• frozen@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yesterday they made higher education less accessible to non-whites, today they made it harder for the poor…

    I wonder if there’s a pattern here.

    • amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, higher education is now less accessible to non-whites. Which is good, because affirmative action was never a fair solution to the issue and was simply unfair in principle imo. We shouldn’t raise the eligibility of people based on their race, college admissions and race should have nothing to do with one another. Class-based affirmative action actually makes sense instead of deciding off race.

        • amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair enough, I agree that in reality removing AA and not implementing a better system in it’s place will only lead to worse outcomes.

      • planetexpress@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your whole argument could have been just that last sentence and I’d bet you’d have significantly less downvotes.

        Although I’m disappointed by the courts decision I do believe class basis is a better measuring stick for AA. That said, I think there would be a pretty close correlation between the people who benefit now and the people who would benefit if the system was based on socioeconomic class.

        • amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wholeheartedly agree that minorities are often at a disadvantage in our society, and that there is a correlation between race and socioeconomic status in the USA. I think that if true equality is to be achieved, we need to stop separating people (at least in important processes like legal proceedings, college admissions, etc.) by their race at all. It sets a bad precedent, and I hope for a future where no race has any connotation with any socioeconomic class.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have class based affirmative action. Rich people buy their kids into school all the time.

      • withdrawn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, higher education is now less accessible to non-whites. Which is good,

        Jesus H. Christ. Either stop being a racist or learn to organize your thoughts.

        • whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You literally cut his quote in the middle of the sentence. He says its good specifically because it was not a result of fair treatment, right after you cut him off.

          The world is upside down when you can someone saying “it’s unfair to judge people by race” a racist.

          • withdrawn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think you can call someone saying “it’s unfair to judge people by race” a racist when they’re using that line to applaud the removal of protections against institutional racism. We can argue the merits of AA as a form of protection, but it was protection nonetheless. To say that it was unfair is to entirely ignore the unfairness which necessitated its existence.

          • withdrawn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            How was it not? How is non-whites having less access good?

            You follow what I quoted by claiming it wasn’t fair (“imo”) because, as you say, “we shouldn’t raise the eligibility of people based on their race” which is great if you ignore the fact that nearly every institution in the US treats people differently based on race, whether intentional or not. It is exceedingly rare for that bias to swing in the favor of non-whites.

            With no meaningful alternative to AA, what exacxtly is the win here?

            • amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Non-whites having less access is good in this context, because they were being unfairly given an advantage before. I agree with your premise about bias, but why should the solution to that be to artificially inflate the people being discriminated against, instead of trying to provide a system that doesn’t have room for discrimination?

              Class based alternative action, along with anonymizing applicant details pertinent to their race is a meaningful alternative to AA.

              • withdrawn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I agree on the last point, but there isn’t a class based system in place, nor is there a plan to implement one (that I can find).

                That, I shall continue to argue, makes this very not good.

                • amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I agree with no proper replacement this will overall have a negative effect. I think the method race-based AA uses was very flawed.

    • mcc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why does this make it harder for the poor to access higher education? A debt forgiveness will make current debtors less burdened but will probably make it more expensive for new applicants. Isn’t it the other way around?

      • frozen@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        Relieving debt for the poor would allow them to spend their money on other things, or save it. Best case scenario, they’re able to support their kids’ educations and help break the generational cycle of poverty.

      • ToastyWaffle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I believe he’s referencing the decision on the Harvard affirmative action case, not the student debt relief decision.

      • FinnFooted@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly, this decision wouldn’t probably impact future college attendees. But, there are other changes coming to federal borrowing that likely will. Income based repayment is being restructured and it’s looking pretty good.

        However, this will probably hurt the economy. A lot of people are about to hit repayment at a period of high inflation. It’s not a great economy. And, if a lot of people decide to ignore their student loan bills a la 2008 financial crisis, were in for a global economic doozy.

        • fuser@quex.cc
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          The US has historically low unemployment, but real wages have stagnated for more than 50 years.

