Well , bozo , if your purpose is to clear up a misunderstanding and someone argues against what you're saying , it only makes sense that you would correct them.
Been awhile since Destiny has hosted a discussion this good. It was very substantive and I actually learned a lot. Very fine distinctions being made. More economic and policy discussion please.
Sorry, I can't understand comments that don't have a punchline that Destiny is a black woman. Maybe try harder if you want to be accessible to the masses (me).
lol... so, basically Destiny is going to do actual research into it, Pisco will be fucking proven wrong, again, like he ALWAYS has he has NEVER BEEN RIGHT in ANY of these. Pisco speaks complete lies assuming authority. Yes, they would lose out of taxes, Yes, this is a breach of powers. It's like the 2nd Amendment stuff, Pisco is completely wrong he doesn't even understand the BASICS of what he argues. He thinkgs Originalists mean "the understanding of the modern age" when it is so BLATANT that no it means the original INTENT of the founding fathers and moving forward applying that ORIGINAL INTENT and the SPIRIT of the document to today. Not based on whoever fucking reads it, then there's nothing "originalist" about it. In this situation he is wrong too and when Destiny does research, then disagrees with him and Pisco will come cry and throw a temper tantrum in chat refusing to get into voice and slink off. Again. This has happened SO MANY times. How do you people still take Pisco seriously? Pisco has to completely argue in a hypothetical world that is restructred to just outright agree with his argument. Always. That's the only world he can EVER argue lol. He is pretending we are still in a fucking covid emergency he can't actually argue int he world that we are in NOW and why student debt forgiveness got struck down.
Also i havent read the decision yet, but i have read the act and etc, and the thrust of the act was that the alterations/suspensions/etc were intended to be RELATED TO or ARISING FROM the declared emergency. Thats why the pausing of interest makes sense, because COVID affected large portions of the nation/borrowers employment to change drastically(huge layoffs etc etc). BUT the cancelling of a lump sum isnt naturally arising from the emergency + the fact that this exact action was a political point of debate at the congressional and presidential level for years and years prior to the emergency used to justify it demonstrate that the forgiveness program was a political policy question that SHOULD be decided by congress and not something the president can unilaterally force through.
Not to mention, because the interest was paused during the pandemic, none of the debt was accrued during the emergency, so the principle was not affected by the emergency through which they are trying to pass this.
@@KingKrapper yeah true, thinking down this chain, if anything a lump sum forgiveness could actually have been justified if there hadn't been the interest pause at all(and the amount forgiven was like by some method calculated based upon the impact of COVID) because then you could say the modification was in connection to the emergency. But having both is double dipping and clearly just going beyond the intent of the act to address the repercussions of an emergency.
Ragepope pulled up and got squeezed. He and Mindwaves seems to always jump into a call aggressively and their first statement shows they were not listening at all.
Yea well when you're not even paying attention to the arguments being made and come on to argue a straw man , without even realizing it , that tends to happen. Ragepope is like 90% just a waste of time.
This is honestly the deeper conversations I have been wanting. True Steven was the 3rd wheel but even if he is the moderator keeping things on track, calling balls and strikes. The redpill, trans, abortion convos are fine but with serious ppl in good faith.
"...with serious people in good faith." Wouldn't that disqualify Pisco in this conversation? His whole problem seems to be that he doesn't like Major Questions Doctrine, everyone keeps essentially invoking it without knowing that it's called that, and he keeps trying to shut that down because as a lawyer he knows damn well that it ruins any argument he could have. To be clear, Major Questions Doctrine is whenever the executive branch wants to decide a question of major national significance they need CLEAR authorization from Congress to do it. Spending like a trillion dollars to forgive student loan debt is a question of major significance, that isn't up for dispute, which means that they need Congress's express permission to do that. So all that time spent arguing about what the executive branch could theoretically do is just wasted time to obfuscate the point and present himself as more of an expert than everyone else (which is ironic because their "feelings" had them stumble their way into the way things actually work).
This is the same problems that happened under Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Congress gave unilateral authority to the Executive and the fear was they could wave the debt. That never happened but it would have been allowed
@@dmv99 it is not a loan. It is a measure of need that can be an indicator of a more disadvantaged financial status requiring more relief for Pell grant recipients
How is it hard to understand the difference between" You don't have to pay it now, but will later," and " You will never have to pay this?" Also, as a layperson, it's my understanding that allocations of powers needs to be specifically delegated, not specifically prohibited. The President doesn't get to say " Well nobody said I _couldn't_ explicitly do so by law., so I'm gonna do it anyway "He needs to show how that power has been given to him specifically. That runs all the way back to the founding documents.
That's not the argument though. The argument is that the HEROES act does give the Sec of Education (a part of the executive) to Waive student debt due to a national emergency
@@zevkurtzman8108 From the opinion of the Supreme Court in the brief for Biden v Nebraska. "The Secretary asserts that the HEROES Act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. It does not. We hold today that the Act allows the Secretary to “waive or modify” existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, not to rewrite that statute from the ground up." ... "Here, the Secretary does not identify any provision that he is actually waiving. No specific provision of the Education Act establishes an obligation on the part of student borrowers to pay back the Government. So as the Government concedes, “waiver” as used in the HEROES Act cannot refer to “waiv[ing] loan balances” or “waiving the obligation to repay” on the part of a borrower." So unless I am mistaken that is _exactly_ the argument. There's a difference between "Hey they said it would be X amount of interest, I'm changing it to Y" changing the regulatory procedures of a loan and saying "actually you don't have to pay anything ever." which is discharging a loan. The court is saying that he has the power to determine the rules for the loan. He doesn't have the power to deny the loan even exists in the first place. I say again, there is a difference between saying when a loan has to be paid and saying that you never have to pay at all. Just as if you lost a bet and your friend gets to dye your hair any color they want, that friend can't decide to just shave you bald. The absence of all color is not a color. Wiping a debt from existence is not regulating that debt. There's nothing _to_ regulate at that point.
My argument is that you can’t make permanent changes from a statute that allows for temporary powers. Anything that goes into effect during the emergency must have some ending period.
Pisco accusing the right-leaning members of the court of being hypocrites for abandoning originalist principles in order to achieve the outcome they desire is really the pot calling the kettle black. I agree with him completely here it's just very silly for him to be so against it when he has no principle objection to these kinds of methods.
You kinda just hit the nail on the head FOR Pisco though. Liberal ideology isn’t originalist, to abandon close readings of text and ensure contextualization and consideration of modern interpretation etc etc is literally a STAPLE to the ideology. On the flip side the conservative court purports to litigate from an originalist perspective, then seemingly abandons the text when convenient. If I’m interacting with somebody and they act against how they told me they would on principle I’m not gonna be that persons friend, and with good reason.
@@T3HCn0l0gy Which is why I said I agreed with him. I'm not sure you get my point. It's that Pisco getting all righteous about the text of the law and making arguments about how the way the law is applied should follow from what is written in the text is absurd when we know tomorrow he will be making silly living document or interpretive arguments that are huge stretches like usual. Like i'm sorry the court stooped to the level that you operate on 24/7, Cry me a river about how unfair and hypocritical it is. He's not a person I like listening to.
@@mwellnow5016 I'm not sure you get my point. Pisco in that regard isn't "stooping" to anything. By principle Pisco would support a living document/interpretive argument. The problem he has is the conservative majority of the court, which by principle DISAVOWS living document/interpretive arguments, in this particular case utilized said arguments to support their opinion. Pisco was arguing from an originalist pov in this vod to show how from an originalist standpoint the conservative court should not have ruled how they did. I don't like Pisco either tbh, he turns even basic convos into legal arguments and its annoying af (case and point the recent Ana video where he autists around the definition of violence like he's in court), that is beside the point that he is completely consistent in the argument he puts forth. Again, he isn't arguing for the originalist interpretation persay, he's pointing out how FROM an originalist interpretation, which the conservative court should hold on principle, the majority opinion should never have been issued.
@@T3HCn0l0gy You've repeated yourself mate but I think i picked up on the blockage. Living document/interprerive isn't a principle. It's more akin to a tactic or a dominant strategy. Pisco only adopts this argument when he feels its the best one to suite his political intuitions anyways. I think if the best argument against something he didnt like was a textual one he'd make it. He doesnt care much for sticking to a principle. I cant respect that. Right now he thinks the best argument is pointing out hypocrisy. But in doing so he demonstrates the strength and respectability of textual principles I think, pretty much forcing destiny to concede and make weak arguments based on his own intuition. All in all he's just so fucking tedious. Its the same game every time, and these are the things i was trying to point out.
@@mwellnow5016 I don't know what else to say other than perhaps check your bias and proceed with Hanlon's. Your POV here is a bit skewed friend. Best of luck to ya.
@@Vageta1999 You are incorrect - the Supreme Court showed itself to be a purely political institution with this ruling, because there were multiple issues that should have kept this from getting to the court, and also should have, based on statute, allowed the forgiveness. Did you read the dissenting opinion or listen at all?
This Pisco guy is such a hypocrite. He is so inconsistent. He wants to expand the law anytime to suit very liberal points of view, but when there’s a conservative opinion he will never ever expand the law but actually minimizes it. What this Pisco guy does is he finds a point of view and then works backwards to try to make excuses for his POV. But this isn’t how the law works. You have to start with the law and then work forward. There is no constitutional or prominent legal scholar who agrees with him. The liberal justices in many of their dissents have written dissents just to write dissent but have said many times that they are consciously aware that their dissent is illegal and against the statue they are dissenting to. This is where we are in our country. Liberal justices know that the liberal POV is illegal and they still vote on the incorrect side just to fall along party lines instead of upholding the Constitution.
@@IRepko no it does not! There is absolutely no proof in the law that states that a president can unilaterally wipe out student debt. Please don’t tell me that you have been brainwashed by the great constitutional, legal scholar of our time, a grifter named Pisco, who knows more than our Supreme Court. If Pisco had all the answers my friend, then he’d be on CNN and MSNBC teaching the masses as to why nearly all legal scholars are wrong and he’s right.
@@Vageta1999 well the conservative judges agree with you, the liberal judges thing the conservative judges are acting blinded by politics, i would agree with them. im guessing you ddint read the decisions.
@@IRepko the court likes to say that they dont want to legislate from the bench, but when Congress does very explicit things they suddenly feel the need to interject.
