The United States Supreme Court has been on a rightwing roll, eliminating affirmative action yesterday, now upholding discrimination against gays, and striking down Biden’s attempt to provide relief to student debtors. The five conservative justices rewarded the faith that Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society placed in them. They were chosen based on their extreme ideology.
This morning, the Court ruled that a person who objects to gays need not do business with them. Colorado bans discrimination based on sexual orientation, but the Extreme Court struck down the state law. The justices in the majority based their decision of free speech rights, upholding the view that the web designer’s free speech was impaired if she had to do work for gay people.
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.
The court ruled 6-3 for designer Lorie Smith despite a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and other characteristics. Smith had argued that the law violates her free speech rights.
Smith’s opponents warned that a win for her would allow a range of businesses to discriminate, refusing to serve Black, Jewish or Muslim customers, interracial or interfaith couples or immigrants. But Smith and her supporters had said that a ruling against her would force artists — from painters and photographers to writers and musicians — to do work that is against their beliefs.
“The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s six conservative justices.
The student debt decision was also 6-3, with the conservative justices knocking out Biden’s efforts to reduce the financial burden on millions of people.
The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority struck down President Biden’s proposal to cancel at least some student debt for tens of millions of borrowers, saying it overstepped the powers of the Education Department.
In a 6-to-3 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that a mass debt cancellation program of such significance required clear congressional authorization.
Citing the same authority the Trump and Biden administrations used to pause student loan payments during the pandemic, Mr. Biden promised in August to forgive $10,000 in debt for individuals earning less than $125,000 per year, or $250,000 per household, and $20,000 for those who received Pell grants for low-income families.
Nearly 26 million borrowers have applied to have some of their student loan debt erased, with 16 million applications approved. But no debts have been forgiven or additional applications accepted in light of the legal challenges.
I hope that all 26 million indebted people vote for Biden. He tried.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Did I miss the memo?
When exactly did Congress make a law defining “religious grounds”?
If someone believes it’s a sin to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, when did Congress get the religious authority to dictate otherwise?
If the Corporate Owners of Internet Service refuse to serve an admitted sinner of that sort, who’s to say they must?
Justices.
What a bad joke they have made of that title.
Justasses
Especially Roberts
The Supreme Court’s ruling is undermining a civil society with race “neutral” laws and decisions that place religious beliefs above all else. All people are equal under the law, but the fact that there are ways to easily subvert so-called legal equality can now be ignored like separate and unequal schools for Black and Brown children. These rulings are a license to discriminate and segregate.
retired teacher As Lynn Cheney suggested, that’s what we get when we elect (and appoint) idiots. CBK
You meant Liz Cheney
Diane Yes . . . corrected from “Lynn” to Liz. . . thank you! CBK
The “we” on the left did not ACTIVELY “elect idiots.” Too many elected them PASSIVELY by not voting–too busy playing with their phones, buying the latest trinkets, too lazy, “voting doesn’t work”, whatever…
And then they have the gall to celebrate their days “off” on MLK Day, July 4th, Labor Day etc. Alas, the right wingnut minority KNOWS that voting and advocacy work.
Mark,
The biggest difference is that right wing voters think the Supreme Court is important and too many voters on the left decided the Supreme Court wasn’t important. The 2016 election made that clear. The Supreme Court was tied 4-4 with an open seat with the outcome of the election the deciding factor as to whether the Supreme Court was controlled by the far right or finally – finally!!! – began interpreting laws from a non-far right perspective.
Many on the right didn’t like Trump, but they did like the right wing Supreme Court justices he promised to appoint to fill that vacancy so the court would remain controlled by the right. There was no need for Republicans to beg their right wing friends who wanted Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee to be the nominee to vote for Trump. Because those right wing voters were well aware a Supreme Court seat that decided the direction of the court for decades was up for grabs.
Many on the left didn’t like the Democrat, either, and all of them knew that this was the first election in many decades where the Supreme Court was up for grabs. The wise ones knew that electing a Democrat to fill that vacancy on the Supreme Court was vital to the progressive cause. Unfortunately, too many others actually were foolish enough to believe that the Supreme Court didn’t matter, even when there was a vacant seat with the Court divided 4-4! It’s almost incomprehensible that any voter with a minimal education would know that the next president would choose whether the court was liberal or right wing, and still be absolutely certain that it didn’t matter if a Democrat or Republican wins because there is no difference. What does surprise me is that right wing voters were too smart to believe there is no difference but some progressive voters were fooled. I mean, there was a vacant seat! It wasn’t even a hypothetical, like “maybe some justice will die and I want a Dem to appoint the successor.” It was “I know there is a vacant seat RIGHT NOW and I know the court is tied 4-4 but it isn’t important to me whether the Democrat or Republican chooses the successor.”
Even today, many of those progressives insist they did the right thing – and they would do it again — because RBG dying 3 1/2 years AFTER the 2016 election proves they were right about it not mattering whether a Democrat or Republican fills an open seat with the Court divided 4-4.
Their logic escapes me, but I think their logic is something like “having the Supreme Court vote 5-4 (instead of 6-3) to eliminate affirmative action, uphold discrimination against gays, and strike down Biden’s attempt to provide relief to student debtors would not have been a defeat, but a progressive victory. It’s absurd, because the main chance for great progressive victories came during the 2016 election, and unfortunately, right wing voters understood that while some voters on the left did not. Winning by 5-4 is better than losing by 5-4. Losing by 5-4 instead of losing by 6-3 is not a victory, especially when you squandered the opportunity to have a 5-4 victory but you said it wasn’t important.
I’d like to never talk about this again. Because it is not debatable that there is a vast difference between Justices nominated by Republicans and Democrats and that has been the case for over 30 years!!! Ever since their grave “error” nominating David Souter some 33 years ago, the Republicans have gone overboard in nominating Justices far to the right of William Rehnquist! They are so far to the right that right winger John Roberts appears moderate!
Here’s what the Economic Policy Institute has to say about race neutrality. It legitimizes discrimination. https://www.epi.org/anti-racist-policy-research/the-myth-of-race-neutral-policy/
The student loan forgiveness case can be evaluated in two different contexts: (1) Was it wise public policy? (2) Was forgiveness by executive order constitutional?
People of goodwill can disagree on the public policy merits, whether that debt should be forgiven in part or in full by act of Congress. But the bedrock constitutional concept of separation of powers does not allow a President to effectively wholesale rewrite a law involving public finances. For example, the IRS has for many years had authority through the Offer In Compromise program to settle tax debt for less than the full amount owed, subject to guidelines regarding financial hardship. But a President can’t legally order the IRS to forego collecting taxes for, say, taxable income over $1 million unless Congress explicitly gives the President powers to do that. And federal courts justifiably blocked Trump from transferring funds appropriated by Congress for other uses to building a border wall with Mexico.
If the three dissenters only disagreed on the issue of standing then their dissent may be justified; I don’t know enough yet to have an opinion about the standing issue. Otherwise, this decision should have been 9-0, an emphatic rebuke to the current and future Presidents about exceeding their powers.
The defeat for gay rights is sickening. I feel physically ill. And, mad as hell.
Women in their places? Check. Any minority we want in their places? Check. The gays? Check. Next! We’ll figure out how to make it check.
What bugs me is that hypotheticals are out of bounds during confirmations, all over the place in decisions, and now justification to make cases out of them. If you just focus on hypotheticals, you never have to decide anything logically. Just make it up. Do we now see how throwing precedent out the door matters? Biden got it right: this is not a normal Court. And Biden got it wrong: we need to reform the structure of the Court to reflect modern times and grow with them (or finally break up this country).
During the confirmation hearings, Roe v. Wade was considered “settled law. ” How soon they forget!
Now we know they meant settled in the sense of Dorothy’s house landing in Munchkin Land.
The driving force for the conservative jurists is their religion. They rule us from D.C. because of right wing religion’s power brokers and their alliance with despots. The false charge of anti-Catholic bias stripped the Senate of the right/opportunity to ask questions about the jurists’ sect, a sect that demands discrimination against women and people who are gay.
I don’t know what a winning political strategy for democracy can look like given the taboo against identifying the religious sect.
Alito went to Rome for a victory lap after Roe v. Wade’s overturn. He didn’t care what majority rule in the US wanted nor what US laws had been passed. Regarding the church’s role in racial discrimination, the discussion is out-of-bounds because it would be “anti-Catholic” to review it. The outcome- affirmative action in the trash can regardless of its majority support?
