You planned poorly.

How do you not get that they AREN’T the same logic…

You keep insisting it’s the same logic, and it’s not. I even bolded the pertinent part for you that explains why it’s NOT the same logic.

Jfc.

Yea, i remember you saying that, and i remember tlling you you’re conflating two things that shouldn’t be.

Then you doubled down on your ignorance about “indirect” harm, which leads me to believe you DIDN’T read the ruling in this case that i even pasted for you, so you didn’t have to do ANY work but reading… Which again, you chose not to do.

LET ME HELP YOU FURTHER:

1. At least Missouri has standing to challenge the Secretary’s pro- gram. Article III requires a plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact—a concrete and imminent harm to a legally protected interest, like property or money—that is fairly traceable to the challenged con- duct and likely to be redressed by the lawsuit. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561. Here, as the Government concedes, the Secretary’s plan would cost MOHELA, a nonprofit government cor- poration created by Missouri to participate in the student loan market, an estimated $44 million a year in fees.

MOHELA is, by law and func- tion, an instrumentality of Missouri: Labeled an “instrumentality” by the State, it was created by the State, is supervised by the State, and serves a public function. The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself. The Court reached a similar conclusion 70 years ago in Arkansas v. Texas, 346 U. S. 368.

The Secretary emphasizes that, as a public corporation, MOHELA has a legal personality separate from the State. But such an instru- mentality—created and supervised by the State to serve a public func- tion—remains “(for many purposes at least) part of the Government itself.” Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 513 U. S. 374, 397. The Secretary also contends that because MOHELA can sue on its own behalf, it—not Missouri—must be the one to sue. But where a State has been harmed in carrying out its responsibilities, the fact that it chose to exercise its authority through a public corporation it created and controls does not bar the State from suing to remedy that harm itself. See Arkansas, 346 U. S. 368. With Article III satisfied, the Court need not consider the States’ other standing arguments.

Can you read? I bolded the important part that explains the DIRECT harm.

And yes, i agree. Our education system IS failing us. You’re exhibit A.

Well, you clearly aren’t capable, because you think these two cases are the same and they’re not.

You can repeat that ad nauseam, and it still won’t be true.

Just say you’re upset at the ruling, and you have no idea what you’re talking about beyond that and move on.

Remember how i said they explained it, but you just don’t like it?

Your linked case is TOTALLY different from this case. They’re not the same. You keep saying they are, but they aren’t.

Like i said, you either CAN’T read, choose not to, or you’re gaslighting because you’re unhappy about the decision.

Yea, but that’s the thing. You’re saying that doesn’t mean it’s true. And if you can read, you’ll understand why they came to two separate decisions in two separate cases that have totally different underlying facts.

But, you know… You seem to either be ABLE to read and choose not to, or you are just saying shit to say shit without having read anything.

1. At least Missouri has standing to challenge the Secretary’s pro- gram. Article III requires a plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact—a concrete and imminent harm to a legally protected interest, like property or money—that is fairly traceable to the challenged con- duct and likely to be redressed by the lawsuit. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561. Here, as the Government concedes, the Secretary’s plan would cost MOHELA, a nonprofit government cor- poration created by Missouri to participate in the student loan market, an estimated $44 million a year in fees. MOHELA is, by law and func- tion, an instrumentality of Missouri: Labeled an “instrumentality” by the State, it was created by the State, is supervised by the State, and serves a public function. The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself. The Court reached a similar conclusion 70 years ago in Arkansas v. Texas, 346 U. S. 368. The Secretary emphasizes that, as a public corporation, MOHELA has a legal personality separate from the State. But such an instru- mentality—created and supervised by the State to serve a public func- tion—remains “(for many purposes at least) part of the Government itself.” Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 513 U. S. 374, 397. The Secretary also contends that because MOHELA can sue on its own behalf, it—not Missouri—must be the one to sue. But where a State has been harmed in carrying out its responsibilities, the fact that it chose to exercise its authority through a public corporation it created and controls does not bar the State from suing to remedy that harm itself. See Arkansas, 346 U. S. 368. With Article III satisfied, the Court need not consider the States’ other standing arguments.

You can just read it yourself. It’s all explained for you. You just don’t like it.

Yea, i mean, if you can’t read, i could certainly see how you could conflate the two cases. But they’re not the same. So…

Dumb point.

Dumb.

This didn’t do anything to curtail the cost of higher ed. Got nothing to do with republicans.

If MOHELA would have been damaged (and they would have), then Missouri would necessarily be damaged as well. I don’t need to look at your other comment to know it’s wrong.

You can can call whatever you want. They still had standing, and proved it.

You’re just mad you didn’t get a free voucher.

There’s no mental gymnastics in this one. You just don’t agree with them.

The standing wasnt wacko. You’re just not informed about the facts of the case. Missouri stood to lose about 44mil/yr or somewhere around there. That’s legitimate standing, regardless of your politics.

I mean, he’s literally not. That’s the whole point of the ruling.

What he did was deemed “illegal” by the court, which means he can’t do it…

Well, for one, forgiving student loans wouldn’t “reduce the cost of education.”

It would increase it. It’s just a windfall for universities and loan holders. It did nothing to curtail costs, or address the way student loans are handed out, and their nondischargeable status.

We’d be right back here in 10 years, regardless, because “forgiveness” doesn’t do anything to address the underlying problems of student loans, which will continue to be handed out, guaranteed by the gvt, and nondischargeable.