The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Nobody seems to care about the landlords.  People just want to not pay rent and not work.  If the Biden administration isn't proof that the Democratic party is just about freeloading and laziness, I don't now what is.   

A 5-4 Supreme Court opinion from June precluded the Administration from extending the original moratorium without Congress passing new legislation. “Unfortunately,” said Sperling, “the Supreme Court declared on June 29th that the CDC could not grant such an extension without clear and specific congressional authorization.” The constitutionality of the CDC’s new order is unclear, and it is likely to be challenged in court.

nope.  that was not the ruling.  The 5-4 decision let the current moratorium remain but one of the 5 hinted that if the moratorium got extended further he might rule differently in a future challenge. It is possible that the extension will be overturned.  It is possible that the court won’t even hear the case and it is possible that the court will let this moratorium remain. 

But my best guess is the new moratorium is being used simply to buy some time and congress will vote on the issue before it gets to the S. Ct.

1 - The supreme court chose to not vacate the appeals court ruling that left the moratorium active.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a169_4f15.pdf

2 -  The CDC didn't extend the moratorium, it expired July 31st. The CDC is now adding in a new moratorium on evictions that only affects certain counties where covid spread is above a certain threshold. It isn't universal and therefore doesn't exceed the current CDC powers.

Your argument is with Time magazine from where I copy and pasted it from. On further inspection. Kavanaugh wrote, “In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31.”

He didn't hint that they might rule differently. He specifically said that they couldn't extend it without legislation. They let it remain because it was about to expire anyhow.

I guess my question is, when did it become OK to do the opposite of what the SCOTUS says? Does that mean that states can ignore Roe vs Wade? Or maybe ignore the NFA? See, either the SCOTUS has final say or they don't. What country do you want? You can't have it both ways.

Hopefully, whoever made this decision is fired and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law like they should be. And if it's found that an elected official in the executive or legislative branch was complicit that they will be impeached and/or removed from office.

The moratorium wasn't extended.  A completely new moratorium with different rules was enacted.

The relevant legal entities are perfectly welcome to challenge the legality of that new moratorium through the appropriate channels.

You don't know a lot of "what is"...and most of it involves dealing with reality.

You are wrong. According to the CDC director herself, they don't have legal authority for a new moratorium.

"To date, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and her team have been unable to find legal authority for a new, targeted eviction moratorium" (https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/03/politics/biden-eviction-moratorium-fact-check/index.html)

Also, both the administration and the CDC seem to understand that they don't have authority for such activity. You're the one that doesn't understand.


The fact is that this clusterfuck lies exclusively at the feet of Pelosi and the Democrats in congress. Maybe you should hold them accountable for not doing their jobs instead of justifying and advocating for unconstitutional actions and defying the SC just to further your "radical" agenda.


Who are the relevant legal entities? The SCOTUS is the highest legal entity in the country and they have already ruled on the issue. Do you feel ignoring the SCOTUS is the proper way of handling situations you don't agree with?  If so, should branches of government start ignoring SC rulings they don't like or agree with? Should the people responsible for violating the SC ruling be punished to the full extent of the law?

These are very important questions going forward.

Not sure how I feel about this.

The concept of keeping people who are behind on payment because of a pandemic from being homeless is good.  However, at some point the pandemic has to end and we have to face the music.  ...not sure if we're there or not.  Where I live, things are pretty back to normal, in terms of things being open and accessible.

The longer we do this, the higher rent prices will be long term.  Landlords are going to try and recoup their money somehow.

I have some mixed feelings also. Landlords are still going to have to make payments and from my experience mortgage companies can be bastards. My experience is deferred payments are due in full at the end of the term, payments are not accepted.

Glad to see you are citing the Biden Administration as a legal source!  Let's continue, but instead of quoting what they said on Sunday and Monday, let's quote what they said on Tuesday (https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/03/politics/eviction-moratorium-high-covid-spread/index.html):

The President said earlier Tuesday the new eviction ban would be different from the previous one. But he openly acknowledged it would likely face legal scrutiny, and said the time it takes for the court process to unfold will allow for emergency rental assistance to reach troubled tenants.
Biden said he'd sought out constitutional scholars to advise him on a path forward after the Supreme Court's ruling, and said the "bulk" of them warned an eviction moratorium was "not likely to pass constitutional muster."

But he said "several key scholars" told him it might, and he decided it would be worth the risk if it allowed extra time for already-allocated emergency rental funds to reach Americans who need them.

"At a minimum, by the time it gets litigated, it will probably give some additional time while we're getting that $45 billion out to people who are in fact behind in the rent and don't have the money," Biden said.

A senior administration official said the new eviction freeze from the CDC would be "different in form and structure" from the one that expired. It is directed at areas where the spread of the virus is most acute.

No, they haven't.  They ruled that the previous moratorium had to expire by July 31, and it did.  This is a completely new moratorium.  Is this new moratorium sufficiently different to pass constitutional muster?  Well, we have a process in place to determine that: the court system.