Alito’s trip was paid for by an institute at Amy Comey Barrett’s Catholic university She leapt from the campus’ People of Praise to jurist, courtesy of her fellow right wing Catholic, Leonard Leo.
We are watching “silence” which has been a colossal failure for Democrats and democracy. Who wouldn’t predict tyranny?
I don’t think there’s any question anymore, Linda, about Leonard Leo being the most powerful man in America. And if not that, most influential. I’d say both.
GregB: In another note, the “suicide by jumping out windows” issue was addressed as the method of a dictator to stay in power. But one of the lead ups to that situation here in the U.S. is the signs in windows that say: “X Need Not Apply,” which BTW, in our history, includes Catholics as only one example among many.
Jefferson also talks about the resilience of religious intolerance found in his study of history, which is probably at the bottom of the below:
The “hands-off” idea about Justices’ religious affiliation comes not from some conspiracy based in a fear of offending Catholics, but rather from Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: “No religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public Trust under the United States.”
My own headshaking comes from the also-misuse of dialectic when interpreting written documents (i.e., in our founding documents) resulting in the pretzel-like parsing of words.
With that in mind, the more cogent point is the abuse of Article VI by those who take religious overreach as their mantra for making decisions; and so, not only did our Justices lie about their regard for precedent, . . .
. . . but also, in these recent decisions, they take “mis construal” of the laws to a completely different level, by twisting their content, but also by the Court’s place of power in a democracy.
In doing so, they reveal their malicious intent and breach of oath. In fact, historically, they also are setting us on a course that puts us back thousands of years, while shooting in the foot themselves, us, and their own religious freedoms, by their inability to avoid the breach of democratic principles at the deepest level of our existence as a political community.
None deserve to hold such an office. CBK
When we observe the glee shown by Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch in all of these decisions it becomes very clear that none of these decisions are based on law, but grievance and vengeance. There are currently no checks on this court and if the American public does not wake up in 2024, the Handmaids Tale could appear tame. The Frontline documentary on Thomas reveals a real life version of Anakin Skywalker while Alito behaves as if he was some medieval conjurer sent to us in a Time Machine. Gorsuch, through his vindictive writing and court commentary, has shown that he is perhaps worse than any of them. The problem is that there are too many corporatists among Democrats who tamped down earlier legislation toward equality (Clinton’s Third Way is now clearly the wrong way). We have to overcome all of it by convincing the electorate that equitable health care, education, and business regulation is not “left leaning policy” but pragmatic approaches to governing. Linda is correct here when railing against Catholic conservatism. Welcome to the yearning for the Roman Empire.
Paul Bonner writes: “We have to overcome all of it by convincing the electorate that equitable health care, education, and business regulation is not ‘left leaning policy’ but pragmatic approaches to governing.”
But also, with exception, “Linda is correct here when railing against Catholic conservatism. Welcome to the yearning for the Roman Empire.”
I agree with both comments, but the exception is . . . especially with “conservatism” if you mean by that “overreaching conservatism gone rampant and rotten.”
Just don’t let in broad brushing, smearing, and looking under every rock for a Catholic school in the background. That kind of thing is what Jews have had to put up with for eons. It’s not okay for Catholics or Catholicism either.
And THAT has been my complaint with Linda for the whole time I’ve been on this blog, innuendo, not to mention bad logic. Don’t confuse it with my somehow agreeing with the present activities of breaching oaths and degrading our democracy (as many here have). I haven’t read her more recent notes. If she is nuancing her view, and tempering her obvious bias, then good for all of us. (I got sick of it, and the recalcitrance of it, and quit reading her notes.) CBK
You are right, Linda
One cannot state the obvious with out being called an anti-Catholic bigot.
How insecure of one’s faith must one be to react to any and all criticism that way?
Thank you Poet and Greg for your comments.
Paul,
The presentation of evidence and “railing” have different definitions. I recall you expressed the opinion that the majority of Catholics vote Democratic. Was the statistic that I provided from Pew research, 63% of White Catholics who attend church regularly voted for Trump in 2020, new info. for you? Were you formerly aware of the amount of spending the USCCB spends against women and gay rights, prior the comments at the blog? Were you aware of the state Catholic Conferences that are funding lobbying for school choice, and other right wing agenda items? Were you aware that taxpayers made Catholic organizations the nation’s 3rd largest employer, a result of Catholic power brokers usurping government function?
