SCOTUS ruled that student loan forgiveness is dead

 If you were looking forward to this it's over, if nothing else the Biden Administration needs to come up with a new plan. From the New York Post.

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Biden’s controversial program to forgive student loan debt for roughly 40 million borrowers exceeded his executive authority.

On the last day before the high court’s summer recess, the six conservative justices ruled the $400 billion plan could not use an earlier 2003 law meant to help veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to implement the program.

The other three liberal justices dissented against the ruling.

Biden last August announced his student loan forgiveness plan, which aimed to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt for certain borrowers.

But the program was met with fierce resistance from many GOP lawmakers who questioned its legality.

If you borrowed federal student loans you could get up to $10,000 forgiven if you meet certain income guidelines. You could also get up to $20,000 if you used Pell Grants to attend a university.

h/t Newsalert

If you want to read the opinion itself, I found it via SCOTUSBlog.

CNBC: Will SCOTUS strike down President Biden's student debt plan?

 

[VIDEO] As you may know Biden's student loan forgiveness plan was challenged in the courts and it has made it up to the highest court in the United States. Will the Supreme Court of the United States rule against or in favor of Biden's loan forgiveness?

Is this something that you're following?

Politico: Supreme Court agrees to decide fate of Biden’s student debt relief

 If you're still concerned about the Biden admin's student debt relief which got suspended due to court challenges, the Supreme Court will resolve this at some point. Via Politico:

The court on Thursday deferred a ruling on the administration’s emergency request to immediately reinstate its debt relief program. Instead, the court said, the justices will hear arguments on the matter next year.

The case will “be argued in the February 2023 argument session,” the court said in a one-page order. No justice noted any dissent to the court’s decision not to immediately grant the Biden administration’s application to move forward with the debt relief program now.

Putting the case on the docket for the current court term means a decision is likely by June, if not earlier.

The Supreme Court’s decision to fast-track arguments about the legality of Biden’s debt relief plan comes just several months after he first announced it in August following months of pressure from progressives. Conservative groups and Republican state officials have filed a wave of legal challenges to stop Biden’s debt relief.

Meanwhile, get those loans paid off. Uncle Sam isn't coming to your rescue.

Oh yeah, bear in mind the Biden admin has again put federal student loan payments on pause through June 2023.

Also from Politico:

The Supreme Court said it would address two questions: whether the Republican attorneys general have standing to bring the case in the first place and “whether the plan exceeds the Secretary’s statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious.”

Mr. Beat: What the heck is up with the current Supreme Court?

 

[VIDEO] On Sunday, Mr. Beat did a two-hour livestream talking about the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States - aka SCOTUS. He especially talks about the recent decision that overturns the very controversial decision of Roe Vs. Wade - the recent decision basically returns the abortion issue back to the states and many states have passed laws regarding abortion.

One thing I do know is that the Supreme Court as he discussed early in the stream has a very limited schedule. They operate largely in secret which is why the Roe Vs. Wade leak in May was so controversial. They might have lawyers argue cases in front of the SCOTUS and then of course they deliberate those cases. They may spend time to draft the decision of the court.

And yet SCOTUS is a very important branch of the US Federal Gov't. This is why there is great debate over who gets to become a Justice as we had with the first Black female Supreme Court Justice who was sworn in just last month. And you might have heard a callback to the confirmation process of Justice Clarence Thomas who has been on the court since the 1990s.

For those of you with the interest one non-biased source to follow the work of SCOTUS is the SCOTUSblog.com which should allow you to follow the work of the court. I wish I followed that site more and especially after that leak at the court.

Mr. Beat: When abortion became legal

[VIDEO] Roe vs. Wade has been in the news lately and thus we get to see Mr. Beat explain its importance. Earlier this week the public learned that a draft brief from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was leaked sparking protests mainly outside of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. As I've learned as most of us know the issue of abortion is a very polarizing issue that seemingly has very little middle ground. And one side or another on this debate has framed this in very simplistic terms.

I also want to add and not addressed in the above video since it's been over 5 years since it had been published is that there is an issue if a brief was leaked before the final finding of the court is rendered. The leak is under investigation. Time will tell if the S.C.O.T.U.S. will in fact overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Mr. Beat Supreme Court brief: Can government force you to vaccinate

 

[VIDEO] This is relevant to a debate that is raging right now. Whether or not American citizens should be forced to be vaccinated against the coronavirus and its many variants.

The subject for this video is the case of Jacobson vs. Massachusetts. The U.S Supreme Court in 1905 that gov't can force you to be inoculated and the issue of that day was smallpox. So a town in Massachusetts felt it was necessary to force their residents to take a vaccine for public health.