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor well maga's have been saying for decades that GOP is full of establishment careerists who dont push policy their voters want, thats how trump managed to win the primary, thats how maga is slowing taking over the gop... the gop for 2 yrs didnt pass trumps plans, they said yooo, your being investigated for russian collusion so we arent gonna push policy, and then dems won midterms and etc...
He didn't but these so-called college graduates are literally living under a dictatorship right now and they don't even get it but Trump was the bad guy uea right
Yeah, Pisco pointing out that the pause helped him "far more than $10K relief" is pretty telling. Only those with massive debt could make that statement credibly, and thus his law degree which puts him at the rich/privileged category in society means that he's getting helped out when he does NOT need it.
I hate when Pisco gets on to talk about specific court cases to try and clear up a misunderstanding we may have with a law but instead muddies the water, even more by manipulating facts and misrepresenting the court's decision. I highly doubt the Supreme Court didn't take into account prior standing before deciding to take on the case. I would love if my loans were paid off but I don't listen to Destiny to become more bias and/or confused about an issue. I listen to him to get the most reasonable take Possible and I don't think Pisco realizes that.
I’ve learned to not trust what pisco says because he constantly tries to misrepresent and alter facts to help his argument. It’s crazy how much he does it
I’m a lawyer and I read the entire decision and your sense is completely right. The court absolutely had a back and forth on standing and it really came down to interpreting previous case law. Most relevant being Arkansas v Texas, where the court found Arkansas to have standing on behalf of a public university since the university was a public instrumentality of the state. The majority thinks that MOHELA (a public org in Missouri that everyone agrees has standing itself) is also a public instrumentality that grants Missouri itself standing since it’s similar in many ways to the relationship between Arkansas and the university. The dissent thinks it’s meaningfully different since Arkansas actually owned the property the university operates on while Missouri does not own MOHELA property. The majority thinks this distinction isn’t relevant, and instead the relevant facts are that in both cases, the state created the public org to serve a state purpose and maintains some degree of control over it. TLDR is standing is absolutely way more nuanced than Pisco makes it out to be. He’s absolutely muddying the waters and I really encourage anyone interested to actually read the decision itself. It’s very readable. At the very least, don’t think you understand the case from just listening to this video, because it’s very misleading.
@@octopusgoat2502 In general I have issue with establishing Standing as being a core principle of a case. I get that we don't want tons of frivolous lawsuits mucking up the courts, but if we can all accept that there is a big question on the table that needs answering, I don't think a lack of standing should preclude someone being able to bring the question forward to the courts. After all, this is basically what happened in Arizona election lawsuit where their Supreme court remanded the case back down to lower courts because you can't prevent a lawsuit from being brought because of a lack of standing prior to any harm being done, only to then bar the lawsuit AFTER the harm was done due to latches...This creates a litigation proof paradox, one that is potentially rife for abuse. I'm not sure what a better system would look like, but Standing just leaves a bad taste in the mouth and potentially opens the door for potential miscarriage of justice.
You just lied. You don't listen to Destiny "to get the most reasonable take possible" 😂 Destiny is not reasonable at all when it comes to democrats, corruption or covid. So in those cases you listen to Destiny to reaffirm your extremist beliefs. The idea that there is no collusion at all between mainstream media, big pharma (pfizer), MIC, big tech silicon valley and the DNC is laughable. But it's what Destiny believes. He thinks the media only reports the truth and has no incentive to lie or do pr for any other interest group. 😂
@@femsplainer nancy pelosi is not a judge nor does nancy pelosi speak on behalf of the congress. if congress thought the loan forgiveness plan was illegal, why didn't they sue the Biden admin?
Pisco is really hard to listen to sometimes. He seems to think that textualism trumps everything, but there's a reason that the courts have the Big Questions standard they use because sometimes people word laws badly and the intent does not match the letter of the law. There are always loopholes, workarounds, and unintended consequences for ANY law that is enacted, that doesn't mean that we have to just accept the consequences until a new law is passed. The courts have found this to be true again and again, but Pisco is just salty because he thinks strict textualism should be the only way to interpret the law.
If that’s a criticism of Biden then Christ this community is partisan af. This was a debate whether Biden should or shouldn’t use a power of the executive to pass legislation.
@@xYiazmatx heaven forbid criticizing a sitting globalist-controlled president that throws billions of our money towards a proxy war while we sit in a record setting inflation era. imagine posting your comment.
when has pisco been right on anything? lets face the facts he was an AA admission, and will be a quota hire for a firm for DEI...pisco's entire career is hes the brown face of a law fire, for ESG points...
kind of a silly debate, it all hinges on the world "modify", people who want all debt forgiven will read it in the most broad way possible, in financial speak modifying a loan has a well known definition and it is distinctly different from forgiving, abonding, or canceling a loan (after all why would those words exist if modify means anything you want it to mean). It is an interesting question if modify means principal reduction though, there is some grey area there imop.
Pisco did a horrible job at representing the central question. The secretary (who is on the side of forgiving student debt in the case) conceded that “waive or modify” doesn’t apply to waiving or modifying the debt itself. They have authority to waive or modify statutory provisions, not the debt itself. The issue for the secretary is that there’s no statutory provision that requires repayment. If there was, it would be easy to point to that and say “we’re waiving this provision”, but they can’t since the obligation to repay comes from the individual contracts, not the statutory provision. The secretary actually doesn’t identify which provisions exactly they are waiving or modifying, instead essentially just saying that “whatever provisions are incompatible with this plan are waived” (not a direct quote just paraphrasing). They do gesture towards a set of provisions which allow limited forgiveness to very specific cases, like students who spend 10 years in public service, and argue they could waive the limiting clause and make the power to forgive unlimited. Bottom line is read the decision yourself (Majority, concurrence, and dissent) if you care about having a good understanding of the case. Online debate bro content is not going to give you all the relevant facts.
@@ShavaughnMorris waive typically would apply to fees or interest, its not common to "waive" principal. That would never be read that way in a financial prospectus.
Scalia wasn’t a textualist, he was an originalist. Originalists DID LOOK at the words of the congressmen who passed legislation to find the original intent of the law.
Judges will also take into account the intent of the law makes perfect sense to quote the speaker of the house clearly stating that this was not the intent of the law
@@killzone866 Where did she retract her statement? I see no such retraction and SCOTUS would have included such retraction in their ruling. I think you're blowing smoke.
@@killzone866 She never RETRACTED her statement. She said that the courts "ignored" the strong arguments of the Biden administration but she didn't retract what she said, now why is that, do please tell the class if you don't mind?
What about them? They had explicit provisions for partial forgiveness. Student loans also have some provisions for forgiveness, but not unlimited forgiveness.
This is actually pretty easy to answer. Scotus interpreted the law congress passed. If they got it wrong, congress is free to pass legislation clarifying the law. Absent that legislation, congress is implicitly agreeing with the interpretation..
Well the real take here is that this entire legislation was nothing but a move for political brownie points to begin with. We all knew the SC wasn't going to allow this and it's obviously not even getting mentioned in congress - it's just an easy optics win for Democrats. Sucks for the people who based their voting decision on Biden's promises but that's politics.
The problem is the law is silent as to whether loans could be forgiven. So essentially the court made an assumption outside of what existed in legislation rather than making a black and white interpretation. This is a seperation of powers issue with the court filling gaps in policy that congress should be doing. Additionally our law books would reach to the moon and back if we had to explicitly account for every outcome. Generally what happens is the reverse. If it turns out congress didn't mean to include student loan forgiveness they should go back and correct that (speak where they were silent), and it would even be appropriate for the court to reccomend it even if they ruled with that black and white interpretation. Consider an analogy. You ride a bike without a helmet and a cop tries to fine you. Obviously, riding without a bike is not illegal in the US and it wouldn't be fair to you if the court said "well the government and police has a general duty to protect citizens and since the law doesn't explicitly say you can ride without a helmet, so you have to pay the fine". In a democracy its very important where the law is silent it is assumed citizens cannot be bound by what judges personally feel is right, even if drawing on other aspects of law. The only corollaries are when two laws conflict, generally the more specific governs, or if the law is written ambiguously, common understandings of the words are applied (perhaps these arguments came up in the loan case but I'm not aware of it. The law is short and pretty unambiguous).
@@chegayvara1136 If scotus got it wrong, congress can correct them. Until then the court is exercising its constitutional powers. Also, your analogy is backwards. The logic of your argument leads to the bikers arrest being lawful until congress passes a law saying thats not what they meant by general safety or whatever. Also also, your analogy is flawed because you are comparing criminal law to government authority. In regards to criminal law, that which isnt prohibited is allowed. With government authority its the opppsite. That which isnt authorized is prohibited..
has ragepope ever, even just once, had a good take on anything? maybe i've missed something but every time he opens his mouth something categorically, indisputably wrong comes out
@@Vageta1999 so far we've got "federal spending is the same thing as debt forgiveness" (obviously wrong in at least three ways), "the law is unconstitutional" (even if it is, he can't explain how) and "under this provision it would be okay for the executive to forgive smaller amounts of debt, but not larger ones" (???, completely arbitrary, no basis in anything beyond his feelings). i'm sure there will be more by the time the video's done edit: hell yeah, just got to "debt forgiveness necessarily constitutes an unlawful future tax increase" - he's completely insane
@@shedshitleydon't forget some of his all time greatest hits like "everything the us did in the cold War, even explicitly evil things, are actually justified because we are the good guys and everything we do is thus justified"
@@shedshitley "debt forgiveness is the same as federal spending" is true. When loans are given out with the expectation for those loans to be paid back, only to be forgiven, that then becomes federal spending that was made in the past. Not having a cap or the money given out in the past does not make it no longer a piece of federal spending. It's literally federal funds being spent (And I'm not even against student loans or forgiveness of said loans)
People try to make this complicated. Everyone is a textualist, but when interpreting the text there are originalists and non-originalists. The originalists would look into the intent of the law when written and the non-originalists would look at the law as it could be interpreted today. Everyone pretty much knows that it was not the intent of the law when written to give out $400B+ in student loan forgiveness, so the more originalists judges decided to strike it down with their interpretation. If an act had the intent of student loan forgiveness then it probably wouldn't even go to the supreme court.
