Comment #: 35048
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Now, apologies, this is going to be a long comment, but I really want to make sure I drive my point about this judge and the lawsuit he was involved in home.

Mark Pittman is a federal judge who decided to fast track a lawsuit against the federal government trying to prevent a federal order from allowing people to apply to have their student loan debt forgiven.

Who is the plaintiff in this lawsuit? The "Job Creators Network Foundation." Who are the "Job Creators"? Well, one of them is a cofounder of Home Depot.
Now why, I ask, would "Job Creators" be opposed to *student loan forgiveness?* I mean, there's been plenty of executive orders that one could've challenged with as much merit, (however much that might be,) as this, yet most have gone on without almost no challenge from any quarter.
Might it be that its on some practical, from a job creator's perspective, basis?

Supporters of "Job Creation" generally argue that jobs are good for the people working them. After all, loss of one's job may mean loss of livelihood. So generally, arguments made on behalf of "Job Creators" are appeals to what "Job Creators" have to offer the employed.

So... is it because reducing student debt is bad for the workers? I think its pretty self evident that no, it does not in any way hurt any labor base whatsoever, to forgive the debt members of that base are in. Historically, debt has only ever been *bad* for the person in debt. I can't really think of a counterexample, and I challenge anyone to find one.

No, I think its obvious what "Job Creators" are actually considering here --- debt reduces the bargaining power of potential employees. Forgiving that debt means higher salaries, better benefits, and the potential of seeing some of those employees at ritzy parties.

Now, why does Mark T. Pittman give any oxygen to this lawsuit, even though at the very minimum, legal precedent seems to indicate that the federal government does, in fact, have this power? I'll be honest, this beats me entirely. Maybe he's an ideologue, maybe he's bought, maybe he's gullible, maybe he purchased some student loan debt off someone, (which is, for some irrational reason, entirely legal.) But in any case, its a sign he's a bad judge.

I'll leave you all with one last thought --- debt has always been the enemy of liberty. As far as most people are concerned, a federal order to forgive life destroying debt is not unconstitutional, its necessary to fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence. If Mark T. Pittman is going to argue that American tradition is the basis for overturning a law denying people under the age of 21 the right to hold guns, then maybe he should consider what the founding fathers thought of economic extortion. Mark Pittman, if you're reading this, you did the wrong thing --- you betrayed the mandate of your culture by trying to sacrifice our liberty to further enrich already fantastically wealthy special interest groups.

Comment #: 34347
Rating:2.0
Comments:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION

ORDERED November 8, 2021
Case: No. 4:21-cv-1074-P

DAVID SAMBRANO ET AL. (Plaintiffs)
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., (Defendant)

Honorable Judge Mark T. Pittman understanding of "IRREPARABLE HARM" does not include the loss of your job.

The Judge may think he is being clever with the "wordsmithing" used to support his very poor Legal Standard understanding.

https://www.law360.com/articles/1438979/attachments/0