There’s no standing in any state for being given something for free.
So this would be why a student getting debt relief won’t have standing to sue against the D of Ed saying that the relief is harming them…
It’s not a bad counter argument to say they should be rejecting these cases outright.
Have you read the article? The lawsuit is because an agency of Missouri - and thus the State of Missouri - is losing money due to the debt relief. (Or at least, so they claim - whether or not they’re actually losing money is something that’s up for debate.)
When the argument is,
“I’m losing money because”
A bad counterargument is,
“You can’t sue because you were getting something for free”
Why? Because it doesn’t address or refute the original statement.
A good counterargument is,
“No, actually, you weren’t losing money, because those negative numbers are just the result of an accounting trick but aren’t actual losses”
So this would be why a student getting debt relief won’t have standing to sue against the D of Ed saying that the relief is harming them…
Have you read the article? The lawsuit is because an agency of Missouri - and thus the State of Missouri - is losing money due to the debt relief. (Or at least, so they claim - whether or not they’re actually losing money is something that’s up for debate.)
When the argument is,
“I’m losing money because”
A bad counterargument is,
“You can’t sue because you were getting something for free”
Why? Because it doesn’t address or refute the original statement.
A good counterargument is,
“No, actually, you weren’t losing money, because those negative numbers are just the result of an accounting trick but aren’t actual losses”