Railing’s definition makes no inference about truth telling .
Reportedly, Koch is spending S70 mil. on anti- trump ads. It’s good to have Trump fans turn against Koch. If only the Catholic Church would spend money on anti- Koch campaigns. But, that won’t happen as long as they are aligned in implementing pluto-theocracy.
$70 million. Leo got $1.6 billion in one fell swoop from one source. Not access to it. Got it.
Can a gay web designer refuse a fundamentalist Christian’s request to create a web site that carries the message that homosexuality is evil? On a common sense basis, my gut would say yes.
Excellent point, FLERP! Prepare to be mercilessly attacked for defying the preferred narrative here.
I wasn’t aware that fundamentalist xtian was an immutable characteristic. LGBTQ+ people don’t choose it. The fundies, however, choose to be @$$holes.
It’s a religion, protected under the First Amendment.
Maybe I should have used fundamentalist Muslim instead. Same point would stand.
The protection of religion under the First Amendment does not give religionists the right to discriminate.
This Supreme Court believes that religious freedom is a good excuse for discrimination. If your religion considers gap people or interracial couples or Muslims to be an abomination, you are under no obligation to give them equal treatment or to recognize their existence.
“If your religion considers gay people or interracial couples or Muslims to be an abomination, you are under no obligation to give them equal treatment or to recognize their existence.”
I’m not sure that’s an accurate statement of the law, but I get the sentiment.
I think you are saying that it’s okay to refuse to offer your business services to people who are gay. People who are gay typically don’t carry an ID card identifying who they live with. How will a proprietor know whom to discriminate against?
“I think you are saying that it’s okay to refuse to offer your business services to people who are gay.”
I have no idea why you think I’m saying that. I’m not.
Also remember, there is a distinction in the law between services that are creative in nature and those that aren’t. So the “web designer” or the “baker who makes fancy cakes with messages” is not on the same footing as a restaurant.
Was the Christian web designer asked to design a website for a gay client? Or was she seeking “protection” in case she might be asked? Was she asked to post a message that insulted her religion? I have not heard that anyone asked her to write anything offensive to her religion.
She didn’t want to engage in commerce with a person who happened to be gay, like Pete Buttigieg. Or Ellen DeGeneres. Or me.
Diane The implications are amazing, aren’t they. CBK
You I understand, it’s the others that concern me! Good time to bid farewell to Alan Arkin, who kind of summed up what the world has become in this scene.
“In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.” I don’t understand how this case even made it to the Supreme Court. How did the Christian graphic web designer have standing? She didn’t have clients who she refused to service. This whole case is based on assumption.
The standing arguments are discussed in the opinion. I haven’t read it and may not read it and in any event don’t want to get into a discussion about judicial standing here.
I’m simply suggesting that there are situations where the balancing of interests isn’t as obvious or easy as many seem to think.
So far I haven’t gotten an answer as to whether the hypothetical gay web designer should have to design a web site for a fundamentalist Christian (or Muslim, if we prefer that framing) who wants a web site devoted to his religious beliefs that homosexuality is an abomination. I say no, why should anyone be forced to do that?
On the other hand, if a fundamentalist Christian with religious views that I find abhorrent wants to buy a hamburger, he should be served a hamburger. Making a hamburger doesn’t require the cook or cashier to participate in creating speech that they find deeply offensive.
I’m not giving a legal analysis here. I’m just going by my common sense and gut, although there is some overlap with the legal issues involved.
“So far I haven’t gotten an answer as to whether the hypothetical gay web designer should have to design a web site for a fundamentalist Christian (or Muslim, if we prefer that framing) who wants a web site devoted to his religious beliefs that homosexuality is an abomination.”
The answer to your question is no, but it’s not relevant to the SCOTUS decision. No one is asking the xtian web designer to design a website saying that Christianity is an abomination.
Yes, the xtian web designer should absolutely have to design a website for a gay couple, the same as they would for a Black or interracial couple or a Muslim couple or any other such legal couple that they may be religiously opposed to.
I thought Sotomayor in her dissent gave some interesting arguments.
What’s the reasoning for why the gay web site designer should not have to design a web site for the Christian fundamentalist? Does it conflict with your reasoning for why the Christian fundamentalist SHOULD have to design a web site for the gay client?
