Wow, a conservative that doesn’t care about standing? It’s almost like they’ll use any tactics necessary to get around majority rule, even ones that spit in the founder’s faces.
U.S. District Judge Randal Hall in Georgia found that his state lacked standing
Hall directed the case to be transferred to Missouri,
St-Louis-based U.S. District Judge Matthew Schelp
temporarily blocked again Thursday by a Missouri judge
It’s a bad thing for sure, but bad counterarguments only hurt the cause.
There’s no standing in any state for being given something for free. It’s not a bad counter argument to say they should be rejecting these cases outright.
There’s no standing in any state for being given something for free.
So this would be why a student getting debt relief won’t have standing to sue against the D of Ed saying that the relief is harming them…
It’s not a bad counter argument to say they should be rejecting these cases outright.
Have you read the article? The lawsuit is because an agency of Missouri - and thus the State of Missouri - is losing money due to the debt relief. (Or at least, so they claim - whether or not they’re actually losing money is something that’s up for debate.)
When the argument is,
“I’m losing money because”
A bad counterargument is,
“You can’t sue because you were getting something for free”
Why? Because it doesn’t address or refute the original statement.
A good counterargument is,
“No, actually, you weren’t losing money, because those negative numbers are just the result of an accounting trick but aren’t actual losses”
Wow, a conservative that doesn’t care about standing? It’s almost like they’ll use any tactics necessary to get around majority rule, even ones that spit in the founder’s faces.
Uhm… so this isn’t quite accurate.
It’s a bad thing for sure, but bad counterarguments only hurt the cause.
There’s no standing in any state for being given something for free. It’s not a bad counter argument to say they should be rejecting these cases outright.
So this would be why a student getting debt relief won’t have standing to sue against the D of Ed saying that the relief is harming them…
Have you read the article? The lawsuit is because an agency of Missouri - and thus the State of Missouri - is losing money due to the debt relief. (Or at least, so they claim - whether or not they’re actually losing money is something that’s up for debate.)
When the argument is,
“I’m losing money because”
A bad counterargument is,
“You can’t sue because you were getting something for free”
Why? Because it doesn’t address or refute the original statement.
A good counterargument is,
“No, actually, you weren’t losing money, because those negative numbers are just the result of an accounting trick but aren’t actual losses”