Here's a little bit of lying by omission:
"2003 law ... gives the education secretary the authority to “waive or modify any” student debt programs in response to national emergencies.
Well actually the law says "waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to [student loans] as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency [in one of 5 ways]"
Clearly "waive" doesn't apply to the debt, but rather to the laws applying to that debt. So they can waive/modify filing deadlines, penalties, and so on. Not the debt itself. Sotomayor's interpretation is completely retarded.
These are the five ways:
A) So that debtors are "are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial assistance".
B) "administrative requirements ... to the extent possible without impairing the integrity of the student financial assistance programs"
C) "the calculation of “annual adjusted family income” and “available income”, as used in the determination of need ... may be modified" in a specific way.
D) overpayments to current students don't have to be returned in some cases.
E) lenders "located in areas that are declared disaster areas" or lenders "significantly affected by such a disaster, may be granted temporary relief from requirements that are rendered infeasible or unreasonable ... including due diligence requirements and reporting deadlines"
Sotomayor is trying to weasel (A) into saying that debtors can be placed into a better financial situation, which is not authorized. "Not in a worse situation" doesn't mean "in a better situation" and is clearly talking about things like penalties for late payment and such as, not 'oh I'm poor now cancel my loan'. And why would other provisions exclude anything "impairing the integrity" if (A) says the whole loan can just be erased anyway?
Sotomayor's position is the definition of "activist judge". She's making up what the law says to suit her personal wants.
Here's a little bit of lying by omission:
"2003 law ... gives the education secretary the authority to “waive or modify any” student debt programs in response to national emergencies.
Well actually the law says "waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to [student loans] as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency [in one of 5 ways]"
Clearly "waive" doesn't apply to the debt, but rather to the laws applying to that debt. So they can waive/modify filing deadlines, penalties, and so on. Not the debt itself. Sotomayor's interpretation is completely retarded.
These ways five are:
A) So that debtors are "are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial assistance".
B) "administrative requirements ... to the extent possible without impairing the integrity of the student financial assistance programs"
C) "the calculation of “annual adjusted family income” and “available income”, as used in the determination of need ... may be modified" in a specific way.
D) overpayments to current students don't have to be returned in some cases.
E) lenders "located in areas that are declared disaster areas" or lenders "significantly affected by such a disaster, may be granted temporary relief from requirements that are rendered infeasible or unreasonable ... including due diligence requirements and reporting deadlines"
Sotomayor is trying to weasel (A) into saying that debtors can be placed into a better financial situation, which is not authorized. "Not in a worse situation" doesn't mean "in a better situation" and is clearly talking about things like penalties for late payment and such as, not 'oh I'm poor now cancel my loan'. And why would other provisions exclude anything "impairing the integrity" if (A) says the whole loan can just be erased anyway?
Sotomayor's position is the definition of "activist judge". She's making up what the law says to suit her personal wants.
Here's a little bit of lying by omission:
"2003 law ... gives the education secretary the authority to “waive or modify any” student debt programs in response to national emergencies.
Well actually the law says "waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to [student loans] as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency [in one of 5 ways]"
Clearly "waive" doesn't apply to the debt, but rather to the laws applying to that debt. So they can waive/modify filing deadlines, penalties, and so on. Not the debt itself. Sotomayor's interpretation is completely retarded.
Those ways five are:
A) So that debtors are "are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial assistance".
B) "administrative requirements ... to the extent possible without impairing the integrity of the student financial assistance programs"
C) "the calculation of “annual adjusted family income” and “available income”, as used in the determination of need ... may be modified" in a specific way.
D) overpayments to current students don't have to be returned in some cases.
E) lenders "located in areas that are declared disaster areas" or lenders "significantly affected by such a disaster, may be granted temporary relief from requirements that are rendered infeasible or unreasonable ... including due diligence requirements and reporting deadlines"
Sotomayor is trying to weasel (A) into saying that debtors can be placed into a better financial situation, which is not authorized. "Not in a worse situation" doesn't mean "in a better situation" and is clearly talking about things like penalties for late payment and such as, not 'oh I'm poor now cancel my loan'. And why would other provisions exclude anything "impairing the integrity" if (A) says the whole loan can just be erased anyway?
Sotomayor's position is the definition of "activist judge". She's making up what the law says to suit her personal wants.