You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hell Freezes Over: Clarence Thomas Has An Opinion... And It Was Unanimous!!! [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 12:25 AM
Original message
Hell Freezes Over: Clarence Thomas Has An Opinion... And It Was Unanimous!!!
Advertisements [?]
Supreme Court Rules Against Student Loan Industry

The Blog Of Legal Times | Posted by Tony Mauro | March 23, 2010 at 11:16 AM in Supreme Court



Rejecting the views of 33 states, the federal government, and the student loan industry, the Supreme Court today unanimously ruled in favor of a loan delinquent who used the bankruptcy laws to restructure his debt.

The decision in United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa was the only ruling handed down today, and the Court is not expected to issue any rulings when it sits tomorrow, making it unlikely there will be any rulings again from the Court before March 30, the next decision day on which it will be in session. Several cases argued at the beginning of the term -- including First Amendment blockbusters United States v. Stevens, involving animal cruelty videos, and Salazar v. Buono, concerning religious symbols on public property -- remain undecided.

The student loan case decided today was argued Dec. 1, and the ruling was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. In it, the Court said a bankruptcy court order that forgave part of the debt was valid even though the student did not show at an adversary proceeding that repayment would pose an "undue hardship." Thomas said the failure by Francisco Espinosa to initiate such a proceeding did deprive the loan company of a right granted by a procedural rule, but "did not amount to a violation of United's constitutional right to due process." The company had been notified of Espinosa's plan and did not object, Thomas noted.

MORE

- Maybe President Obama's chastisement of the Court is working.

Naw, just kidding.......

==============================================================================
DeSwiss


The Atheist Toolbox




"B4 U Brake My Heaaaarrrrttt!"


"When you have robbed a man of everything he is no longer in your power. He is free again." ~ Aleksandr Solzhenitzyn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC