CDC Eviction Moratoriums are illegal says US Supreme Court
-
The US Supreme Court has previously ruled that eviction moratoriums are unconstitutional.
The non-political CDC, as liberals claim, has repeatedly violated this ruling. Anyone enforcing these illegal EM is also guilty of violating the constitution.
I would like to see a liberal justify this, without being a hypocrite.
-
@raphjd said in CDC Eviction Moratoriums are illegal says US Supreme Court:
The US Supreme Court has previously ruled that eviction moratoriums are unconstitutional.
The non-political CDC, as liberals claim, has repeatedly violated this ruling. Anyone enforcing these illegal EM is also guilty of violating the constitution.
I would like to see a liberal justify this, without being a hypocrite.
Even Biden has said he doesn't think the CDC moratorium is legal... but, in spite of your supreme knowledge regarding US Constitutional Law (your awards on this subject are awe-inspiring and truly impressive), that doesn't mean that people who enforce the matter are violating the Constitution.
- You don't decide what is (and isn't) Constitutional
- I don't decide what is (and isn't) Constitutional
- Biden doesn't decide what is (and isn't) Constitutional
Judges (US Judges) decide what is (and isn't) Constitutional
And when different judges disagree, it goes eventually to the Supreme Court.
I wouldn't call this "settled law", but I would also say that the likelihood that it stands is very small. IMHO, they know this, and this is a "legal trick" to delay while the Congress is on Summer Break - the Dems are going to come back in the Fall and try to pass another eviction moratorium law. (Just what the F are the landlords supposed to do for money?)
However, until a judge rules it illegal (or unconstitutional), it is the law (ok, it's actually a rule/policy - not quite the force of law)...
-
Ah, so you admit that the CDC is purely political.
The SCOTUS ruling on the blanket EM allowed it to stay in place only because it was due to run out soon. They also said that the CDC does not have the power to create EMs.
The CDC and DNC worked together to attempt to bypass the SCOTUS ruling, which is why there is a change.
-
First, it should be noted that the eviction moratorium that the SCOTUS reviewed in AL Assoc. of Realtors v. HHS was put in place by the TRUMP administration, not Biden's.
Second, the Court's decision was based on STATUTORY interpretation, not CONSTITUTIONAL. Specifically, the Court was tasked with determining whether the Public Health Service Act of 1944 empowered HHS to do what it had done. There was no majority opinion in the decision (In fact, there was no decision). There was a 4/4 split, with Kavanaugh's concurrence agreeing with the conservatives ending up being the controlling law. He wrote to allow the EM to expire, and that if HHS wished to extend the EM beyond the previous expiration date, then it would require a clear authorization from Congress.
The case does NOT say that EM are unconstitutional. It found that HHS exceeded its Congressional mandate, and the only thing needed to correct the problem would be an expanded mandate from Congress.
Finally, I agree with @bi4smooth when he says that this is not settled law. Remember, this prior case did not have an actual opinion rendered on it. It was decided on the SCOTUS's so-called "Shadow Docket," a series of orders and summary decisions that don't follow the normal procedural process (e.g., no oral arguments, limited briefing, and usually no explanation of the majority's reasoning). In fact, Kavanaugh's "opinion" was only three sentences long.
It should also be noted that the EM being proposed by the Biden administration is more limited in scope, time period, and manner than the EM pushed by the Trump Administration. But, I guess political hacks like @raphjd only get upset when it's not their guy doing something.
-
Umm, did Congress expand their mandate? NO!!!
Umm, the SCOTUS case came after Trump. DUH!!! You are such a political hack that you can't see that.
Despite your stupidity, Biden's CDC went against the SCOTUS ruling. Not so with Trump.
If Trump did what Biden did, I would be against it too.
-
@raphjd said in CDC Eviction Moratoriums are illegal says US Supreme Court:
Umm, did Congress expand their mandate? NO!!!
Umm, the SCOTUS case came after Trump. DUH!!! You are such a political hack that you can't see that.
