• CrazyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I do not get how these 6 states were determined to have standing in the first place? Isn’t the whole US justice system predicated on the fact that you need to experience direct or indirect harm, be an actually involved party for you to be able to sue? They’re federal loans, so federal money, where does their standing come from?

    • Ham_Cat@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You think any of this matters to fundamentalists in robes? They’re the scum of the Earth, and Biden is too gutless to take them on, and had the gall to say he has a ‘fear of politicizing’ the court.

      The US is beyond redemption.

    • Blue@vlemmy.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Doesn’t this set the precedent that you don’t have to be directly or indirectly harmed? I feel like this is the most dangerous part of the ruling and I haven’t seen much discussion about it.

      Imagine someone gets injured at a restaurant, so they could file a suit for negligence. But instead, I sue the restaurant, even though I wasn’t there and I’m not related or involved. Isn’t that what they just opened up?