Pisco is WAYYYY too ideologically trapped to get out of his bubble to see that he's so biased in his reasonings and it's making him seem emotional. Because he is. I think he's going to have a hard time being a lawyer for the long haul. I actually see him not lasting 5 years. Nothing against him personally, I don't want him to fail or anything. I'm just telling it like I saw it as I listened to him. I think he might mean well but ppl who he sounds like tend to be huge hypocrites. That being said, killer vid.
I really need to stop watching anything that says 'lawyer' or 'Pisco.' I mean it's nice having a returning meme to Steven's streams, but Pisco is so annoying... I mean he's probably a great lawyer. Take your own beliefs and agenda, then find a way to totally twist the hell out of legal-ease and poorly written bills/laws, and claim that the intention is in your favor. "well, muh, the law doesn't say you can't make interest rate negative" *gets called on it* Pisco rages 'WHEN DID I SAY THAT?!'
Pisco has to completely argue in a hypothetical world that is restructred to just outright agree with his argument. Always. That's the only world he can EVER argue lol. He is pretending we are still in a fucking covid emergency he can't actually argue int he world that we are in NOW and why student debt forgiveness got struck down. Pisco had to MAKE UP a world where his argument can be valid. He can't even argue the FACTS of the matter or the frame of the world AS IT IS. He has to pretend we cannot question the emergency, and that there IS an emergency ongoing NOW.
@@ErgonomicChair The argument wasn't over whether or not the covid emergency was ongoing so of course that doesn't matter. From what I can tell the opinion that Roberts wrote also doesn't really talk about whether or not the covid pandemic can still be considered an emergency. Why waste time arguing over that point when it wasn't the legal challenge in the first place?
You absolutely can sue for a dollar you can sue for a PENNY. Its been done. Idk about the rest of the argument some of this is out of my wheelhouse of expertise. But America has very loose rules on who can sue who and for what.
Yeah usually people do this (sue for a dollar) to prove a point or clear their name. It shows that they're not doing something for financial gain, but rather to drive at the principle of their argument, and it's generally a good thing in my opinion.
@@darkwitnesslxx You CAN sue for a dollar and not request legal fees if you want. The point is that you are not doing it for the money which is true if all the plaintiff takes away at the end of the day is $1.
If you admit congress has the power of the purse and we’re not in a war or under attack or going through an actual plague you kinda lose all ability to say this is being done legally. We want executives to be able to be fluid and work on there feet but if things like this are abused as BS technicalities you’re going to see them limited out of necessity and checks/balances. Nobody could say this is going to solve inflation or assist in dealing with an emergency that’s already over and has been over.
The bidening ministration has gotten rid of checks and balances look at our justice system right now look at the s*** that's going on we're literally sending a Nazi country Ukraine money to funnel for Joe Biden I mean when are people going to wake the f****** man we're being played like never before
@@hijklmnopreaper They did not though. The courts have determined this. Every good lawyer knew this action would be ruled unlawful since the law it was based on explicitly did not grant the authority to do this.
@@hijklmnopreaper Except even Nancy Pelosi herself said that this was not a power that Congress gave to the President, and she was there when this was enacted in the first place. As such all your arguments go out the window.
@@hijklmnopreaper The literal speaker of the House in her capacity as speaker and one of those who originally voted on the bill in question? Yeah I think that carries some weight, unlike your uninformed opinions.
@@hijklmnopreaper I mean yes, that is what you do with the law is it not? The SCOTUS is the supreme authority over such matters so it is literally an appeal to authority. Also pointing out that one of the people who voted for the bill and is in a similarly high office saying that POTUS doesn't have the authority is equally fair. You don't understand logical fallacies very well if you think that an appeal to authority in this matter is invalid.
I swear, I should just avoid conversations between Destiny and Pisco. While Pisco's not an idiot, he's such a victim of motivated reasoning, and having gone to law school in what I can only assume generously is a bubble that never required him to advocate for a position with which he disagrees. The arguments he makes _often_ don't track with the facts of the case, ignore precedent, or basic canons of construction. And, since I said I don't think he's that dumb, it means he's either so ideologically captured he can't see the flaws in his own argument (and failure to rebut the prevailing argument from the other side) _or_ he's so ideologically driven that he's willfully ignoring everything that doesn't lead to the outcome he's advocating for.
I think he's being a lawyer, not having an honest conversation. Which makes sense, but it's not what I want to hear unless there's an adversarial in the conversation.
@@nrylea part of being a lawyer is being good at argumentation. He fails that test often due to his bias or blindness. If this is his playing lawyer, then he isn't a very good one.
@@nryle an internet debate isn't representing a client. These are meant to be done in good faith. But even in actual court cases, failing to address/respond to opposing authority looks like you don't have an answer. In high level interpretive questions you often have some contrary authority and need to be able to address it.
This is a classy motte and Bailey, pisco makes arguments that support the statement “the government may pause student debt” and then duct tapes “the executive can pay off student debt principle”
@@IRepko Waiving in this case means that they have to pay it off, because the debt is owned by third party vendors in the vast majority of Federal student loans. As such, the debt "forgiveness" is more of a transfer of debt from the student to the Federal government who still has to pay off the loan to the vendors.
As a distinction related to the balance as per the debt of George Washington and how Congress never allowed the President to make executive orders in one aspect of the budget with relation to the states described by the constitution in effect as being similar to Hamilton and his interpretation to which the Supreme Court has stuck with throughout most legal interpretations of said law and all statues herein listed under the original articles of student and school spending...
MOHELA (pronounced MO-hee-la) was created by Missouri as a non-profit where net proceeds are used to fund eductional grants and scholarships to students and developmental funding for higher educational institutions. It directly reports all income and expenses to the state each year, it's board is composed of 2 state officials and 5 other members appointed by the state governor and confirmed by the Senate. It can only be dissolved through state legislation. The argument by the state is that MOHELA was created by state legislation for the specific public purpose of promoting higher education. The loss of revenue resulting from a massive loan discharge would reduce MOHELA's ability to perform it's legislated purpose of supporting higher education. Because of its unique corporate formation with direct state control, damage to it directly passes through to the state.
Pisco: Can Congress pass a law to set minimum wage to $80/hr? Ragepop: Yes, but I don't think that Congress can pass a law saying the Executive can set minimum wage to whatever he wants. Pisco: exasperated huffing ensues* nuh uh Tell me Pisco, why can Congress declare war, but the President cannot? It's called SEPARATION OF POWERS. Congress can't pass a law giving authority to make laws to the Executive. At least not without creating an Amendment to the Constitution. Barring that, Congress can make laws, but they are restricted from making certain laws that would violate the Constitution. Giving the Executive the ability to make and alter law at will is NOT Constitutional.
This whole conversation, I was wondering why nobody mentioned separation of powers and Congress cannot delegate constitutional duties to other branches of government.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Yeah it's pretty basic Constitutional law, which from what I understand is a heavy focus for the first full year of law school, so it's kind of exasperating that Pisco gets it so wrong here. I get that it's a bit confusing because Congress can and does make certain functional arms that the Executive Branch operates, ie the CDC, FBI, ATF, etc etc so it can be a bit confusing because those offices can and do create legally binding Rules that citizens have to follow, but they have limits. For example the ATF keeps getting smacked down in the courts for overstretching their abilities to regulate guns in various ways, which is why the Reps keep calling for it's total dismantlement because they are really no longer fit for purpose. They're sloppy, abuse their powers, and the head of the ATF openly tells Congress that he's not a firearms expert so he cannot answer their questions...smdh.
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitorRagepope a leftiod? That dude literally said that the USA did nothing during the Cold War because they were the “good guys.” You’re politically illiterate.
Fwiw - In certain circumstances, a business can sue a specific person(s) even if they have no employment or stake in the said business. For one example, see: Tortious Interference.
Ah, I thought this would be the Trans-BLM lefty debate from today's stream. It was actually a pretty good convo that Pisco looked pretty decent in imo.
Law Nerd explains to Gamer Boi how broken Lawful Evil is as a strat IRL. To elaborate, what Desitny is missing is that he has hindsight on the situation. Using terms like "waive, or adjust," along with "emergency" creates the perfect argument for a president forgiving loans. I agree, a reasonable person could draw the distinction, but political factions will use the the letter to smuggle in their agenda. The issue is the verbaige, it has a vagueness that grants similar wrecklessness as the 60 day war law.
After all of this, and not having read the majority opinion of the SCOTUS case, I still haven't seen anyone rebuke the textualist interpretation of the statute..
Read the majority opinion then lol. No surprise you haven’t heard the other side of you haven’t read the other side. Honestly from watching this debate I’m not even sure Pisco read the majority opinion. The other two at least didn’t pretend to. If Pisco did he certainly didn’t care to explain to the audience what the substance of it was. The majority does go through a textualist analysis of “modify” to conclude it means a limited or minor alteration. They cite dictionaries and precedent. It’s very readable if you’re curious.
@@octopusgoat2502 He kind of paid lip service to the majority opinion as being a "feels argument", specifically that he didn't like how they (in his opinion) created a definition for "modify" that didn't comport with the common understanding of the term. This despite the fact that they cited Nancy Pelosi, who was there when this was written, as saying that the President was never actually given this power. When Congress (especially a politically aligned Congress) and SCOTUS both agree that the Executive doesn't have this power then you've completely lost the argument.
IRS is the executive. Wait? How can these people not know this? Executive executes the legislation. IRS doesn't write legislation. They don't interpret legislation. Hence they must be the executive.
But that's kind of the point that they were driving at. The statutes and theoreticals they were engaging in examine how Congress could delegate the ability to alter the existing rules and regulations concerning student debt when that is supposed to be a function of Congress. Congress can't delegate their decision making authority to the Executive in this way. In effect they are letting the IRS determine fiscal policy by fiat of a national emergency. Also "forgiving debt" is a misnomor because the Federal govt cannot eliminate the debt, they just shift the burden to the Federal govt to pay back the loan to the lender. As such it ABSOLUTELY is taking money from taxpayers to pay off the loans, giving everyone standing in effect because it forcefully establishes a budget line item that MUST be paid due to the actions of the Executive. That's not how the system is supposed to work, no matter how much Pisco wants it to.