Despite your stupidity, Biden's CDC went against the SCOTUS ruling. Not so with Trump.
If Trump did what Biden did, I would be against it too.
Wow, do you not understand that a court case can be heard about what the Trump Administration has done...even after Trump has left office?
When the EM under examination in AL Assoc. of Realtors v. HHS was put into place, TRUMP was the President. The President is the head of the Executive Branch. The Department of Health and Human Services is an Executive Agency. In other words, TRUMP was HHS's boss when they put into place the very broad EM discussed in the case you are now touting.
TRUMP not only did what Biden is trying to do; TRUMP instituted a much broader EM than Biden has attempted.
The whole point why the Biden Administration believes that its EM will pass SCOTUS scrutiny is because, UNLIKE TRUMP's EM, Biden's EM is limited in time (2 month expiration), limited in geographic scope (doesn't include areas where transmission rates are decreasing; whereas TRUMP's EM covered all areas, even if that area had low transmission rates or was improving).
The Biden Administration's EM is doing exactly what TRUMP's did not, limits itself to only those actions necessary and proper to carry out the CDC's pandemic control powers. TRUMP's EM got struck down because it was unlimited (which the SCOTUS explained exceeded Congressional mandate). Biden's is not unlimited.
You are so fucking stupid. All of your gripes apply to what your Fuhrer did, and you look so comical now that you've decided to be offended by them now that Biden's president. Hack....you're a hack.
-
Stop being a clown.
Trump did not go against the SCOTUS ruling on EMs, Biden did.
Until your dying breath, you are going to blame Trump for everything.
You keep proving you are nothing but a total political hack.
Once again, since you are a liberal.
SCOTUS ruled on the case AFTER Trump was in office.
Biden decided to violate that ruling.
-
@raphjd said in CDC Eviction Moratoriums are illegal says US Supreme Court:
Stop being a clown.
Trump did not go against the SCOTUS ruling on EMs, Biden did.
Until your dying breath, you are going to blame Trump for everything.
You keep proving you are nothing but a total political hack.
Once again, since you are a liberal.
SCOTUS ruled on the case AFTER Trump was in office.
Biden decided to violate that ruling.
@raphjd You are such a tool of your right-wing conspiracy sources...
1 - There was no opinion in the case you constantly refer to here, just a finding that a specific law did not apply to a specific case. Nothing - nothing - was written to explain their finding, nor to create a precedent. The finding was that they couldn't agree to overturn the lower court, so with a 4-4 tie, the lower court (appeals court) ruling stood.
2 - With no explanation, there is no way to "interpret" the finding in the above case, except in the instance for which it was found. This is "unsettled law".
3 - It was Trump's CDC rule that was found to exceed what was authored in the original law - a law that has been re-written and re-passed since.
NOTE: It doesn't mean Trump's CDC rule was good or bad, just that their legal basis for their rule was an "overreach" in the eyes of an appeals court judge (or, possibly a panel)... and SCOTUS couldn't agree enough to say either way!4 - Biden's CDC (which is arguably, the same as the Trump CDC) issued a new rule to stop evictions. I don't agree with the rule (as I noted: where the f**k are the landlords supposed to get the money to pay the taxes, mortgage, repairs, etc.?? Many of the landlords I'm speaking of are INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, not corporations with deep-pockets... in many cases, this was people's retirement plan - and not only is the cash flow gone, but the "principal" is too! They've been foreclosed on - in many cases by the TAX-MAN!)
5 - In response to an earlier post: NO, the NIH is not entirely political - but they have, in recent history, been dragged into political arguments. Also, as the HEAD of the CDC is a political appointee, there can sometimes be overlap.
That is a LONG WAY from being entirely politicalIndeed, I would propose that the CDC (and NIH) are mostly a-political, but their findings get used by politicians when it suits them.
Is the new moratorium on evictions (for non-payment of rent due to COVID-19) a political rule? Or a public health one? If you asked me to, I could reasonably argue either way.
And that is the true nature of humanity - most things are NOT clear-cut, binary observations. There are usually nuances...