          The economy is actually pretty great – for those at the top. Not so much for those doing the real work:

          unemployment chart

          real wages chart

        • eric5949@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It will impact future college attendees insofar as being more poor impacts your chances of going to college. It won’t directly impact future college attendees, but there is a knock on effect which will to some extent.

      • Matt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Chances are loan forgiveness would push a conversation regarding tuition fees in general, and would ultimately make university free / affordable instead.

        Maybe.

          • pinwurm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, around 20 states right now offer free community college if you’re a resident through first/last dollar programs. Meaning, they will cover the costs after any other financial aid. Other qualifications vary.

            Some States schools offer debt relief if you hold a regional residency for X-years (usually 5) after graduation. So for example, if there’s an area of a State that needs more investment (like Upstate NY versus Downstate), these programs are designed to increase GDP and strengthen the talent pool.

            Of course, you can get a tuition waiver in like half the states if you’re over 60. 🙄

            I’m not saying any of this is ideal by any stretch if the imagination. Just saying there’s some headway here and there in terms of precedent for tuition-free college education.

        • hellskis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Support for Biden’s student loan cancellation is for most a political calculation, where people who would be for more robust measures to make college affordable support it as a partial measure, a step in the right direction. A common right wing tactic is to stymie left wing political priorities to the point where asking questions like this seems reasonable, even though the asker is often being disingenuous and would be against any affordable college plan that increased government spending or in which the government played an otherwise larger role. If this commenter wasn’t being disingenuous, they had the unfortunate plight of absorbing a lot of built-up frustration over this tactic haha

    • KingSnorky@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s Republican moral bankruptcy and cruelty that we will all suffer. If anyone’s stupidity got us here, it’s the Democratic Party’s stupid leadership since AT LEAST 2000, if not earlier. Republicans have telegraphed their intentions for 50 fuckin years and Democrats continued over and over to attempt reaching across the aisle, trying to pass bipartisan wins, “take the high road,” … all the while the Republican party continued putting their racist, xenophobic, mysoginistic, jingoistic, classist platform out year after year, abandoning all sense of decorum and norms, gerrymandering the fuck out of every district possible, blocking every bill that helps anyone aside from billionaires and corporations, and generally lying and cheating their way to what we have today.

      • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        since AT LEAST 2000

        Democrats: It’s just a coincidence that two lawyers who worked on the Supreme Court case that handed Bush the election in 2000 happen to be Supreme Court Justices today!

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think, if there’s independent historians in the future looking back, they’ll be mentioned in the same sentence as Neville Chamberlain often.

    • Pacifist@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you need any reason not to believe in god, it’s that Trump got to appoint THREE FUCKING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

      • seesaw@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know enough about US politics, but can’t Biden change the court justices? If the answer is no, how did Trump change?

        • LetsGOikz@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Justices need to die or retire in order for there to be a vacancy for a President to appoint a new Justice to. There was a vacancy at the start of Trump’s term due to a death during Obama’s that the Republicans refused to confirm an appointment for, and then there was a retirement (Kennedy) and death (RBG) during his term as well.

          • patchymoose@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            For anyone who isn’t familiar, RBG was a liberal Supreme Court justice that was getting very old, and a lot of people thought she should have retired during Obama’s term, where she could have been replaced by him. Some accuse her of stubbornness/hubris for not stepping down when it was “safe”, and point out that her whole legacy is now being undone.

            Others point out that common wisdom at the time was that Hillary was going to he a shoe in as the next president, and nobody expected a Republican to win, including RBG.

            Anyway, I’m not taking a stance but just fleshing that out for anyone who is interested in the controversy.

            • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Others point out that common wisdom at the time was that Hillary was going to he a shoe in as the next president

              Just to also point out. This “common wisdom” is part of why Hillary lost and why a lot of people argued that RBG should have resigned during her term because the next Democratic President wasn’t a shoe-in, and people couldn’t just rely on that.

              People also seem to forget that both a Bush and a Clinton were running in 2016 and in a way, Trump being elected was a initially a rejection of “political dynasties” as Presidencies (which then immediately turned to his followers wanting him as a forever king, but that’s a different issue entirely). I had a Bush or a Clinton as President for twenty years of my life. From my youth until I was no longer considered a youth, well into adulthood. I remember being frustrated at being faced with both a Bush and a Clinton in the primaries. I know lots of other people, on both sides of the aisle, did too. Nobody wanted more of the same (I know Hillary didn’t view herself as “more of the same” of her husband, and for good reason, but that wasn’t common opinion).

