (@awstar11) February 28, 2023
This guy is a “reporter” who allegedly cover the Supreme Court and he thinks polling data either matters now or should. Might not be so low if we didn’t have idiots covering it in the press. https://t.co/8efeOSSJhJ
— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) February 28, 2023
SCOTUS doesn’t rule based on popularity. It’s not designed to. Protecting rights of small percentages of the population against majority tyranny is often, by definition, unpopular.
Popularity doesn’t take something illegal and make it legal. https://t.co/PCbhYHGfkZ
— Sunny McSunnyface (@sunnyright) February 28, 2023
"If the Supreme Court upholds the Constitution, a bunch of brain-damaged inbreds will think poorly of the Supreme Court." pic.twitter.com/Ya3GzCSLzr
— Eric Spencer (@JustEric) February 28, 2023
Has Steven figured out how stupid he sounds yet?
How about we don't indulge the selfish fantasies of a mass of irresponsible adult children?
— Boo (@IzaBooboo) February 28, 2023
Now there’s a good take.
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member