Summary of the opinion: Nobody here has standing, but… Missouri maybe?, Cause the corporation the state created won’t be able to take in all those fees. Also, congress only allowed completely trashing rules, or slightly tweaking them, this is more “in-between” and we don’t like that. Oh, and the replacement rules only have a requirement to be published, theres no authority to actually write them. This is a new rule, so it’s not allowed. Furthermore, the action taken was too big, unprecedented, we don’t like that.
Summary of the dissent: Nobody here has standing. PERIOD. That corporation could bring it to us, and is explicitly permitted to act as an independent financial and legal entity, so they can bring it theirselves. IF they brought it themselves, congress clearly delegated authority to “waive or modify” provisions, and provide substitute rules appropriate to the situation, after they had passed it explicitly for the gulf war, then explicitly for 9/11, and then opened the doors wide open to any national emergency because they have more important things to deal with during emergencies than student loan policy. The scale of the action matches theS scale of the emergency, and is actually smaller than the previous action (loan pause) that the previous administration instituted. So in other words, loan relief like this may have been a shit idea, may have been a great idea, but it is exactly what the law allows and the court has no business deciding otherwise. It’s not our fucking job to write policy.
You can probably pretty obviously tell which opinion I agree with more… This court is trash, gymnastics required to justify most of their decisions. Expand the court so the scales of power don’t fucking seesaw from regular jurisprudence to batshit insanity upon the death of a single robe-clad geriatric. 😫
You’re getting downvoted to oblivion, but I do see and agree with your point: “Branding matters”
A significant portion of the population will not rub two brain cells together to understand the “warming -> change” connection, as reasonable as it is. Same thing with the “defund the police” slogan. Yes, when you understand the concept you can see the meaning, but for those that don’t bother to understand the concept, the “brand name” is the beginning and the end of thought applied. When the “brand name” is easily attackable, the idea is dead so far as they’re concerned.
As frustrating as it is, persuasive arguments need to also appeal to those who are persuaded by quips and jokes as well as those who are persuaded by logic and reason. Unfortunately “Global Warming”, the “old brand” is still sticking around, and still able to be joked away by many people, hence the reason for the image post in the first place.