@@hijklmnopreaper Yes, but this gets back to the "feels" argument, because it's all an argument of degree. Also the mandates put forward by groups like the EPA, the CDC, the NIH, etc etc do NOT have the same force as Congressional laws. Congress COULD pass laws that stipulate that 90PMM of a certain chemical is the limit and the EPA would have to abide, not the other way round. Yes the Executive is there to execute the law, but the argument at hand is whether or not the Executive should have the ability to completely alter a bill that is poorly written and has a clause that says that the Executive can alter any and all parts of this law simply by giving notice. THAT is the bridge too far, because Congress cannot delegate their powers away like that.
a lot of hate for ragepope on this one, and his takes are often bad for a genius quant or whatever he supposedly is, BUT i have to give him credit for actually being able to admit he was wrong when Pisco deconstructs a question. he tries to play ball. most people act like the extradition schizo and just try to change the subject, evade hypotheticals, and in general just act as bad faith and low IQ as possible because they're too mad to do anything else
Key difference between pausing interest and forgiving debt is that after the emergency is over the interest comes back. You waive the interest for the duration of the emergency. You can't wipe away the debt for the duration of the emergency and then just bring it back after the emergency is over. It's more reasonable to pause interest.
Pisco annoys me so much when he goes down his bad faith debate tactics whenever he gets backed into a corner, he doesn’t think the pause for 3years on student loan interest was better for the average American compared to the 10-20k forgiveness
Infinitely more entertaining than orbiters like MindWaves or NotSoErudite. Being hated is proof that they're not actually boring. Also Ragepope is barely on anywhere near as much as he used to be or as much as Q
They didn't have the authority for this, I quote "The law defines an affected individual as someone who is serving in active duty or in the National Guard during a war, military operation or national emergency; who lives or works in area declared a disaster area by a federal, state or local official in connection with a national emergency; or who “suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency, as determined by the secretary,” according to the statute." You had to be serving in active duty or in the national guard. Then it lays out further if you are in one of those, and there is a war, military operation, or national emergency. They could forgive for these people. Not every American as most were not "actively serving".
From what I can tell the higher education bill of 1965 technically hasn’t been reauthorized since 2008 so is it something Congress has signed onto?!?!?
I love how Pisco came in and began this whole debate with rules to specifically make himself win, he tried to say that the only thing that can be argued is the specific text of the Hero's Act and nothing else matters but that's not how anything is done. For example he keeps stopping any talk of Major Questions Doctrine, even though it's exactly the argument against letting the executive branch do things like this. Major Questions is the idea if an agency is going to decide a question that has major national significance, they need CLEAR authorization to do it from Congress. He wants to argue from a position of strict textual interpretation instead of the way it's actually done in the US legal system, and he knows that, and that's what makes it bad faith.
The problem with Major Questions in this case, from what I can tell (I am not a lawyer) is that the Heroes Act gives explicit and clear delegation to the President. Otherwise, if the President is ever given major powers for national emergency, then a future Congress can block that aid that the President is trying to provide for political purposes, which would totally negate the purpose of giving the President emergency powers in the first place.
28:10 where does it say you can’t adjust them and keep them at zero. Because soo many laws are written to provide wiggle room it needs to be explicitly stated or it could be assumed permissible
"You're arguing for a Trump-style dictatorship." You mean a dictatorship in which the powers that be constantly drag, disobey, and otherwise undermine the dictator who impotently calls his detractors out? I can live with this dictatorship style.
@@spacetoast7783 Then they are shrewd business people and have a superior ability to pick winning cases. Nothing wrong with picking battles you know you can win.
Assuming the states debt and forgiving debt are 2 completely different thing. With the assuming of state debt, the debt didn't disappear, it just meant that someone else is paying. Forgiving state debt means that nobody pays and nobody receives. The debt just magically disappears. That is the purpose of forgiveness.
No he only brought that up because Destiny did first - Destiny asked if erasing debt was really what was intended when the policy was formed. And that's a fair question, but without some previous precedent it's really just an opinion rather than something that could be factually debated. Going purely by the text of the law, the debt forgiveness should have been legal, but the courts ruling was that the law was never intended to be used in such a broad way. So in this case it seems like the text of the law should have been more specific, because "waive or modify" does certainly imply the executive has the authority to forgive some of the debt.
@@TheStatisticalPizza It's not really an opinion when Nancy Pelosi said that the President doesn't actually have this power, especially considering that she was there when the Heroes Act was put in place originally. As such it absolutely could be factually debated and that is probably why SCOTUS went so far as to include her comments in their majority ruling.
I really don’t get why the actual opinions are not raised here; it is like an attack on the decision and the opinion is written and all of these points are clearly address - starting with the standing to begin with. This guy is great at asking questions and not acknowledging why the decision was made
i love listening to an argument where i have no idea what they're talking about and don't know who's right or wrong
if you are a neet and is active in the political space, it would make sense
Good rule of thumb is that PissCo is always wrong.
Same
Another person that just want something for free it's ridiculous it's no wonder we're in the mess we're in
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor Hey just let him piss
"destiny says something, triggers a debate with Pisco" is like 70% of the content
Honestly, some of the only interesting substantial Aka not-drama content has come from pisco of late, destiny should give him a cut at this point
PissCo is garbage content.
@Jodykang but drama makes me feel like my brain is rotting
And 95% of the good content
@@Pjooful mozeltov if you enjoy it but lawyer speak and everything that comes with it is super boring to me
Pisco always jumps on saying he's just going to clear up a misunderstanding but then turns into a defense attorney trying to win a case.
Well , bozo , if your purpose is to clear up a misunderstanding and someone argues against what you're saying , it only makes sense that you would correct them.
@@couldyou4745Pisco is an arrogant twerp why you gargling his baby juice?
@@couldyou4745Pisco is an arrogant twerp. Why are you gargling his baby juice?
@@couldyou4745Pisco is an arrogant twerp why you gargling his baby juice?
Been awhile since Destiny has hosted a discussion this good. It was very substantive and I actually learned a lot. Very fine distinctions being made. More economic and policy discussion please.
I agree, but It seems we’re in the minority
Sorry, I can't understand comments that don't have a punchline that Destiny is a black woman. Maybe try harder if you want to be accessible to the masses (me).
It's only a dictatorship if it's the other guys doing the dictating 🤣
LOL very true
How is it a dictatorship here?
@@lampad4549how is having broad general authority to modify or change laws based upon one person not a dictatorship?
@@hiotsobobecause it's the person I support doing the changes, so therfore it's not a dictatorship, duh.
@@nathanwinhusen6017Exactly.
Ragepope is wrong in 95% of the conversations I hear him engage in.
Yeah his trade stuff is v off. China tariffs were 25% or 7.5%. The 5% tariff thing is straight incorrect
lol... so, basically Destiny is going to do actual research into it, Pisco will be fucking proven wrong, again, like he ALWAYS has he has NEVER BEEN RIGHT in ANY of these. Pisco speaks complete lies assuming authority. Yes, they would lose out of taxes, Yes, this is a breach of powers.
It's like the 2nd Amendment stuff, Pisco is completely wrong he doesn't even understand the BASICS of what he argues. He thinkgs Originalists mean "the understanding of the modern age" when it is so BLATANT that no it means the original INTENT of the founding fathers and moving forward applying that ORIGINAL INTENT and the SPIRIT of the document to today. Not based on whoever fucking reads it, then there's nothing "originalist" about it.
In this situation he is wrong too and when Destiny does research, then disagrees with him and Pisco will come cry and throw a temper tantrum in chat refusing to get into voice and slink off. Again.
This has happened SO MANY times. How do you people still take Pisco seriously? Pisco has to completely argue in a hypothetical world that is restructred to just outright agree with his argument. Always. That's the only world he can EVER argue lol. He is pretending we are still in a fucking covid emergency he can't actually argue int he world that we are in NOW and why student debt forgiveness got struck down.
I love him because he’s a based American imperialist.
Ragepope is the Jordan Peterson of the orbiters. Everytime he steps out of his field (economics) it's the most braindead takes 💀💀💀
I have yet to discover the 5%
Also i havent read the decision yet, but i have read the act and etc, and the thrust of the act was that the alterations/suspensions/etc were intended to be RELATED TO or ARISING FROM the declared emergency. Thats why the pausing of interest makes sense, because COVID affected large portions of the nation/borrowers employment to change drastically(huge layoffs etc etc). BUT the cancelling of a lump sum isnt naturally arising from the emergency + the fact that this exact action was a political point of debate at the congressional and presidential level for years and years prior to the emergency used to justify it demonstrate that the forgiveness program was a political policy question that SHOULD be decided by congress and not something the president can unilaterally force through.
Not to mention, because the interest was paused during the pandemic, none of the debt was accrued during the emergency, so the principle was not affected by the emergency through which they are trying to pass this.
@@KingKrapper yeah true, thinking down this chain, if anything a lump sum forgiveness could actually have been justified if there hadn't been the interest pause at all(and the amount forgiven was like by some method calculated based upon the impact of COVID) because then you could say the modification was in connection to the emergency. But having both is double dipping and clearly just going beyond the intent of the act to address the repercussions of an emergency.
I truly can't fathom how ragepope always manages to bolster the arguments his trying to rebute. That takes actual skill.
What about the fantastic defense he gave of Pinochet? Lmfao
Ragepope is just bad at playing devil's advocate
Ragepope pulled up and got squeezed. He and Mindwaves seems to always jump into a call aggressively and their first statement shows they were not listening at all.
Yea well when you're not even paying attention to the arguments being made and come on to argue a straw man , without even realizing it , that tends to happen. Ragepope is like 90% just a waste of time.
@@mharris4264typical contrarian behavior.
This is honestly the deeper conversations I have been wanting. True Steven was the 3rd wheel but even if he is the moderator keeping things on track, calling balls and strikes.
The redpill, trans, abortion convos are fine but with serious ppl in good faith.
this is one of the dumbest comments i have ever seen
"...with serious people in good faith." Wouldn't that disqualify Pisco in this conversation? His whole problem seems to be that he doesn't like Major Questions Doctrine, everyone keeps essentially invoking it without knowing that it's called that, and he keeps trying to shut that down because as a lawyer he knows damn well that it ruins any argument he could have. To be clear, Major Questions Doctrine is whenever the executive branch wants to decide a question of major national significance they need CLEAR authorization from Congress to do it. Spending like a trillion dollars to forgive student loan debt is a question of major significance, that isn't up for dispute, which means that they need Congress's express permission to do that. So all that time spent arguing about what the executive branch could theoretically do is just wasted time to obfuscate the point and present himself as more of an expert than everyone else (which is ironic because their "feelings" had them stumble their way into the way things actually work).
