Check my comment on one of the other threads, Missouri didn’t stand to lose anything. MOHELA doesn’t pay anything to the state, so even if there was some constitutional right to profit for companies, MOHELA would be the injured party, not the state of Missouri
Especially since the language of the HEROES act explicitly states that they can waive or modify. According to the majority forgiveness is clearly not equal to waiving, since you know, they’re different words and it’s impossible for different words to have the same meaning. If congress wanted to give the secretary the power to forgive, they should’ve written forgive instead of waive in the act /s
Except that MOHELA didn’t sue and didn’t want to sue in the first place. No business has a constitutional right to make a profit. If all debtors transferred their loans to a different company tomorrow, MOHELA would go bankrupt and they’d have just as much standing then, I.e. none at all. Furthermore, as I said, MOHELA didn’t sue, the state of Missouri did. MOHELA doesn’t pay a single cent to the state of Missouri, so exactly how is Missouri being injured here? The fact that MOHELA would make less money changes nothing to the “public function” Missouri is supposed to provide here. It can still continue to offer student loans. So I ask again, where is the injury? None of this gives Missouri the state any standing
I simply cannot grasp how a judicial system that’s entirely based on standing, suddenly decides that 6 random states that have 0 stake in this whole FEDERAL student loan thing have standing to sue over this forgiveness plan
Strange though how the previous president doing the exact same thing but with ppp loans for businesses was all fine and dandy. Yes, yes, totally not a political judgement at all, nothing to see here
There’s something to say for it if one party gave up work to become a stay at home parent I guess. You’re at a pretty severe disadvantage if you need to enter the job market with a significant gap in your resume. So if you consider marriage a contract wherein one person put themselves at a disadvantage to raise the children o the condition that the other would in turn provide for the both of them, you could argue that they’re entitled to some form of compensation when that contract is broken. Whether that compensation should be indefinite I leave on the table.