I assume you’ll say again that the distinction is that the gay client’s homosexuality relates to his/her identity, whereas the Christian fundamentalist’s religious beliefs are just that — beliefs, not identity. I get that, and that’s the direction my sympathies point. But the problem is that “religion” is the O.G. protected class in America.
I don’t really have a firm position on this, just sounding things out off the cuff.
I did not make the claim that you make here. Don’t put words in my mouth.
I believe that anyone who has a public business should serve whoever comes in their door. A gay web designer should create a website for any client. A Christian web designer should create a website for any client. A business person should not have signs proclaiming that do not offer services to the following groups: gays, Blacks, Muslims, Jews. That’s un-American, or it has been for about half a century, since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I think I explained myself quite well, but, okay, one more shot. There’s a difference between doing your normal business for someone versus having to insult/degrade your own identity. If the xtian wed designer were asked to design a website that said Christianity is an abomination, they could refuse that work regardless of who’s asking. But refusing to do a wedding website for a gay couple that you would do for a straight couple is inherently discriminatory.
Asking a gay web designer to say that being gay is an abomination is the same as asking a xtian web designer to say that Christianity is an abomination – neither one should have to do that. But if the gay wedding website designer holds a religious belief that straight marriage is an abomination to God, he would still have to do a wedding website for a straight couple.
Actually Diane, she said that she would work with anyone including LGBTQ people. She said she would not do a wedding website for them because she is opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons. In her dissent Sotomayor addresses this. It’s definitely worth reading.
I will. I haven’t had time to do so.
FROM TRUTHOUT:
Anti-LGBTQ Petitioners Apparently Made Up Gay Couple Cited in Major SCOTUS Case/SHARON ZHANG, TRUTHOUT
The wedding website designer who brought the case has also never once made a wedding website.
. . .
“The case, 303 Creative v. Elenis, involves Lorie Smith, a self-proclaimed wedding website designer who has never designed a wedding website and who claims that Colorado laws prohibiting businesses from refusing to sell a product to gay people are trampling on her free speech as someone who opposes same-sex marriage. She says that she would hypothetically like to be a wedding website designer through her company 303 Creative, but is prevented from doing so due to the possibility of being requested to design a website for a gay couple — a premise with already questionable legal standing.
“As part of the evidence for her case, Smith and her attorneys from right-wing, SPLC-designated hate group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed an email from a purported gay couple, Stewart and Mike, who they said asked Smith to do some design work for their upcoming wedding. ADF had presented this request as a key piece of evidence supporting Smith’s case when they filed it in 2017. . . . ”
https://truthout.org/articles/anti-lgbtq-petitioners-apparently-made-up-gay-couple-cited-in-major-scotus-case/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=511fe35d04-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_3_20_2023_13_41_COPY_05&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-511fe35d04-652229581&mc_cid=511fe35d04&mc_eid=50a395fa52
I was referring to Dienne, Diane, not you.
“A gay web designer should create a website for any client.”
This contradicts what you said earlier–i.e., that a gay web designer should not have to create a web site for a religious client who believes homosexuality is an abomination.
The real interesting question is why the court took this HYPOTHETICAL “case.” This woman was just worried this would happen in her business and wanted clarification. She didn’t actually have to make this decision in her business.
I wonder who funded this expensive litigation. I can guess. The same people who funded the challenge to affirmative action.
Yup.
FLERP!,
I thought everyone made it pretty clear that there is a fundamental difference between refusing to design a standard website for a couple who requires you to include offensive views smearing your own religion, and refusing to design a standard wedding website for a couple because the mere existence of that couple as a married couple infringes on your freedom of religion.
Can a hotel proprietor ban all married gay couples from their hotel? Because allowing them at his hotel offends his Christian values? Or would the Supreme Court require him to provide a room to a married gay couple, as long as it isn’t the honeymoon suite? Maybe a hotel proprietor would be obligated to allow unmarried gay people to check in, but they have a first amendment right to ban married gay couples because allowing a married gay couple to check into his hotel is an infringement on his right to practice his religion?
Do you believe the Supreme Court has now legalized restaurants refusing to host rehearsal dinners or wedding receptions or anniversary dinners for gay married couples because gay marriage infringes on their religious beliefs?