              The entire thing about it being “common wisdom” was spoken from a position of privilege by elite Democrats and ignoring that common people weren’t every excited about either Bush or Clinton but Clinton got shoehorned in anyway while Bush had his “please clap” moment. It’s not a shoe-in if you have to use a shoehorn, mind you.

      • CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That says nothing about the existence or lack of a deity, only that if there is one he’s a HUGE piece of shit.

    • SENEX@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      On top of that 1.7 trillion in tax breaks for the rich over ten year. Benifits like 600 people. The same 1.7 trillion could wipe out debt 43 million people and that is debt accumulated over 40 years.

  • Kururin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Unless the dems take back court we would be all living through a nightmare.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Maybe Hilldawg could have campaigned in Wisconsin or taken seriously that even if she won the popular vote, that the Electoral College actually mattered.

      Reminder, she did win the popular vote. The majority did vote for her.

      Or maybe Obama could have kept his campaign promise that codifying Roe vs. Wade in law was his first order of business.

      • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This has been the Democrat strategy for a long time now: make wonderful promises they don’t intend to keep, then blame everyone else when they don’t come to fruition. People keep voting for them despite this obvious fact, because Republicans make terrible promises that they actually try to keep.

        We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. The only winning move is to not play flip the table and play a different game.

        • Ado@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I just posted this thought before scrolling to see yours. Absolutely their strategy. They don’t actually give a fuck about us or the promises we expect them to keep.

      • Ado@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The dem politician’s tactic. Pretend like you give a fuck (pretending bc they dont actually do the things to solve the issue), and then hold your constituency hostage during elections. Then continue to pretend like you give a fuck.

      • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or maybe Obama could have kept his campaign promise that codifying Roe vs. Wade in law was his first order of business.

        I don’t disagree that Democrats should have done this, but I doubt any Senate during his presidency would have passed it. The Democratic super majority lasted only a few months and he used that to pass the ACA. I don’t think it would have passed if it had codified Roe.

      • Pacifist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I fail to see why you’re turning this around on her. She simply stated a fact that became reality.

        • Ado@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          This happens every election cycle. We do our job by electing them. They are privy to what will happen and fail to act when they have the power to do so. Who else do we blame? The universe?

          • Pacifist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            If Hillary were president instead of Trump we wouldn’t see this stacked court.

            That has nothing to do with Obama’s promise or whatever.

            • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              It has everything to do with Obama’s promise. By not following through on his promise to legislate it into law, the opportunity reverse the previous court decision was always a thing that could happen. Acting like them not taking the opportunity when they had it means its the fault of the voting public is pure bullshit.

              Instead, Obama used his political capital to pass Romneycare, which while it helped a lot of poor people, has made the insurance market even worse for many, who still have insurance that they can’t afford to actually use.

  • SpaceBar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Vote! Encourage those around you to vote. Help drive someone to the polls. If you know a young person who’s never voted, get them to vote.

    Don’t care who they vote for, just get them to the ballot box.

    The more people vote, the better things turn out for the majority.

      • Chrisosaur@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        A) They need 50 senators willing to entertain that notion. They only have 49. B) If there were one action that I think would be most likely to kick off Civil War 2, it would be packing the court.

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Civil War 2 is already happening, you must not be paying attention.

          It’s time to rip off the fucking band-aid and do something about it instead of letting the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, and others run around terrorizing the country through wanton violence and death.

          Just because it’s not a “hot” civil war yet doesn’t mean it’s not happening. One side isn’t fighting back, that’s for sure.

      • Lexi Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        With that being said, you’re also correct that voting is NOT enough. Protesting and direct action, mutual aid, and more are all required!

      • LeZero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Democrats wouldn’t pack the courts

        That would be uncouth, you know, decorum is after all VERY important

        I also think the Parlementarian said no

      • Lexi Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They are not completely within their power to pack the court, sadly. They would have done so already if this were the case. They need 60 in the senate as well as a majority in the house and the presidency. Then they could.

        • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Technically, they don’t need 60. The cloture rule is what necessitates a 3/5ths supermajority to pass bills, but the cloture rule is not itself a law and so Senators can just… change it with a simple-majority vote. This has already happened twice in the recent past: once in 2013 when the Democrat-led Senate voted to eliminate the cloture rule when nominating federal circuit judges and once more in 2017 when the Ruplican-led Senate voted to eliminate the cloture rule when nominating supreme court justices.

          FWIW: Senators tend to really hate doing this. They call it the “nuclear option” because they normally like to get a 2/3rds supermajority agreement before changing any standing Senate rules – not to mention that the cloture rule itself is often treated as a total third-rail even among the other important Senate procedures. Combining the nuclear option and killing cloture is a massive political powderkeg waiting to explode… but maybe it should?

          • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I guess full throated fascism and authoritarianism isn’t enough to consider a “nuclear option.”

            • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s a shared norm. Part of the deal is an implied promise that the other guys also ignore the big red button. Really, though… that ship had already sailed years ago leaving the cloture rule to hang on by the barest of threads. I’m half-convinced that the current Senate would have already done away with it if only they had a slightly more reliable voting margin.

              IMO: cloture is a dumb rule because we already have a robust system of checks in the form of a bicameral legislature plus presidential veto. The requirement for a 2/3rd supermajority in addition to these for regular everyday business is odious and something that no other large democracy does. I’m anti-gridlock on principle alone, even if I acknowledge the absolute chaos it will probably plunge the Senate into for the next dozen years or so.

          • ahnesampo@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The House is not needed to appoint justices, but the size of the Supreme Court is set by federal law, and you need the House to change that law to go beyond nine justices.

          • ski11erboi@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Unfortunately the dems do not have a true majority in the senate either. It hasn’t been as easy as we hoped to get everyone on the same page.

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I like how when Democrats are in power, they’re unable to do anything…

          But when Republicans are in power, they break the law at lightning speed, do things they’re not supposed to do, and nobody stops them because actually the only thing staying in their way are “rules” and “decorum” and not “laws” and yet mysteriously the Democrats are always beholden to “laws” that prevent them from doing the same. Also it seems like Democrats hands are tied at actually bringing criminal charges against Republicans because that would be “partisan.”[1] Just look at how they’ve slow-walked Trump’s prosecution and only went for it when it became clear he would never comply.

          It’s a fucking farce.


          1. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/19/politics/fbi-doj-trump-investigation-january-6/index.html ↩︎

      • minorsecond@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wouldn’t the Rs just do the same thing next time they have power? I get what you’re saying, but isn’t setting that precedent dangerous?

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You’re saying that as if the Rs won’t do the same thing anyway without prior provocation. They’ve literally already broken the law to pack the court and the Democrats sat on their hands. They denied Obama picking a justice because it was “too close to an election” when the election was like six months away, but let Trump pick one when an election was already underway.

          Take off the fucking blinders, the Republicans already do these kind of things.

          They already set the precedent.

        • riseuppikmin[he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes- the court is an illegitimate anti-democratic institution and the long-term goal should be its abolishment.

          It is the final tool of the American oligarchs to prevent needed structural change in the country.

          Anything to highlight this is a good thing. Playing ping-pong with court expansion would be great to accelerate its necessary demise.

        • OrangeSlice@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          R’s don’t care about precedent. That’s why they actually get what they want. If Democrats actually got things done, they would consistently win elections and it would be be an issue anyway.

          It’s not going to happen anyway, though.

      • abraxas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of course it upsets the Dems knowing that they’re on the only side that has to govern well and we honest.

        But the alternative is for our side to be as much of a malignant tumor on the country as the other side is.

        I’ll take this version of the Democratic party, despite the fact the Republicans are trying to destroy the US and rebuild it in their own image.

          • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t side with oligarchs.

            Joe Manchin sure does. Nancy Pelosi sure does. Chuck Schumer sure does.

            Oopsie poopsie.

