WASHINGTON (AP) — Niara Thompson couldn’t shake her frustration as the Supreme Court debated President Joe Biden’s student debt cancellation. As she listened from the audience Tuesday, it all felt academic. There was a long discussion on the nuances of certain words. Justices asked lawyers to explore hypothetical scenarios.

For Thompson, none of it is hypothetical. A student at the University of Georgia, she grew up watching her parents struggle with student loans and will graduate with about $50,000 of her own student debt.

“It felt like people who could never understand why we would want something like this,” she said. “I wanted to be like, ‘Y’all don’t understand. Y’all are focusing on this, but there’s people out here who are struggling to find food for their families.’”

Much of the discussion in Tuesday’s hearing centered on whether states had the legal right to sue over Biden’s student loans plan. But the justices also were scrutinizing whether Biden had the authority to waive hundreds of billions of dollars in debt without the explicit approval of Congress, which decides how taxpayer money is spent.

It’s not unusual for Supreme Court cases to hang on legal technicalities, even in cases of great public interest. Yet to borrowers following Tuesday’s arguments, it felt isolating to hear such a personal subject reduced to cold legal language.

Opponents of the plan to wipe away debt held by millions of Americans have denounced it as an insult to those who have repaid their debt and to those who didn’t attend college.

Thompson was among a few dozen borrowers who camped out in drizzle overnight to get seats at the court for Tuesday’s hearing. Some of the court’s liberal justices sought several times to turn the arguments back to the people who would benefit from the program, pointing out their need for relief. In response, conservatives asked if those who passed up college should pay for those who borrowed money to attend.

For Thompson’s family, years of payments hang in the balance. Student loan payments have been on hold since the start of the pandemic, but they are set to restart 60 days after the court cases resolve — regardless of the outcome.

Thompson and her father are each eligible for $10,000 in relief, she said. It would move her a step closer to financial stability, Thompson said, and it would eliminate the rest of her dad’s loans.

“It just hurt my feelings a bit,” she said of Tuesday’s arguments. “I just want better for us, you know?”

The mood inside the court — quiet and ceremonious — was a contrast to the atmosphere outside as dozens of activists rallied in support of cancellation. Crowds chanted and listened to speeches from members of Congress, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Advocates took to the podium to share stories about family sacrifices and life milestones deferred because of heavy student debt.

Ella Azoulay, a 26-year-old who lives in Washington, visited the rally to join the push for debt relief, which she calls a “family issue.” A 2018 graduate of New York University, Azoulay has $40,000 in student debt, while her dad has more than $400,000 taken out on behalf of her and her two siblings.

“I can’t really think about my future without thinking about this huge debt,” she said. “My dad has no plans to retire. He’s in his 60s and he has said for my whole life that he will never be able to retire. And that’s really upsetting to hear.”

During the hearing, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it would be a mistake for her fellow justices to take for themselves, instead of leaving it to education experts, “the right to decide how much aid to give” people who will struggle if the program is struck down.

Others justices also have shown a grasp of borrowers’ plight. Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s staunchest conservative, has written about the “crushing weight” of his own student loans, which he paid off after reaching the nation’s highest court.

Kayla Smith, 22, joined Thompson at the overnight campout for a seat inside the court. A recent graduate of the University of Georgia, she also felt the discussion missed the bigger picture.

Smith’s mother borrowed more than $20,000 in federal Parent Plus loans to help her pay for college. Smith sees it as the result of a broken system that forces people into debt for a shot at social mobility.

“They were focused on small, minuscule details,” Smith, of Atlanta, said of the justices. “I even saw some of them laughing during the hearing, which was odd to me because people’s lives are being affected. It’s not a laughing matter to us, at least.” ___

The Associated Press education team receives support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post As court debates student loans, borrowers see disconnect appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Supervisors in San Francisco held a heated debate Tuesday over whether to give city police the ability to use potentially lethal, remote-controlled robots in emergency situations, with both sides accusing the other of reckless fearmongering.

Police oversight groups are urging the 11-member Board of Supervisors to reject the idea, saying it would lead to further militarization of a police force already too aggressive with poor and minority communities. They said the parameters under which use would be allowed are too vague.

The San Francisco Police Department said it does not have pre-armed robots and has no plans to arm robots with guns. But the department could deploy robots equipped with explosive charges “to contact, incapacitate, or disorient violent, armed, or dangerous suspect” when lives are at stake, SFPD spokesperson Allison Maxie said in a statement.

“Robots equipped in this manner would only be used in extreme circumstances to save or prevent further loss of innocent lives,” she said.

The proposed policy does not lay out specifics for how the weapons can and cannot be equipped, leaving open the option to arm them. “Robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD,” it says.

The city’s board members are staunch Democrats who favor gun control, reproductive freedoms and civil rights protections, but they are deeply divided on support for law enforcement.

Several supervisors said it shocked them that a city accustomed to protesting the use of military drones would entertain the idea of allowing a robot to possibly kill a person. But others said police were making a reasonable request and were only carving out permission in case of catastrophe.

“Everything that was said in this hearing, I don’t see how a robot being armed with certain weaponry would save lives,” said Shamann Walton, president of the Board of Supervisors.

The vote comes under a new California law that requires police and sheriffs departments to inventory military-grade equipment and seek approval for their use. San Francisco police currently have a dozen functioning ground robots used to assess bombs or provide eyes in low visibility situations, the department says. They were acquired between 2010 and 2017.

The state law was authored last year by San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu while he was an assembly member. It is aimed at giving the public a forum and voice in the acquisition and use of military-grade weapons that have a negative effect on communities, according to the legislation.

San Francisco police did not immediately respond to a question about how the robots were acquired, but a federal program has dispensed grenade launchers, camouflage uniforms, bayonets, armored vehicles and other surplus military equipment to help local law enforcement.

In 2017, then-President Donald Trump signed an order reviving the Pentagon program after his predecessor, Barack Obama, curtailed it in 2015, triggered in part by outrage over the use of military gear during protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after the shooting death of Michael Brown.

The first time a robot was used to deliver explosives in the U.S. was in 2016, when Dallas police sent in an armed robot that killed a holed-up sniper who had killed five officers in an ambush.

Like many places around the U.S., San Francisco is trying to balance public safety with treasured civilian rights such as privacy and the ability to live free of excessive police oversight. In September, supervisors agreed to a trial run allowing police to access in real time private surveillance camera feeds in certain circumstances.

The San Francisco Public Defender’s office sent a letter Monday to the board saying that granting police “the ability to kill community members remotely” goes against the city’s progressive values. The office would like the board to reinstate language barring police from using robots against any person in an act of force.

On the other side of the San Francisco Bay, the Oakland Police Department has dropped a similar proposal after public backlash.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post San Francisco debates letting police deploy robots that kill appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.