Are the fundamental rights of gay people protected because they are allowed to exist as gay people, but the Supreme Court has now pronounced that the Constitution protects the right of people who are offended by gay marriage to discriminate against gay married couples as part of their first amendment right to practice their religion?
You seem like a smart guy, FLERP! Seems like you could understand the difference between being forced to make a website that says “Homosexuality is an abomination” vs. being forced to make a website that says “Congratulations Adam and Steve.” Especially if your whole business is about making websites that say “Congratulations Adam and Eve.”
Excellent point, Dienne
I read the opinion and dissent.
The web designer wants to post a warning on her website that she will not create a wedding website for a gay couple. Under current law in Colorado, that’s illegal. All public businesses are supposed to serve the public. But Smith can now post a sign on her website: this business will not produce a wedding website for gay couples. Like “Jews need not apply.” Or “Irish need not apply. “
I have a sense of the distinction but it feels like one of degree rather than kind. How to articulate that distinction?
How are those two things anything alike? The first is akin to being forced to make a website that says, “Die [N-word]”. The second is the same as being forced to make a website for an interracial couple even if you don’t agree with interracial marriage. If you offer a service, you offer it to everyone regardless of immutable characteristics like skin color or sexual orientation.
Open to the public means everyone.
The more basic constitutional point is that Congress has no power to define what counts as a religious belief.
Start a new religion. The House of the UnGod Pro-LGBTQ Anti-Bigots. Open a business. When Ms. Holier-than-Thou walks in, explain that you don’t serve her kind. Because of religion. Done.
You have a good idea. Does the business person have to belong to a church? Or, can he/she simply say to the customer, “I don’t like that shiny cross of 14k gold hanging from your neck- no sale”?
Does this ruling impact that decision by the clerk in Ky who refused a gay couple, a marriage license, the pharmacist who wouldn’t provide birth control to a customer and confiscated the prescription?
What if the business doesn’t like men wearing dresses in his store, so he tells a Bishop to shop elsewhere? Could a business owner say to a Catholic that he won’t sell them fish during Lent because he/she knows it has something to do with the customer’s practice of religion? But, he’ll sell fish to others whose religious beliefs have nothing to do eating fish for 6 weeks?
There is no need to establish a new religion. Congress has no power to dictate what counts as a religion, much less an “established religion”. So it comes down to a matter of conscience, one’s personal religion, which all religions are.
It sickens me every time Republicans bring out the trope how unfair it would be to those who have paid their school loans. In the 1980s, I paid off my college loans that had an interest rate of 3% in 8 years. Now that I have three adult children who went to college I paid a 6% rate before the pandemic, three times higher than prime at the time, and now it is projected to be up to 8% when they resume in September. These are predatory loans. It’s not that people oppose paying for what they borrowed, but that we are simply enriching financial institutions and universities. Millions of Americans are facing crippling monthly payments because we are being forced to pay at rates higher than most mortgages. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are now proposing another tax cut for the wealthy. Yeah, that’s fair.
It is interesting to note that the threat to the economic posed by bank failures in 2008 prompted significant government expenditure. No complaints from the GOP then. Student loans threaten the economy in some of the same ways, but at a different level. Suddenly, this is a moral issue, and this will corrupt the country, turning all the youth into deadbeats. Now, why would that be?
The bank failures involved government expenditure of over ten trillion after including the quantitative easing program.
This dwarfs the estimated expenditure for student debt relief.
Many of the bank failures were also a direct result of fraud on a truly massive scale.
But the main difference between the banks and the students is that the banks have a lot of power .“They own the place”, said Senator Dick Durban and students have no power.
Ownership by banks of our government is party independent.
Both Obama and Biden are also effectively owned by the banks. Obama “failed” to prosecute bank CEOs for massive fraud because all his best friends are bankers. And Biden is no better. He spent his entire career in the Senate serving the bankers (search MBNA and Biden). That’s why the banks gave him so much money when he was running for president.
Amen! When it comes to health care or education, we somehow cannot afford what most of the industrialized world paid for, but if a bank does something stupid that causes it to lose most of its assets, well we have plenty of money to make sure those share holders stay rich and depositors then face more user fees.
It’s the most legally vacuous reasoning ever. Under this standard, nothing could ever change. We have a Court that now decides what it wants any way it wants.
Internet Service Providers will now redefined as Expressive Service Providers.
Suck It, Gorsuck !!!