            EDIT: I triggered some Democrats by reminding them that the same hands that feed the Republicans feed the Democrats, apparently. Get over yourselves.

            In Nancy’s Own Fucking Words

    • OrangeSlice@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Without a socialist party (as in, completely purged and free of all bourgeois influence), there’s isn’t a whole lot worth voting for at the federal level. Democrats repeatedly show that they are incapable of resisting the Republicans and take L’s constantly (see here).

      I encourage everyone to instead organize with local political orgs that can eventually build this power. The DSA being the largest currently available (and just as flawed as the other options one may have, ofc)

      • SpaceBar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you don’t feel it’s worth keeping as many Rs out of Federal roles, then no amount of examples are going to change your mind.

        You can’t ignore the federal level because the Dems aren’t liberal enough.

        • lightrush@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Here’s an example. More Rs can make it a whole lot more difficult to organize any counter movements, labor, political or otherwise.

        • OrangeSlice@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah just fixed that, “see here” was meant to refer to this student debt situation in the OP

          • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Damn, I was hoping for a well documented compendium of Democrat L’s that have been taken because they’re too cowardly to stand up for their constituents.

            • OrangeSlice@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              (in case anyone wants a summary off the top of my head)

              • Failed to protect gay marriage (until the Supreme Court stepped in and did it for them, could be easily reversed any time by those dipshits)
              • Failed to protect abortion rights (left it to the Supreme Court, and here we are)
              • Failed to abolish any student debt
              • Failed to reduce wealth inequality by any meaningful measure.
              • Failed to promote a peaceful foreign policy (Obama and Biden)
              • Failed to implement card check
              • Failed to win elections with obvious unforced errors like running Hillary Clinton, probably the only political figure more despised than Donald Trump.
              • Failed to deschedule marijuana, and other drugs that aren’t particularly harmful
              • Failed to meaningfully reduce healthcare costs, instead implementing a rebranded “Romneycare” access to insurance reform.
        • OrangeSlice@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree with your assesment of the DSA, but our audience here isn’t ready for that. I want them to get into the DSA where we can continue trashing on them until they do something more useful.

          They aren’t going to go from defending Democratic Party failures to Maoist Third-Worldist guerilla fighters (the correct sect of socialists, of course) overnight.

  • carbonprop@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow. The SCOTUS is firing through all sorts of shitty changes this week. They’re like the koolaid man on meth.

  • LeZero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Dont forget to thank RBG, who refused to retire under Obama for some fucking reason, only to get owned by COVID after officiating a wedding for some dumb liberals (while having an immune system shredded by cancer)

    Well it gave us the funniest trump interview imo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knlJWu815C0

  • klieg2323@lemmy.piperservers.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    My “favorite” part of the majority ruling is how the loan forgiveness was struck down because it would harm the loan servicers. Not the government, not the people, the companies that have been contracted to collect the loans. That’s who SCOTUS is most concerned with. Should tell us everything we need to know about who’s interests are most important - capitalists

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not only did they admit that MOHELA didn’t have standing, MOHELA itself said this wouldn’t impact them and they didn’t ask to be part of the case.

      Funny how it turns out that standing doesn’t matter when they don’t want it to.

      Kinda similar to the other case they dropped this morning, allowing LGBT discrimination… despite the fact that it turns out that no gay person ever actually asked this bakery to make them a cake for their wedding. When contacted, the man who purportedly sent the email claimed he never sent it and has been married to a woman for years. They don’t even give a shit if it’s made up they will sign off on it.

  • Randy_Bobandy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Who here still thinks republicans should be allowed to vote and hold elected office and write and pass laws?

    Show of hands?

    Great, everyone who raised their hand deserves this shit. Everyone wants to hate on Republicans, but when it comes to the voting booth, everyone defends them to the death. Well this is what you get. But DeMoCrAcY is more important than anything and everything, right?

    • stown@sedd.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Come on, you play right into their bullshit propaganda with that message. If they go low we don’t stoop to their level. We do not win elections by removing voting rights for those we disagree with - that is an authoritarian tactic.