This is the same problems that happened under Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Congress gave unilateral authority to the Executive and the fear was they could wave the debt. That never happened but it would have been allowed
Um...as a Pell Grant recipient...Pell Grants were not loans...they were GRANTS so im confused as to how they are even being mentioned in this argument
Don't think they're saying that the pell grant is forgiven, but that if you qualified for a pell grant, then you qualified for an additional 10k.
So pell grants are issued to individuals with greater financial need therefore you theoretically could have needed more loans and need more assistance
@@derickzellar6632right but that doesn’t make the pell grant a loan….
@@dmv99 doesn't make a pell grant a loan, but pell grants EFFECT loans.
@@dmv99 it is not a loan. It is a measure of need that can be an indicator of a more disadvantaged financial status requiring more relief for Pell grant recipients
How is it hard to understand the difference between" You don't have to pay it now, but will later," and " You will never have to pay this?"
Also, as a layperson, it's my understanding that allocations of powers needs to be specifically delegated, not specifically prohibited. The President doesn't get to say " Well nobody said I _couldn't_ explicitly do so by law., so I'm gonna do it anyway "He needs to show how that power has been given to him specifically. That runs all the way back to the founding documents.
That's not the argument though. The argument is that the HEROES act does give the Sec of Education (a part of the executive) to Waive student debt due to a national emergency
@@zevkurtzman8108 From the opinion of the Supreme Court in the brief for Biden v Nebraska.
"The Secretary asserts that the HEROES Act grants him
the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. It does not. We hold today that the Act allows the Secretary to “waive or modify” existing statutory or regulatory
provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, not to rewrite that statute from the
ground up."
...
"Here, the Secretary does not identify any provision that
he is actually waiving. No specific provision of the Education Act establishes an obligation on the part of student borrowers to pay back the Government. So as the Government
concedes, “waiver” as used in the HEROES Act cannot
refer to “waiv[ing] loan balances” or “waiving the obligation
to repay” on the part of a borrower."
So unless I am mistaken that is _exactly_ the argument. There's a difference between "Hey they said it would be X amount of interest, I'm changing it to Y" changing the regulatory procedures of a loan and saying "actually you don't have to pay anything ever." which is discharging a loan.
The court is saying that he has the power to determine the rules for the loan. He doesn't have the power to deny the loan even exists in the first place.
I say again, there is a difference between saying when a loan has to be paid and saying that you never have to pay at all.
Just as if you lost a bet and your friend gets to dye your hair any color they want, that friend can't decide to just shave you bald. The absence of all color is not a color. Wiping a debt from existence is not regulating that debt. There's nothing _to_ regulate at that point.
@@zevkurtzman8108It's for the purpose of easing strains during the period of the emergency. It's not intended to act as a source of free money.
My argument is that you can’t make permanent changes from a statute that allows for temporary powers. Anything that goes into effect during the emergency must have some ending period.
Ragepope always delivers the rage .
Like some pope of rage
I miss the rage
Eh too spergy for me, sperg rage isn't fun, it's just grating.
I thought we were against abusing the mentality disabled.
Also he has that incel/pervert tone of voice
Pisco accusing the right-leaning members of the court of being hypocrites for abandoning originalist principles in order to achieve the outcome they desire is really the pot calling the kettle black. I agree with him completely here it's just very silly for him to be so against it when he has no principle objection to these kinds of methods.
You kinda just hit the nail on the head FOR Pisco though. Liberal ideology isn’t originalist, to abandon close readings of text and ensure contextualization and consideration of modern interpretation etc etc is literally a STAPLE to the ideology. On the flip side the conservative court purports to litigate from an originalist perspective, then seemingly abandons the text when convenient. If I’m interacting with somebody and they act against how they told me they would on principle I’m not gonna be that persons friend, and with good reason.
@@T3HCn0l0gy Which is why I said I agreed with him. I'm not sure you get my point. It's that Pisco getting all righteous about the text of the law and making arguments about how the way the law is applied should follow from what is written in the text is absurd when we know tomorrow he will be making silly living document or interpretive arguments that are huge stretches like usual. Like i'm sorry the court stooped to the level that you operate on 24/7, Cry me a river about how unfair and hypocritical it is. He's not a person I like listening to.
@@mwellnow5016 I'm not sure you get my point. Pisco in that regard isn't "stooping" to anything. By principle Pisco would support a living document/interpretive argument. The problem he has is the conservative majority of the court, which by principle DISAVOWS living document/interpretive arguments, in this particular case utilized said arguments to support their opinion. Pisco was arguing from an originalist pov in this vod to show how from an originalist standpoint the conservative court should not have ruled how they did.
I don't like Pisco either tbh, he turns even basic convos into legal arguments and its annoying af (case and point the recent Ana video where he autists around the definition of violence like he's in court), that is beside the point that he is completely consistent in the argument he puts forth.
Again, he isn't arguing for the originalist interpretation persay, he's pointing out how FROM an originalist interpretation, which the conservative court should hold on principle, the majority opinion should never have been issued.
@@T3HCn0l0gy You've repeated yourself mate but I think i picked up on the blockage. Living document/interprerive isn't a principle. It's more akin to a tactic or a dominant strategy. Pisco only adopts this argument when he feels its the best one to suite his political intuitions anyways. I think if the best argument against something he didnt like was a textual one he'd make it. He doesnt care much for sticking to a principle. I cant respect that. Right now he thinks the best argument is pointing out hypocrisy. But in doing so he demonstrates the strength and respectability of textual principles I think, pretty much forcing destiny to concede and make weak arguments based on his own intuition. All in all he's just so fucking tedious. Its the same game every time, and these are the things i was trying to point out.
@@mwellnow5016 I don't know what else to say other than perhaps check your bias and proceed with Hanlon's. Your POV here is a bit skewed friend. Best of luck to ya.
Rarepope stuttered and stammered through this entire thing and made weak AF arguments
@@TubeWusel His poor speaking ability aside, the arguments were almost completely unfounded and debunked by Pisco immediately.
@@Kallisto.0pisco didn’t debunk anything. He’s literally arguing that his opinion is more correct than the Supreme Court
@@Vageta1999 You are incorrect - the Supreme Court showed itself to be a purely political institution with this ruling, because there were multiple issues that should have kept this from getting to the court, and also should have, based on statute, allowed the forgiveness. Did you read the dissenting opinion or listen at all?
@@Blade332yeah the court is bad when you don't agree great standard
@@ryansomenek2631 So then, what is YOUR standard for a valid reason to say the supreme court has made a bad decision?
This Pisco guy is such a hypocrite. He is so inconsistent. He wants to expand the law anytime to suit very liberal points of view, but when there’s a conservative opinion he will never ever expand the law but actually minimizes it. What this Pisco guy does is he finds a point of view and then works backwards to try to make excuses for his POV. But this isn’t how the law works. You have to start with the law and then work forward. There is no constitutional or prominent legal scholar who agrees with him. The liberal justices in many of their dissents have written dissents just to write dissent but have said many times that they are consciously aware that their dissent is illegal and against the statue they are dissenting to. This is where we are in our country. Liberal justices know that the liberal POV is illegal and they still vote on the incorrect side just to fall along party lines instead of upholding the Constitution.
The whole point is that student loan forgiveness requires ZERO expansion of the law. It works with the law AS WRITTEN
@@IRepko no it does not! There is absolutely no proof in the law that states that a president can unilaterally wipe out student debt. Please don’t tell me that you have been brainwashed by the great constitutional, legal scholar of our time, a grifter named Pisco, who knows more than our Supreme Court. If Pisco had all the answers my friend, then he’d be on CNN and MSNBC teaching the masses as to why nearly all legal scholars are wrong and he’s right.
@@IRepkothe Supreme Court doesn’t think so but we’re supposed to believe pisco over them?
@@Vageta1999 well the conservative judges agree with you, the liberal judges thing the conservative judges are acting blinded by politics, i would agree with them. im guessing you ddint read the decisions.
@@IRepko the court likes to say that they dont want to legislate from the bench, but when Congress does very explicit things they suddenly feel the need to interject.
Glad im early so Destiny can tell me what I should think.
BASED AND TRUUUUUUEEE!
I would laugh at this joke if it wasn't true.
Right off the bat with that intro. I have no idea how Trump had a dictatorship
You'd really think he'd have gotten more of his agenda done with that unfettered power to dictate the law....
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor well maga's have been saying for decades that GOP is full of establishment careerists who dont push policy their voters want, thats how trump managed to win the primary, thats how maga is slowing taking over the gop... the gop for 2 yrs didnt pass trumps plans, they said yooo, your being investigated for russian collusion so we arent gonna push policy, and then dems won midterms and etc...
He didn’t, but not for lack of effort
He didn't but these so-called college graduates are literally living under a dictatorship right now and they don't even get it but Trump was the bad guy uea right
@@eeyun5279🙄
At no point was he attempting to do anything dictatorial
There is no national emergency at this time. Therefore, the executive does not have the power to erase student loan debt at this time.
Student Loan Debt is favoring for the rich/privilege to avoid payments again... its an absolute scummy thing to do...
Yeah, Pisco pointing out that the pause helped him "far more than $10K relief" is pretty telling. Only those with massive debt could make that statement credibly, and thus his law degree which puts him at the rich/privileged category in society means that he's getting helped out when he does NOT need it.
I hate when Pisco gets on to talk about specific court cases to try and clear up a misunderstanding we may have with a law but instead muddies the water, even more by manipulating facts and misrepresenting the court's decision. I highly doubt the Supreme Court didn't take into account prior standing before deciding to take on the case. I would love if my loans were paid off but I don't listen to Destiny to become more bias and/or confused about an issue. I listen to him to get the most reasonable take Possible and I don't think Pisco realizes that.
