When you have no logical argument for why someone is wrong, insult them. Like this idiot I’m replying to.

You’re so mad that your end run AROUND passing a law, that you want to prevent the other party from passing laws? Great irony there.

I get that you’re upset that you actually have to get popular support for a thing and pass it into law. Because you know that 51% of people do not agree with you, and thus can never actually pass this as a law. But maybe try sounding less insane, it will help your arguments in the future.

Democrats massively overstep the bounds of the law and try to pass something as an executive action instead of properly passing a law. And you’re upset that Republicans don’t want them to be able to effectively pass laws without passing laws?

ITT: Twitter lefties complaining about not being able to censor people who they disagree with, moving to a platform that allows them an even smaller echo chamber to espouse their insane beliefs in.

Those sort of loopholes are what contract law is all about. You can only use loopholes when the justification is that both parties could reasonably assume that was the intent of the words written on the document.

There’s no reading of a student loan document that leads to the conclusion that “this is free money from the government that other people will pay back for you”.

Saying that the pandemic is some sort of emergency that can be addressed by forgiving student loan debt is… One of the most insane arguments I’ve seen.

Sure it might be legal. But it’s an excuse to twist the intent of the law to your own purposes and you know it. It’s no different than making jaywalking a felony so you can arrest anyone you want. It’s legal, but insane.

Your argument is literally the same argument Sovereign Citizens use. Where they have a collection of unrelated laws that they cite for the literal letter of the law, with no care for the context or the intent.

The executive branch didn’t give out the loan themselves. The whole federal government did. The executive branch are only the administrator of the loan.

In this context, the executive branch is literally saying they don’t want to do their job. And a branch of government cannot legally refuse to do their job.

It’s the same legal theory as to why they can’t just declare that they won’t prosecute people for illegal immigration. They can choose to do a really bad job at stopping it, and can delay processing people for the crime of it (current backlog is >10 years for a court date if you skip the border today). But they cannot simply say they refuse to enforce immigration law.