Today during a global pandemic we're seeing the same types of issue with a dose of misinformation. We hear things about this vaccine never going through proper trials. We hear about side effects and lets face it all these inoculations and medications have side effects so no big surprise. Now we hear this vaccine isn't a guarantee that you won't get infected and you could potentially still spread the virus. We're going to hear soon that we might need additional booster shots.

I believe it should be your choice if you want to vaccinate. You can do it for your own reasons especially for those family members who have comorbidities that are further at risk. And short of that you should continue to take your precautions either way.

Main thing is your body your choice and hopefully you make this choice after speaking with a doctor. Which is what you should do in determining whether or not you need this inoculation. The last thing you need to do is watch your favorite news network and have that influence your decision when bad news is usually what drives ratings.

And I do hope you find the above Supreme Court "brief" to be interesting.

Mr. Beat: Top 10 U.S. Supreme Court justices in history

 

[VIDEO] I've yet to watch this video, however, I'm curious was his choices are for this video. You'r favorite social studies "edutuber" is back this morning.

Supreme Court Briefs: Lemon v. Kurtzman or "How do we Separate Church and State?"

 

[VIDEO] I wanted to share this video from Mr. Beat because it features a Morehouse Man by the name of Alton T. Lemon who graduated from Morehouse with a degree in mathematics in 1951. He was the lead plaintiff in a case that challenged a Pennsylvania law that allowed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to provide funds to religious schools for materials regarding secular subjects. However, the concern was over separation of church and state.

It's safe to say that the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled in favor of Lemon although there were other cases that looked into state support of religious schools - especially financial. And it's still a continuing issue that courts look at to this day.

Another thing of note with Lemon v. Kurtzman is that there is a test courts use in such challenges called the Lemon Test. If you're into these constitutional legal questions it's worthwhile to give this video and the case itself a quick look.

Final note, Mr. Beat noted at the end that his next video was regarding the 2020 Presidential Election which I shared on this blog on Friday. Feel free to check that out.

Terry vs. Ohio - Stop & Frisk

[VIDEO] Allow me to introduce you to Mr. Beat, a social studies teacher out of Kansas who is an "edutuber" who among other things looks at important Supreme Court rulings. This video was uploaded to YouTube on July 10, 2020 and had wanted to share this with you all.

We're still under some form of unrest over the issue of "racial justice" and this is a case worth looking at since, many citizens want authorities to look at the issue of "stop & frisk". In this video we also learn they can also be referred to as "Terry stops".

The subject Terry was stopped by a Cleveland police detective in 1967 just as he was about to commit a crime. This case is pretty interesting there were three men who were arrested by the detective, however, two were arrested they were Black. The one who got off scott free was white.

I started Googling what happened to all the subjects of this case. What happened to the Black suspects, and what happened to the detective. Found this article it's very interesting that everyone who was related to the people involved with this case are now police officers. Unfortunately the Terry of this ruling met a very sad end, having died while incarcerated.

Let's hear from Justice Thomas

[VIDEO] Before I go to bed tonight, here's a video of SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas who in 1998 spoke to the National Bar Association in Memphis, Tennessee. I found the whole text of his speech and this is what you will see in the video above:

I have come here today not in anger or to anger, though my mere presence has been sufficient, obviously, to anger some. Nor have I come to defend my views, but rather to assert my right to think for myself, to refuse to have my ideas assigned to me as though I was an intellectual slave because I’m black. I come to state that I’m a man, free to think for myself and do as I please. I’ve come to assert that I am a judge and I will not be consigned the unquestioned opinions of others.

I've learned of this speech through FOX News' Laura Ingraham on her program tonite. And this is the only video I have found of this provided by the AP. The video she had came from C-Span.

I you click the link within the brackets you will start at the point where Justice Thomas begins to speak and basically that paragraph quoted above. Before that we see the Justice shaking hands with attendees and we see one speaker an Illinois trial judge Shelvin Hall speak of denouncing anyone who "denigrates the aims of the civil rights movement".

I also see from the description to this AP video that Justice Thomas wasn't welcome. This organization didn't want him there. There was an expected walkout and none materialized. Of course Thomas has been over the years suffered attacks as a Black conservation on the nation's highest court.

I just felt as if it was necessary to share this with you. The message from his speech that is a big takeaway for me is always think for yourself. Don't force yourself to conform to the ideas of a group.

Incidentally I vaguely remember the intrigue - even if I didn't entirely understand what was going on back in 1991 - of Thomas' nomination process to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). I didn't understand what sexual harassment was and as it had been in one of our more recent SCOTUS nomination hearings namely Brett Kavanaugh this was an issue that came up again later.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy this message from Justice Thomas.

