Are the the two sources of resumes really treated the same?
If I'm contacted by a recruiter and encouraged to apply for a position, I would expect to at least get a phone screening if not a full interview. Are you really reaching out to minority candidates individually only to sometimes send back a message that you have decided not to proceed with them a few days later? I think that would leave a bad taste in my mouth and make me less inclined to apply or encourage anyone else to apply with your company.
Briefs are submitted to the court by parties involved in the litigation before the court even hears oral arguments on the case. They are one-sided arguments, not holdings of the court.
That brief is written by the Biden administration. The Biden administration argued that a plain text reading of the HEROES act gave the president this power. The majority ruling by SCOTUS did not agree.
From Justice Kagan’s dissent: “Wielding its judicially manufactured heightened-specificity requirement, the Court refuses to acknowledge the plain words of the HEROES Act.” (p. 28)
So Justice Kagan would agree that a plain text reading would give the administration the power to forgive outstanding loan balances. However, the majority’s ruling was that the “text of the HEROES Act does not authorize the Secretary’s loan forgiveness program.” (p. 3)
I don’t understand. The two policies were begun by different administrations. The pause did exist without the forgiveness policy; it was done first.
The pause will continue until September (it was not effected at all by this ruling) so it once again exists without the forgiveness policy.
Why do you think one cannot exist without the other? The pause is fine with or without the forgiveness, and the pause existing didn’t save the forgiveness.
It does help. This is the first sentence of the Introduction (p. 21):
> Social distancing works.
The paper concedes this point, but wants to argue that government mandates are not worth it. The Introduction continues:
> If you keep distance from others, your risk of
being infected with a communicable disease is reduced. However, the fact that social distancing works does not imply that compulsory non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), commonly known as ‘lockdowns’ – policies that restrict internal movement, close schools and businesses, ban international travel and/or other activities – work.
They actually find that many of these activities do work. They just argue that compulsory government intervention saved many fewer lives than the actions were anticipated to save at the time and had other negative effects.
If I'm contacted by a recruiter and encouraged to apply for a position, I would expect to at least get a phone screening if not a full interview. Are you really reaching out to minority candidates individually only to sometimes send back a message that you have decided not to proceed with them a few days later? I think that would leave a bad taste in my mouth and make me less inclined to apply or encourage anyone else to apply with your company.