I’ve learned to not trust what pisco says because he constantly tries to misrepresent and alter facts to help his argument. It’s crazy how much he does it
I’m a lawyer and I read the entire decision and your sense is completely right. The court absolutely had a back and forth on standing and it really came down to interpreting previous case law. Most relevant being Arkansas v Texas, where the court found Arkansas to have standing on behalf of a public university since the university was a public instrumentality of the state. The majority thinks that MOHELA (a public org in Missouri that everyone agrees has standing itself) is also a public instrumentality that grants Missouri itself standing since it’s similar in many ways to the relationship between Arkansas and the university. The dissent thinks it’s meaningfully different since Arkansas actually owned the property the university operates on while Missouri does not own MOHELA property. The majority thinks this distinction isn’t relevant, and instead the relevant facts are that in both cases, the state created the public org to serve a state purpose and maintains some degree of control over it.
TLDR is standing is absolutely way more nuanced than Pisco makes it out to be. He’s absolutely muddying the waters and I really encourage anyone interested to actually read the decision itself. It’s very readable. At the very least, don’t think you understand the case from just listening to this video, because it’s very misleading.
@@octopusgoat2502 In general I have issue with establishing Standing as being a core principle of a case. I get that we don't want tons of frivolous lawsuits mucking up the courts, but if we can all accept that there is a big question on the table that needs answering, I don't think a lack of standing should preclude someone being able to bring the question forward to the courts.
After all, this is basically what happened in Arizona election lawsuit where their Supreme court remanded the case back down to lower courts because you can't prevent a lawsuit from being brought because of a lack of standing prior to any harm being done, only to then bar the lawsuit AFTER the harm was done due to latches...This creates a litigation proof paradox, one that is potentially rife for abuse.
I'm not sure what a better system would look like, but Standing just leaves a bad taste in the mouth and potentially opens the door for potential miscarriage of justice.
You just lied. You don't listen to Destiny "to get the most reasonable take possible" 😂 Destiny is not reasonable at all when it comes to democrats, corruption or covid. So in those cases you listen to Destiny to reaffirm your extremist beliefs.
The idea that there is no collusion at all between mainstream media, big pharma (pfizer), MIC, big tech silicon valley and the DNC is laughable. But it's what Destiny believes. He thinks the media only reports the truth and has no incentive to lie or do pr for any other interest group. 😂
Why does pisco ignore reasonability?
Its not reasonable to think congress intended to authorize this with the statute that pisco is citing.
Especially when Nancy Pelosi (who was there when this law was created) said otherwise.
@@femsplainer nancy pelosi is not a judge nor does nancy pelosi speak on behalf of the congress. if congress thought the loan forgiveness plan was illegal, why didn't they sue the Biden admin?
Pisco is really hard to listen to sometimes. He seems to think that textualism trumps everything, but there's a reason that the courts have the Big Questions standard they use because sometimes people word laws badly and the intent does not match the letter of the law. There are always loopholes, workarounds, and unintended consequences for ANY law that is enacted, that doesn't mean that we have to just accept the consequences until a new law is passed. The courts have found this to be true again and again, but Pisco is just salty because he thinks strict textualism should be the only way to interpret the law.
Destiny criticizing Biden is a rare treat.
Most partisan-brained TH-cam commenter 🎉
He always is critical on this topic.
If that’s a criticism of Biden then Christ this community is partisan af. This was a debate whether Biden should or shouldn’t use a power of the executive to pass legislation.
no a rare treat his him taking a pick me stance
@@xYiazmatx heaven forbid criticizing a sitting globalist-controlled president that throws billions of our money towards a proxy war while we sit in a record setting inflation era. imagine posting your comment.
11:38 Your computer when you go to open a new browser tab while iTunes is playing in the background 😂😂😂
I can't tell how much Pisco is right about and how much of it is just the Dunning-Kruger Effect for an early Lawyer.
when has pisco been right on anything? lets face the facts he was an AA admission, and will be a quota hire for a firm for DEI...pisco's entire career is hes the brown face of a law fire, for ESG points...
@@117EnderThis is Cope.
@@117Enderbut you can’t argue against him
Pisco can't even hold his own against Vegan Gains
The guy is definitely a partisan actor, and he definitely does not interpret the law in an unbiased way, but I would not go that far.
kind of a silly debate, it all hinges on the world "modify", people who want all debt forgiven will read it in the most broad way possible, in financial speak modifying a loan has a well known definition and it is distinctly different from forgiving, abonding, or canceling a loan (after all why would those words exist if modify means anything you want it to mean). It is an interesting question if modify means principal reduction though, there is some grey area there imop.
I think "waive" is pretty important as well right?
I don't think there's a reason to read the act as using a financial term of art as opposed to the plain, common meaning of a common word.
@@ghawk1347 Yeah it's not like Congresspeople are known for being experts on the legislation they pass lol.
Pisco did a horrible job at representing the central question. The secretary (who is on the side of forgiving student debt in the case) conceded that “waive or modify” doesn’t apply to waiving or modifying the debt itself. They have authority to waive or modify statutory provisions, not the debt itself. The issue for the secretary is that there’s no statutory provision that requires repayment. If there was, it would be easy to point to that and say “we’re waiving this provision”, but they can’t since the obligation to repay comes from the individual contracts, not the statutory provision.
The secretary actually doesn’t identify which provisions exactly they are waiving or modifying, instead essentially just saying that “whatever provisions are incompatible with this plan are waived” (not a direct quote just paraphrasing). They do gesture towards a set of provisions which allow limited forgiveness to very specific cases, like students who spend 10 years in public service, and argue they could waive the limiting clause and make the power to forgive unlimited.
Bottom line is read the decision yourself (Majority, concurrence, and dissent) if you care about having a good understanding of the case. Online debate bro content is not going to give you all the relevant facts.
@@ShavaughnMorris waive typically would apply to fees or interest, its not common to "waive" principal. That would never be read that way in a financial prospectus.
btw ragepope is the one who accused Nick (Erudite's husband) of being homophobic for calling someone a "newfrog".
sigh, the federal reserve isn't part of the government, c'mon pisco
The president appoints the chair and can fire him
Destiny, Pisco and Ragepope walk into a bar ..
Scalia wasn’t a textualist, he was an originalist. Originalists DID LOOK at the words of the congressmen who passed legislation to find the original intent of the law.
Modifying provisions is different from removing the thing entirely.
Judges will also take into account the intent of the law makes perfect sense to quote the speaker of the house clearly stating that this was not the intent of the law
Exactly. The fact that Pisco tried to dismiss this out of hand when Pelosi was THERE when the bill was created is completely disingenuous I thought.
@@femsplainer she is now not saying that so which is it?
@@killzone866 Where did she retract her statement? I see no such retraction and SCOTUS would have included such retraction in their ruling. I think you're blowing smoke.
@@femsplainer Fem her statement is right there, i dont know what the fuck you want?
She disagrees with the ruling. WHY IS THAT TELL THE CLASS
@@killzone866 She never RETRACTED her statement. She said that the courts "ignored" the strong arguments of the Biden administration but she didn't retract what she said, now why is that, do please tell the class if you don't mind?
What about ppp loans being issued with the intent of collecting on that debt and those then being waived?
The problem with the comparison is that Congress forgave ppp not the president, I would agree as a matter of principle though that it’s total bullshit
Weren’t PPP loans always issued with the understanding that they could be forgiven if certain conditions were met?
@@toads807 i believe Trump made changes to it, so that no oversight happened.
What about them? They had explicit provisions for partial forgiveness. Student loans also have some provisions for forgiveness, but not unlimited forgiveness.
@@spacetoast7783 well what Biden is doing is here is also very specific as well. Why would this be struck down, and those not be?
This is actually pretty easy to answer.
Scotus interpreted the law congress passed. If they got it wrong, congress is free to pass legislation clarifying the law. Absent that legislation, congress is implicitly agreeing with the interpretation..
Well the real take here is that this entire legislation was nothing but a move for political brownie points to begin with. We all knew the SC wasn't going to allow this and it's obviously not even getting mentioned in congress - it's just an easy optics win for Democrats. Sucks for the people who based their voting decision on Biden's promises but that's politics.
The problem is the law is silent as to whether loans could be forgiven. So essentially the court made an assumption outside of what existed in legislation rather than making a black and white interpretation. This is a seperation of powers issue with the court filling gaps in policy that congress should be doing. Additionally our law books would reach to the moon and back if we had to explicitly account for every outcome. Generally what happens is the reverse. If it turns out congress didn't mean to include student loan forgiveness they should go back and correct that (speak where they were silent), and it would even be appropriate for the court to reccomend it even if they ruled with that black and white interpretation.
Consider an analogy. You ride a bike without a helmet and a cop tries to fine you. Obviously, riding without a bike is not illegal in the US and it wouldn't be fair to you if the court said "well the government and police has a general duty to protect citizens and since the law doesn't explicitly say you can ride without a helmet, so you have to pay the fine". In a democracy its very important where the law is silent it is assumed citizens cannot be bound by what judges personally feel is right, even if drawing on other aspects of law. The only corollaries are when two laws conflict, generally the more specific governs, or if the law is written ambiguously, common understandings of the words are applied (perhaps these arguments came up in the loan case but I'm not aware of it. The law is short and pretty unambiguous).
@@chegayvara1136
If scotus got it wrong, congress can correct them. Until then the court is exercising its constitutional powers.
Also, your analogy is backwards. The logic of your argument leads to the bikers arrest being lawful until congress passes a law saying thats not what they meant by general safety or whatever.
Also also, your analogy is flawed because you are comparing criminal law to government authority. In regards to criminal law, that which isnt prohibited is allowed. With government authority its the opppsite. That which isnt authorized is prohibited..
@@falseprophet1024 None of that is correct and my original comment stands as a rebuttal
@@chegayvara1136
All of that is correct and your comment is still wrong..
has ragepope ever, even just once, had a good take on anything? maybe i've missed something but every time he opens his mouth something categorically, indisputably wrong comes out
What’s wrong with his take here?
@@Vageta1999 so far we've got "federal spending is the same thing as debt forgiveness" (obviously wrong in at least three ways), "the law is unconstitutional" (even if it is, he can't explain how) and "under this provision it would be okay for the executive to forgive smaller amounts of debt, but not larger ones" (???, completely arbitrary, no basis in anything beyond his feelings). i'm sure there will be more by the time the video's done
edit: hell yeah, just got to "debt forgiveness necessarily constitutes an unlawful future tax increase" - he's completely insane
@@shedshitleydon't forget some of his all time greatest hits like "everything the us did in the cold War, even explicitly evil things, are actually justified because we are the good guys and everything we do is thus justified"
@shedshitley If it was 5 trillion could biden do it?