      • BunkerBusterKeaton@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        there isn’t really any ‘nobility’ in ‘taking the high road’ while marginalized communities continue to get owned and killed. Trans kids are being targeted, women are being targeted, BIPOC are being targeted.

        what good is civility? authoritarian leftism is the only way to get results

        • Addica@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Using authoritarianism is a fast track to ensuring that new generations of people see leftism as the enemy, if they don’t already feel that way.

          Taking away agency of people doesn’t create lasting social systems; the masses aren’t inspired to uphold the values by fear of consequence alone. People en mass will never accept being told what to do if they feel it takes away their agency. If anything you only breed resistance and contempt for your system of choice.

          Who would you even trust to have such power? How could they be expected to uphold their values? How do you know that authoritarian power can’t/won’t be corrupted? Are you going to allow the murder of others if it cast as ‘just’ in the eyes of that power?

          Authoritarianism had its hour, and in that time blighted all it touched. If it weren’t for authoritarian leftists muddying the waters of the term ‘Communist’, Id imagine we’d have seen a lot more societies adopting those ideas instead of equating ‘communism’ with authoritarianism and rejecting it outright

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I personally think it doesn’t suddenly stop being “democracy” because you decided to make laws about disallowing people who are trying to dismantle democracy and replace it with authoritarianism to participate in democracy, because they’re obviously participating in bad faith.

      I don’t think you should lose voting rights for felonies. I think you should lose voting rights for trying to dismantle the state and remove hard-fought for citizens rights. But maybe I’m a crazy person for thinking that a lot of these people are pretty dumb motherfuckers, and for the pretty dumb motherfuckers, its pretty easy to prove that they’re acting in bad faith and to deny them voting rights until they get their ass educated accordingly.

      I’m with you, at this point it doesn’t make sense to let literal fucking terrorists be involved in democracy, because it’s already no longer democracy when they’re threatening you at the voting booth with their guns so you “vote right.”

      • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Are they participating in bad faith or are they acting in line with their class interests?

  • wwaxwork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Friendly reminder Biden lost the battle but he hasn’t lost the war. He is currently working out an income related savings plan and doing a hail mary long shot roundabout come in the back door play using the Authority he has from the Higher Education Act to create debt forgiveness regulation. He’s still out there trying, though anything through the Dept of Education will take a while because of how policy works there.

  • zipdog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can anyone clarify if this strikes down Biden’s plan in it’s entirety or just the lump s forgiveness? TBH I always considered the rest of the plan that fixes ballooning interest and unaffordable monthly payments the meat of this plan. The 10k is just meh and isn’t really fixing anything long term. Would be really unfortunate if the former got screwed by the latter

  • Floon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Roe, Affirmative Action, LGBTQ protections, this is why you should vote in every election, including (perhaps especially) midterm elections. It’s the composition of Congress that makes these things happen, and you can’t pass on voting if you want to prevent it.

  • derf82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    A very poor application of standing doctrine. Kagan cuts right to the heart of it when she asks “Where is MOHELA” as well as if anyone honestly thinks Missouri is there over MOHELA losing some fees. Heck, MOHELA wanted nothing to do with the suit and that the payments Missouri claimed MOHELA made back actually were never paid.

    Then the recurrence of the “major questions doctrine,” this invented idea that lets them throw out the plain text when they disagree.

    That said, I did disagree with the plan. It was poorly targeted, hitting wealthier grads that still had loans, while ignoring poor people that never went in the first place, or were frugal and had limited loans. As someone that saw the Great Recession hit just after graduation, I wonder where my relief was from that emergency, as my lifetime earning took a massive hit, all while still having to pay my loans, with not so much as a payment pause or interest forbearance. To me, it was a thinly veiled attempt to buy votes for the midterm. Had it any other goal, Biden wouldn’t have waited so long.

    • minorsecond@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand how someone can sue over someone else being harmed. Doesn’t the person or entity suing have to be directly harmed in order to sue?

      • Ado@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yep, they upended the standing doctrine that requires you to be the party injured to sue the party causing the injury. But also these aren’t true judges, they’re political advocates. They will uphold standing doctrine where they see fit, and strike it down where they don’t like here.