Psaki: Student loan borrowers likely to have to pay debt 'sometime'

[qazplm135]

193. this is kinda sad for you

1. I didn't say it was "clear." In fact, I said that at the very least it was "debatable." You were the one arguing it was clear it can't be done. This flip flop is as amusing as it is annoying.

2. I think it hilarious that you say it does not matter what a magazine says about the law, then immediately cite a magazine article against the law, written not by an attorney. But consistency isn't your strong suit.

3. I actually read the law and am an attorney. I have done defense, prosecution and appellate work. Hell, I've trained other attorneys. So no I'm not a "layperson," and I know how to look at statutes, and the citation by your magazine is simply wrong. “In the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers, and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may—" doesn't say what the magazine purports it to say. It gives an insane amount of heavy lifting to that phrase that is quite frankly nonsensical. It is really easy to write a law that says "The secretary may waive, etc for the following reasons. Congress. Didn't. Do. That.
If they did, please, cite it. Should be easy right?

4. At least we've finally moved on from your nonsensical "it can't be done" to "it's not clear" which is, ya know, progress. So good for you. The part that is clear is that the Secretary has very broad authority. The part that is not clear is whether that extends all the way to getting rid of ALL debt. NOT because of the plain text of the law, but because of Supreme Court case law which, ya know, I actually cited, that suggests that Congress usually doesn't intend to give away absolute power like that even if one could in theory interpret it that way.

5. If Biden tried to cancel all debt it absolutely would be enjoined and a legal battle would ensue. If Biden tried to cancel 10K no there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court would get involved in that situation. Regardless, the fact that a conservative Supreme Court might or even assuredly would overturn something IS NOT A REASON NOT TO DO IT BY ITSELF. A conservative Supreme Court might very well overturn a bill that legalizes abortion nationwide, should Congress not do such a bill because there's a good chance it would get shot down? Should Congress avoid the chance to do gerrymander reform? Or campaign finance reform? What a nonsensical position to take.

6. Citing inflation? Really? Manchin would be proud of you.

So to sum up...

1. You either aren't an attorney, or you are a really bad one. I'm going with the former. You don't know how to analyze case law, or statutes, you rely on simply citing those in favor of your position with an argument from authority as oppose to doing analysis.

2. You aren't consistent in your arguments shifting them as I present facts and evidence, including going from this is clear you can't do to my position of no it isn't clear you can't while arguing I'm saying it's clear you can even as I've repeatedly presented a much more nuanced position of what you can and can't do. Which means you are being disingenuous.