@@shedshitley "debt forgiveness is the same as federal spending" is true. When loans are given out with the expectation for those loans to be paid back, only to be forgiven, that then becomes federal spending that was made in the past. Not having a cap or the money given out in the past does not make it no longer a piece of federal spending. It's literally federal funds being spent (And I'm not even against student loans or forgiveness of said loans)
Pisco lawyer for one year.. knows absolutely everything and always going against the majority of the commentary from lawyers.. lol
People try to make this complicated. Everyone is a textualist, but when interpreting the text there are originalists and non-originalists. The originalists would look into the intent of the law when written and the non-originalists would look at the law as it could be interpreted today. Everyone pretty much knows that it was not the intent of the law when written to give out $400B+ in student loan forgiveness, so the more originalists judges decided to strike it down with their interpretation. If an act had the intent of student loan forgiveness then it probably wouldn't even go to the supreme court.
In the reading, they ignored the word temporary that is in the statute. Cancelling the debt altogether is not temporary relief.
You absolutely can sue someone for a dollar.
if this guys a lawyer, then im a doctor
That would make you pre med right now, lol!
Pisco is WAYYYY too ideologically trapped to get out of his bubble to see that he's so biased in his reasonings and it's making him seem emotional. Because he is. I think he's going to have a hard time being a lawyer for the long haul. I actually see him not lasting 5 years. Nothing against him personally, I don't want him to fail or anything. I'm just telling it like I saw it as I listened to him. I think he might mean well but ppl who he sounds like tend to be huge hypocrites.
That being said, killer vid.
I really need to stop watching anything that says 'lawyer' or 'Pisco.' I mean it's nice having a returning meme to Steven's streams, but Pisco is so annoying... I mean he's probably a great lawyer. Take your own beliefs and agenda, then find a way to totally twist the hell out of legal-ease and poorly written bills/laws, and claim that the intention is in your favor.
"well, muh, the law doesn't say you can't make interest rate negative" *gets called on it* Pisco rages 'WHEN DID I SAY THAT?!'
I’ve never heard someone as confidently wrong as ragepope
Pisco has to completely argue in a hypothetical world that is restructred to just outright agree with his argument. Always. That's the only world he can EVER argue lol. He is pretending we are still in a fucking covid emergency he can't actually argue int he world that we are in NOW and why student debt forgiveness got struck down.
Pisco had to MAKE UP a world where his argument can be valid. He can't even argue the FACTS of the matter or the frame of the world AS IT IS. He has to pretend we cannot question the emergency, and that there IS an emergency ongoing NOW.
@@ErgonomicChair The argument wasn't over whether or not the covid emergency was ongoing so of course that doesn't matter. From what I can tell the opinion that Roberts wrote also doesn't really talk about whether or not the covid pandemic can still be considered an emergency.
Why waste time arguing over that point when it wasn't the legal challenge in the first place?
I see your ragepope and raise you a president sunday.
did you just ignore pisco during this video?
I know Pisco is a lawyer or whatever, but sometimes I wonder if Pisco is a lawyer in the same way Capitan Crunch is a military commander…
You absolutely can sue for a dollar you can sue for a PENNY. Its been done. Idk about the rest of the argument some of this is out of my wheelhouse of expertise. But America has very loose rules on who can sue who and for what.
Yeah usually people do this (sue for a dollar) to prove a point or clear their name. It shows that they're not doing something for financial gain, but rather to drive at the principle of their argument, and it's generally a good thing in my opinion.
You can't effectively sue for one dollar, there are always legal fees. The recent Paltrow case she won $1 plus legal fees.
@@darkwitnesslxx You CAN sue for a dollar and not request legal fees if you want. The point is that you are not doing it for the money which is true if all the plaintiff takes away at the end of the day is $1.
In destiny’s mind the President has the authority to forgive other types of debts but specifically not student loan debt
President shouldn't be allowed to just forgive any debt
Trump has an opportunity to take control of every state during pandemic. However, he did not.
You need to put timestamps in videos like these.
If you admit congress has the power of the purse and we’re not in a war or under attack or going through an actual plague you kinda lose all ability to say this is being done legally.
We want executives to be able to be fluid and work on there feet but if things like this are abused as BS technicalities you’re going to see them limited out of necessity and checks/balances. Nobody could say this is going to solve inflation or assist in dealing with an emergency that’s already over and has been over.
The bidening ministration has gotten rid of checks and balances look at our justice system right now look at the s*** that's going on we're literally sending a Nazi country Ukraine money to funnel for Joe Biden I mean when are people going to wake the f****** man we're being played like never before
@@hijklmnopreaper They did not though. The courts have determined this. Every good lawyer knew this action would be ruled unlawful since the law it was based on explicitly did not grant the authority to do this.
@@hijklmnopreaper Except even Nancy Pelosi herself said that this was not a power that Congress gave to the President, and she was there when this was enacted in the first place. As such all your arguments go out the window.
@@hijklmnopreaper The literal speaker of the House in her capacity as speaker and one of those who originally voted on the bill in question? Yeah I think that carries some weight, unlike your uninformed opinions.
@@hijklmnopreaper I mean yes, that is what you do with the law is it not? The SCOTUS is the supreme authority over such matters so it is literally an appeal to authority. Also pointing out that one of the people who voted for the bill and is in a similarly high office saying that POTUS doesn't have the authority is equally fair. You don't understand logical fallacies very well if you think that an appeal to authority in this matter is invalid.
Is this the same “lawyer” who was talking about the trump case ? And said “INTENT DIDNT MATTER” 😂
Nope, you're thinking of someone else.
@@spacetoast7783 fair enough.
I swear, I should just avoid conversations between Destiny and Pisco. While Pisco's not an idiot, he's such a victim of motivated reasoning, and having gone to law school in what I can only assume generously is a bubble that never required him to advocate for a position with which he disagrees. The arguments he makes _often_ don't track with the facts of the case, ignore precedent, or basic canons of construction. And, since I said I don't think he's that dumb, it means he's either so ideologically captured he can't see the flaws in his own argument (and failure to rebut the prevailing argument from the other side) _or_ he's so ideologically driven that he's willfully ignoring everything that doesn't lead to the outcome he's advocating for.
I think he's being a lawyer, not having an honest conversation. Which makes sense, but it's not what I want to hear unless there's an adversarial in the conversation.
@@nrylea part of being a lawyer is being good at argumentation.
He fails that test often due to his bias or blindness.
If this is his playing lawyer, then he isn't a very good one.
@@Forkinpikey you can't turn on your client as a lawyer just because opposing counsel makes a good point
@@nryle an internet debate isn't representing a client. These are meant to be done in good faith. But even in actual court cases, failing to address/respond to opposing authority looks like you don't have an answer. In high level interpretive questions you often have some contrary authority and need to be able to address it.
This is a classy motte and Bailey, pisco makes arguments that support the statement “the government may pause student debt” and then duct tapes “the executive can pay off student debt principle”
They can’t pay it off, they can waive it though .
@@IRepko Well, clearly they cannot under the HEROES act.
@@IRepkoThose are the same thing.
@@IRepko Waiving in this case means that they have to pay it off, because the debt is owned by third party vendors in the vast majority of Federal student loans. As such, the debt "forgiveness" is more of a transfer of debt from the student to the Federal government who still has to pay off the loan to the vendors.
sweet jesus no... not pisco .... have mercy
@@TubeWusel I hated PissCo WAY before quiznos ever showed up.
Let em piss ❗
@@TubeWuselQ brought keep or kick. What does Pisspants ever add to a stream outside of snark
As a distinction related to the balance as per the debt of George Washington and how Congress never allowed the President to make executive orders in one aspect of the budget with relation to the states described by the constitution in effect as being similar to Hamilton and his interpretation to which the Supreme Court has stuck with throughout most legal interpretations of said law and all statues herein listed under the original articles of student and school spending...
MOHELA (pronounced MO-hee-la) was created by Missouri as a non-profit where net proceeds are used to fund eductional grants and scholarships to students and developmental funding for higher educational institutions. It directly reports all income and expenses to the state each year, it's board is composed of 2 state officials and 5 other members appointed by the state governor and confirmed by the Senate. It can only be dissolved through state legislation.
The argument by the state is that MOHELA was created by state legislation for the specific public purpose of promoting higher education. The loss of revenue resulting from a massive loan discharge would reduce MOHELA's ability to perform it's legislated purpose of supporting higher education. Because of its unique corporate formation with direct state control, damage to it directly passes through to the state.
I'm here to tell you the pause was crucially beneficial for myself. To prop myself and be able to handle the debt in a better position.
Pisco: Can Congress pass a law to set minimum wage to $80/hr?
Ragepop: Yes, but I don't think that Congress can pass a law saying the Executive can set minimum wage to whatever he wants.
Pisco: exasperated huffing ensues* nuh uh
Tell me Pisco, why can Congress declare war, but the President cannot? It's called SEPARATION OF POWERS. Congress can't pass a law giving authority to make laws to the Executive. At least not without creating an Amendment to the Constitution. Barring that, Congress can make laws, but they are restricted from making certain laws that would violate the Constitution. Giving the Executive the ability to make and alter law at will is NOT Constitutional.
This whole conversation, I was wondering why nobody mentioned separation of powers and Congress cannot delegate constitutional duties to other branches of government.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Yeah it's pretty basic Constitutional law, which from what I understand is a heavy focus for the first full year of law school, so it's kind of exasperating that Pisco gets it so wrong here.
I get that it's a bit confusing because Congress can and does make certain functional arms that the Executive Branch operates, ie the CDC, FBI, ATF, etc etc so it can be a bit confusing because those offices can and do create legally binding Rules that citizens have to follow, but they have limits.
For example the ATF keeps getting smacked down in the courts for overstretching their abilities to regulate guns in various ways, which is why the Reps keep calling for it's total dismantlement because they are really no longer fit for purpose. They're sloppy, abuse their powers, and the head of the ATF openly tells Congress that he's not a firearms expert so he cannot answer their questions...smdh.
Haven't watched yet; already malding that urine corp is here.
I'll say that pisco and ragepope are super interesting, but when they have thier blinders on they are tilting AF. Pisco does it more often IMO.