Can government force you to vaccinate? Mr. Beat Supreme Court briefs.

[VIDEO] If I had all day especially as a political science graduate who had to study constitutional law to look for all the landmark cases of SCOTUS.

And I do think this case Jacobson vs Massachusetts of 1905 to be somewhat relevant with this pandemic as it seems a treatment or vaccination for the coronavirus or COVID-19 is a prerequisite for getting society back to normal. While in recent years we've seen the debate over whether or not individuals should be forced to vaccinate.

The court ruled that government can mandate individuals must vaccinate, however, gov't can't actually force you to vaccinate. The opinion for this case was a man by the name of John Marshall Harlan (hey wait some school on the south side is named for him!) and he acknowledged there were some exceptions.

Of course, I can only imagine the debate over vaccinations with what's going on in the world currently. Right now I see social media postings about citizens concerned about other citizens not wearing masks in public. And as with vaccinations, I think individuals should choose whether or not they were a mask during this pandemic or whether or not they choose to be vaccinated.

Mr. Beat: Why the principal can search your purse

[VIDEO] It seems I like to post videos on this blog very often. In this case here's Mr. Beat's latest Supreme Court Briefs and is on the case of the State of New Jersey vs. T.L.O. The student T.L.O. escalated this case from New Jersey courts to the SCOTUS after her school principal searched her purse based on a suspicion that she was smoking in a bathroom. She and another young lady had gotten caught by a teacher and T.LO. had denied she was smoking.

Well police were called T.L.O. confessed and was advised by a lawyer about the exclusionary clause of the 4th amendment. Just remember when it comes to searches of anyone's person or property a warrant is necessary. So a lot to cover as far as what say a police officer can do without warrant. For example is there a reasonable suspicion or is it in plain sight?

So either way SCOTUS sided with the State of New Jersey in this case. Also I want to note T.L.O. was a minor at the time reportedly 14-years-old when she was caught smoking in her school's bathroom. So we only know her identity by her initials.

BTW, this is the first time I shared a Mr. Beat video the same day it was uploaded

Mr. Beat presents Plessy v. Ferguson...

[VIDEO] This recent video from Mr. Beat talks about the landmark 1896 case of Plessy vs. Ferguson which establishes the principle of "separate but equal". The decision in this case essentially upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation. This case is over racial accomodations on a train. This case has been referred to as one of the worst decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Until watching this video I was woefully ignorant of this case. It's interesting that a man named Plessy in addition to a conductor and a police detective knew that Plessy was "colored". They knew what law to pick to arrest him as he wasn't in the appropriate accommodations for those who are "colored" or Black. It's also interesting that the railroad didn't really want to spend money to provide separate accommodations on their trains between Blacks and whites. Ahhh I see what's going on, this was "civil disobedience" the arrest of Plessy was staged to provoke a court case.

Another interesting piece of trivia with regards to this case, the lone dissenter in this case is a Justice of SCOTUS named John Marshall Harlan. He's the namesake of a certain high school in Chicago's 9th Ward - GO FALCONS!

If you decide to study pol. sci. you might have to take constitutional law as a course or perhaps even as a requirement for your degree. Who knows you may have to study this case...

Reason: Little Pink House

[VIDEO] As stated with an earlier video from Reason magazine, one of the things I pride myself in doing with this blog is presenting ideas that get you to think. With that last video it illustrated ways that bigotry can prove to be expensive and proved to be an opportunity for an enterprising real estate entrepreneur in the 20th century.

This video takes a different track. John Stossel in his recent video with Reason talks about eminent domain. You may have heard that term fairly recently with regards to the former Dominick's on 71st/Jeffrey as there was significant interest in getting another grocery store to that space.

What Stossel discusses in this video is a movie called Little Pink House. It's about a woman who lost her house in an eminent domain fight that went all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. Basically the city of New London, Connecticut wanted to condemn an entire neighborhood for redevelopment which as you see in the video above still hasn't happened even in 2018. You can read up on the Supreme Court case here.

Could this be how many low-income Chicago neighborhoods can ultimately become relatively affluent neighborhoods? Is this what could happen to Englewood or Woodlawn? Is it what's happening with Bronzeville?

Let me elaborate with Bronzeville, that area for many years contained those notorious housing projects that have been demolished in the course of the past decade. Now granted these were government housing projects - and certainly not a case of eminent domain - that unfortunately trapped crime, social issues, etc and now the land where these projects stood are up for grabs. Will the future developments on these lands be housing for the rest of us or will they be for the affluent?

Feel free to chime in on what you think about the video. Better yet feel free to chime in on the "dreaded G word".