By the way, if corporate media can understand that Biden's administration could've done more, then regular people will understand it well. 

I am going to break these two topics up as then can be long.

Who says the Biden administration does not have backup plans.  You are suggesting they present those plans now, giving GOP a chance to challenge those plans or find some defense against them.  I am saying there is absolutely no reason to present anything until you get the SC ruling.  If the SC rule in your favor, you do nothing.  If they rule against you, you know which plan to go with.  Anything before the ruling does not advance your position and wasting a lot of time and resources on things that will not work doesn't help as well.  

I am finding hard to see what you call a threat an actual threat.  How are any of those threats going to change the GOP from trying to prevent Student Loan forgiveness.  There are 6 lawsuits still pending not just this one. There is no threat Biden has that affect GOP reps.  GOP reps care nothing about Dem voters and unless their own constituents put pressure on them, then they can easily ignore it.  All the GOP will do is wait for your more radical plan and then get some conservative judge like they did in Texas to throw a monkey wrench on it.  

Lets take your alternative plan.  If the SC rules against the current plan and its because some people get 10K while others get 20.  Why even come out with a change until after that ruling.  Once you get them to set the limits and terms, then you know exactly what to do next.  If you offer your alternative plans now, it could get wrapped up in the SC ruling and then you have no options.  Let them rule first and then decide your next move instead of giving up information that does not really change the landscape or your position at this time.

We know Biden doesn't have a backup plan because of his released forbearance policy. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/22/biden-administration-will-extend-student-loan-debt-repayment-holiday-to-june-reports-say.html

"The pause will be extended until 60 days after the Biden administration is allowed to implement its student loan forgiveness plan and litigation is resolved, according to a press release by the U.S. Department of Education. If it can’t proceed with its policy and the legal challenges are still unfolding by June 30, 2023, student loan payments will restart 60 days after that."

Why would they remove all of the leverage they have by ending the forbearance? The whole point of extending the forbearance is 1. people haven't recovered from the pandemic and 2. it can be used as leverage to get something done on student loan forgiveness because repayments affect the federal budget. Ending the forbearance by June 30th or 60 days after a decision is made tells us that there is nothing really more that the Biden administration is going to do here. 

Legal challenges have to have some basis in the law. The risk is that by republicans and conservative judges accepting challenges on erroneous grounds (like it is a violation of the Equal Protections clause for some people to get $10,000 forgiveness and others $20,000) then you structure the decision in a way that makes it more difficult for their challenge to stand, but also is less ideologically kind to their judicial movement (now everybody gets $20,000 instead of only some.) You keep doing this with each erroneous challenge until the decision is far more progressive and far less challengeable -- meaning by opposing the original decision the GOP made the end result worse (in their view) and it creates a disincentive to do it again in other scenarios.

As an example, the threat of Obergefell going the way of Roe led to the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified the nationally recognized status of gay and interracial marriage. 

This creates consequences for conservative efforts to disingenuously challenge certain laws or executive decisions. 

The whole purpose of explaining what you'll do next is to make it clear that you're willing to escalate the fight. Again, this is how the New Deal and Great Society were implemented. When challenged in the court you use the bully pulpit in combination with malicious compliance to get what want done. 

If Biden wants to be the next FDR or Johnson then he needs to pull from their playbooks. 

I disagree, explaining what you will do next gives your oponent a chance to prepare for what you will do next.  When you just do what you are going to do next, there is no preparations.  You drop it like it hot and they have to respond to you instead of plan for what you will do next.  I would rather keep my adversary having to respond to my actions then be able to prepare for my actions.

I do not believe your example is correct because everything that has happen after Roe fell were affects of the change.  Meaning that when it was leaked the SC was going to overturn Roe, did anything or any threat actually change that decision.  No amount of push back, rallies or demonstration made the justice change their vote.  Instead, everything that happen was done after the fact.  So in that instance, I still say, why waste time making threats that does not change anything and instead just do it.  The SC stuck down Roe, so what did that do, made Dems understand other rights can be on the table to take action. Would the Justice still not struck down Roe because of the marriage act if it was a threat, I believe that still vote the same way.

My point of view is that only weak people make threats.  Instead I am never going to tip someone off on what I am going to do, I am just going to do it.

That is only if they have an option to prepare and respond to it. This decision depends on implementation happening as soon as possible and for public will to push it through. You need to be clear with the public on what you intend to do to keep the momentum going. That is far more valuable, in this situation, than the negatives of your opponent being able to prepare. They're going to come up with a challenge regardless. Just look at how fast challenges came up after the initial announcement was made. 

Right, my point is that Biden should change his policy so that the challenge doesn't even go to the SC. If the policy changes, then the challenge is moot and doesn't go to the court. Then he can focus on the other challenges. By letting it go to the SC he is risking a much wider scoped decision to limit what he can do. 

"Only weak people make threats." Pretty much every labor right that exists in the United States and the developed world is a byproduct of reactions to threats. The welfare state, as we know, it is an answer to socialist movements -- threats to capitalism, as an example. 

By the way, as an example of what I mean of how to undermine these challenges. 

https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/loans/student-loan-debt-relief-goes-to-the-supreme-court-what-happens-next/

" One of the biggest challenges for those opposing student loan debt relief in court has been finding plaintiffs with legal standing who would suffer direct harm from the student loan forgiveness program. That was first demonstrated by the case of Garrison v. US Department of Education: Borrower Frank Garrison claimed he was harmed because his automatic student loan debt cancellation would result in a state tax burden in Indiana. Garrison's legal standing was seriously damaged when the Department of Education announced that borrowers could opt out of debt forgiveness."

Is this a new response or is VGC being fucky? How old is this conversation?

That said, I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding here (which, as I stated however long ago isn't really surprising because per me, you never really made an argument). My argument is generally pro-global manufacturing. That does mean that some manufacturing should be done in the United States (particularly of items of relevance to national security), however it also means that some should be done in China, some should be done in Mexico, some should be done Taiwan, etc.

When you have one country dominating manufacturing of a particular good, that is often a bad thing (I believe I may have already used formula as an example, but if not, it is a good example). That includes when things are made exclusively by the USA (which is a danger of the "America manufacturing above all" philosophy) but it also includes when things are being made exclusively in China. I have never supported a Chinese dominated manufacturing ecosystem, but there are options beyond "China makes everything" and "USA makes everything". We have done a lot of work to build up manufacturing in non-China Asian countries which has been beneficial, but obviously more can be done. 

Warnock beats Walker in Georgia. The fact that it ever came this close with such a supremely unqualified candidate like Walker is the biggest indictment of this country since Trump was elected, but at least this time it wasn't successful. I genuinely would have started planning to emigrate if it was. Fortunately, with a 51-49 Senate the DINO's of the party have lost a lot of power.

Also good news to see the Trump Organization convicted on all counts of criminal tax fraud, though I'm sure the penalty won't be nearly sufficient.

Not sure why I am reading conflicting opinions on what happened with railway workers on here? Seems like they were stabbed in the front and the back and it's not just the independent media that thinks so. 

It's not that Walker is unqualified that GOP constituents voted for him. Let's be honest, the only thing Walker was going to do is vote down party lines.  He was not going to help craft new bills or lobby for anything that did not get approved by his handlers. Pretty much every GOP voter probably understood this and when there was a chance to get control of the Senate, he was in play, so they voted for him.  After Senate control vanished, well most GOP voters did what most people do, become disinterested in voting for someone who probably anyone with a pulse knew was a terrible choice.

This should be a wake up call to the GOP but I wonder if it will be.  We will see come 2024.