I've never found either of them to be interesting at all. Ragepope is a full blown leftoid and PissCo is PissCo.
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitorRagepope a leftiod? That dude literally said that the USA did nothing during the Cold War because they were the “good guys.” You’re politically illiterate.
Fwiw - In certain circumstances, a business can sue a specific person(s) even if they have no employment or stake in the said business. For one example, see: Tortious Interference.
Ah, I thought this would be the Trans-BLM lefty debate from today's stream. It was actually a pretty good convo that Pisco looked pretty decent in imo.
If PissCo looks decent it must be a shit show.
I know a bit too little to speak on the nuance of this. But the logic of Pisco held up.
Destiny playing 2000 hours of Satisfactory? Lets go!
Law Nerd explains to Gamer Boi how broken Lawful Evil is as a strat IRL.
To elaborate, what Desitny is missing is that he has hindsight on the situation. Using terms like "waive, or adjust," along with "emergency" creates the perfect argument for a president forgiving loans.
I agree, a reasonable person could draw the distinction, but political factions will use the the letter to smuggle in their agenda.
The issue is the verbaige, it has a vagueness that grants similar wrecklessness as the 60 day war law.
After all of this, and not having read the majority opinion of the SCOTUS case, I still haven't seen anyone rebuke the textualist interpretation of the statute..
Read the majority opinion then lol. No surprise you haven’t heard the other side of you haven’t read the other side. Honestly from watching this debate I’m not even sure Pisco read the majority opinion. The other two at least didn’t pretend to. If Pisco did he certainly didn’t care to explain to the audience what the substance of it was.
The majority does go through a textualist analysis of “modify” to conclude it means a limited or minor alteration. They cite dictionaries and precedent. It’s very readable if you’re curious.
@@octopusgoat2502 He kind of paid lip service to the majority opinion as being a "feels argument", specifically that he didn't like how they (in his opinion) created a definition for "modify" that didn't comport with the common understanding of the term. This despite the fact that they cited Nancy Pelosi, who was there when this was written, as saying that the President was never actually given this power. When Congress (especially a politically aligned Congress) and SCOTUS both agree that the Executive doesn't have this power then you've completely lost the argument.
I feel like I say this every video... but "Pisco proving anybody can become a lawyer" ...
IRS is the executive. Wait? How can these people not know this? Executive executes the legislation. IRS doesn't write legislation. They don't interpret legislation. Hence they must be the executive.
But that's kind of the point that they were driving at. The statutes and theoreticals they were engaging in examine how Congress could delegate the ability to alter the existing rules and regulations concerning student debt when that is supposed to be a function of Congress. Congress can't delegate their decision making authority to the Executive in this way. In effect they are letting the IRS determine fiscal policy by fiat of a national emergency.
Also "forgiving debt" is a misnomor because the Federal govt cannot eliminate the debt, they just shift the burden to the Federal govt to pay back the loan to the lender. As such it ABSOLUTELY is taking money from taxpayers to pay off the loans, giving everyone standing in effect because it forcefully establishes a budget line item that MUST be paid due to the actions of the Executive. That's not how the system is supposed to work, no matter how much Pisco wants it to.
@@hijklmnopreaper Yes, but this gets back to the "feels" argument, because it's all an argument of degree. Also the mandates put forward by groups like the EPA, the CDC, the NIH, etc etc do NOT have the same force as Congressional laws. Congress COULD pass laws that stipulate that 90PMM of a certain chemical is the limit and the EPA would have to abide, not the other way round.
Yes the Executive is there to execute the law, but the argument at hand is whether or not the Executive should have the ability to completely alter a bill that is poorly written and has a clause that says that the Executive can alter any and all parts of this law simply by giving notice. THAT is the bridge too far, because Congress cannot delegate their powers away like that.
@@femsplainerwell said.
@@hijklmnopreaper which they don't as that is the judicial branches job to figure out how to interpret the law.
@@hijklmnopreaper which they don't as that is the judicial branches job to figure out how to interpret the law.
Just discovered destiny...What is the difference between this channel and destinys main channel
a lot of hate for ragepope on this one, and his takes are often bad for a genius quant or whatever he supposedly is, BUT i have to give him credit for actually being able to admit he was wrong when Pisco deconstructs a question. he tries to play ball. most people act like the extradition schizo and just try to change the subject, evade hypotheticals, and in general just act as bad faith and low IQ as possible because they're too mad to do anything else
The US credit got downgraded today, last time it happened in 2011 under Oblamer. See the pattern.
Key difference between pausing interest and forgiving debt is that after the emergency is over the interest comes back.
You waive the interest for the duration of the emergency.
You can't wipe away the debt for the duration of the emergency and then just bring it back after the emergency is over.
It's more reasonable to pause interest.
Is it in his Kick contract that he needs to thank subs? LULW
Pisco annoys me so much when he goes down his bad faith debate tactics whenever he gets backed into a corner, he doesn’t think the pause for 3years on student loan interest was better for the average American compared to the 10-20k forgiveness
August can you post the slicker and Zherkga content pls
Ragepope trying to regain his place as the most hated orbiter after Q steals his throne (the toilet in the DGG disabled bathroom stall)
PissCo: "I am the urinal"
Infinitely more entertaining than orbiters like MindWaves or NotSoErudite.
Being hated is proof that they're not actually boring.
Also Ragepope is barely on anywhere near as much as he used to be or as much as Q
@@codyb.3015 he is boring, he just says so much stupid shit with confidence that makes people hate him, but he is also really boring lmao
"You can't sue someone for a dollar," Gwyneth Paltrow just did.
It was a countersuit. Also, it included legal fees which will amount to much more than 1$
@@TheGreatMatty Yes, I know. I said that for the (sake of?) mockery. But, not to take away from the seriousness. Thank you, though.
@@TheGreatMattyYou can sue anyone for anything.
@@thiccphone1166that’s just not true bro. I’d read again
@@whenthedustfallsaway you can literally sue anyone for anything.
That forgiveness plan was never going to happen.
They didn't have the authority for this, I quote "The law defines an affected individual as someone who is serving in active duty or in the National Guard during a war, military operation or national emergency; who lives or works in area declared a disaster area by a federal, state or local official in connection with a national emergency; or who “suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency, as determined by the secretary,” according to the statute." You had to be serving in active duty or in the national guard. Then it lays out further if you are in one of those, and there is a war, military operation, or national emergency. They could forgive for these people. Not every American as most were not "actively serving".
From what I can tell the higher education bill of 1965 technically hasn’t been reauthorized since 2008 so is it something Congress has signed onto?!?!?
Who let him piss?
I love how Pisco came in and began this whole debate with rules to specifically make himself win, he tried to say that the only thing that can be argued is the specific text of the Hero's Act and nothing else matters but that's not how anything is done. For example he keeps stopping any talk of Major Questions Doctrine, even though it's exactly the argument against letting the executive branch do things like this. Major Questions is the idea if an agency is going to decide a question that has major national significance, they need CLEAR authorization to do it from Congress. He wants to argue from a position of strict textual interpretation instead of the way it's actually done in the US legal system, and he knows that, and that's what makes it bad faith.
The problem with Major Questions in this case, from what I can tell (I am not a lawyer) is that the Heroes Act gives explicit and clear delegation to the President. Otherwise, if the President is ever given major powers for national emergency, then a future Congress can block that aid that the President is trying to provide for political purposes, which would totally negate the purpose of giving the President emergency powers in the first place.
No. That isn't what bad faith means.
28:10 where does it say you can’t adjust them and keep them at zero. Because soo many laws are written to provide wiggle room it needs to be explicitly stated or it could be assumed permissible
First to say Destiny is a girl's name
No I was
@@juancasiano7947 I was the originator
@@williamcozart8158I'm destiny's father
@@juancasiano7947 Im the progenitor
@@Flyzo.0 I'm the transgenider
Pisco's voice reminds me so much of Steven Crowder lol
"You're arguing for a Trump-style dictatorship."
You mean a dictatorship in which the powers that be constantly drag, disobey, and otherwise undermine the dictator who impotently calls his detractors out? I can live with this dictatorship style.
It's a special kind of balls for a music school dropout to argue about the law with a lawyer.
It says MODIFY. It doesn’t say delete anywhere!
he is pissing all over the poor man
And not even washing his hands
What makes a “good” lawyer outside the realm of speculation?
Results
I was referring more to when they pontificate and wax poetic.
@@MrAdamoWhat if they only take easy cases?
@@spacetoast7783 Then they are shrewd business people and have a superior ability to pick winning cases. Nothing wrong with picking battles you know you can win.
Assuming the states debt and forgiving debt are 2 completely different thing. With the assuming of state debt, the debt didn't disappear, it just meant that someone else is paying. Forgiving state debt means that nobody pays and nobody receives. The debt just magically disappears. That is the purpose of forgiveness.
Come on just put time stamps on the highlights , im not watching 2 hour video in hope of some content
The whole argument live felt really dumb after a while.
'Do you think that was what they were envisioning when they passed it?'
Is Pisco and originalist now?
No he only brought that up because Destiny did first - Destiny asked if erasing debt was really what was intended when the policy was formed. And that's a fair question, but without some previous precedent it's really just an opinion rather than something that could be factually debated. Going purely by the text of the law, the debt forgiveness should have been legal, but the courts ruling was that the law was never intended to be used in such a broad way.
So in this case it seems like the text of the law should have been more specific, because "waive or modify" does certainly imply the executive has the authority to forgive some of the debt.
@@TheStatisticalPizza It's not really an opinion when Nancy Pelosi said that the President doesn't actually have this power, especially considering that she was there when the Heroes Act was put in place originally. As such it absolutely could be factually debated and that is probably why SCOTUS went so far as to include her comments in their majority ruling.
Pisco is obviously right here
I was excited about the topic, but then I heard pisco and turned it off
found destiny thro tim pool. arguing both sides is preferred. sub'ed and watching
>lawyer
>it's pisco
I have a feeling, and I may be wrong, that this dude isn't going to pass the bar.
I hope not, cause if he does I don't want to be in any district he works in.
I really don’t get why the actual opinions are not raised here; it is like an attack on the decision and the opinion is written and all of these points are clearly address - starting with the standing to begin with. This guy is great at asking questions and not acknowledging why the decision was made