That didn’t last long

  • Lasherz12@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

      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.

      • Lasherz12@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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”