Unless, perhaps, you are claiming that you believe SCOTUS has ruled that the executive branch no longer has the authority to declare any sort of moratorium on anything ever?  If that's your belief, then sure, this would violate that "ruling."  However, that interpretation would itself need to go through the court system.

From a legal standpoint absolutely nothing changed from Sunday to Tuesday.

So the majority of constitutional scholars told him that it was unconstitutional and he still went forward. That's reckless and creates a constitutional crisis. Kavanaugh was specific when he said that congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31.

That's specifically why the CDC director said, they don't have legal authority for a new moratorium. Not just they don't have authority for an extension. Read it again, and I quote. "Don't have legal authority for a new moratorium". 

"Different in form and structure" means NEW. Hence the CDC and the Biden Administration have admitted that they don't have the authority to implement a new moratorium without legislation and that it is most likely unconstitutional.


Stop being a child. I'm specifically talking about the "eviction moratorium" that a SC judge said was beyond the authority of the CDC or Administration without congressional legislation.

What other court are you going to go to? Kavanaugh is on the highest court in the country. Especially when the Biden administration told CNN: "We spent a lot of time looking at it. The Supreme Court ruling is very clear."

When something is very clear, it doesn't need interpretation. Especially when you also admit that it's "not likely to pass constitutional muster." In other words, "this is more than likely unconstitutional".

Time to impeach Biden, tit for tat....

You're not even remotely qualified to make that assessment, as you have no idea what was changed between what they were thinking about doing on Monday and what they actually did on Tuesday.  But let me guess: your answer is "nothing"?

The CDC director is not the Supreme Court of the United States, and is not in a position to authoritatively state what legal authority they do and do not have.

I do find it rich that you guys like to hopscotch between "the CDC director's word is law" and "the CDC is clueless and has no idea what they are doing."

That's what they said on Monday, before they figured out a way to do it.
On Tuesday, after they figured out a way to do it, they changed their tune.
This is how things work in a universe with linear time.

SCOTUS made no ruling whatsoever on a NEW eviction moratorium, only on an extension of the previously existing one.

Did they say that on Tuesday, or before Tuesday?

Is it your position that issuing a moratorium is within the authority of the CDC and/or Administration and constitutional? Simple question, yes or no.

Yes, and that position was confirmed by SCOTUS in June when they upheld the CDC's extension of the moratorium; an extension that itself had no congressional action.  So clearly, SCOTUS believes that the CDC (and, by extension, the executive branch) has some power when it comes to moratoriums.

Now, Kavanaugh did say that in the specific case of the expiring moratorium, FURTHER extension would require congressional action.  However, SCOTUS offered no opinion on whether the executive branch may issue further moratoriums at some point in the future.  But apparently, you think it is already settled law that the executive branch may no longer issue any new moratoriums, and all moratoriums must come from Congress...?  Hard to tell exactly what you are arguing outside of "Impeach Joe Biden!"

No, you're wrong and just don't get it. Can you read? I bolded the relevant part below.

So no, SCOTUS didn't believe that the CDC or the Administration had power to issue the moratorium. They specifically said they didn't have the authority. And further went on to clarify that they congressional authorization (via new legislation).

Now please explain, if the CDC didn't have the authority to issue the last moratorium. How do they have the authority to issue another moratorium. Calling it NEW or TARGETED doesn't somehow magically grant them authority that the SCOTUS said that never existed in the first place.   

It's a very nice bolded line, but that wasn't the question before the supreme court. This wasn't a trial to see if the CDC had authority or not, the question was whether the SCOTUS would override a lower court's stay on an injunction. The answer was no.

It would be like me asking you if you agreed with me that the best color is Green. and you answering with "I don't really agree with the color green, but I really like the smell of cookies, so we're cool for now."

pondwater, given that you are citing from a ruling that ultimately upheld the CDC's extension as lawful, I humbly suggest that maybe your selected snippet of the ruling does not accurately convey the sum of the court's opinion on this matter.

That's nonsense. The CDC's authority is directly related to whether the moratorium should have been issued to begin with. Meaning they are directly related with each other. Cookies and green have nothing to do with each other.

I would suggest that in a 5-4 ruling with the deciding vote making the statement that "the CDC exceeded its existing authority" that the "snippet" accurately conveys the opinion of a majority of the court, Kavanaugh plus the 4 minority votes. Also, might I point out that Kavanaugh only voted the way he did because the moratorium was already set to expire.


There's no disputing that Kavanaugh clearly said that the CDC didn't have the authority to issue a moratorium. Just so I'm clear, are both of you guys arguing that Kavanaugh doesn't have the authority to make that determination?

No, I'm saying that he gave his opinion about the general topic without a trial and the specific ruling was in favor of the CDC continuing to enforce the moratorium.  - FACT
If the question comes up to the SCOTUS again I agree they probably will rule that the CDC doesn't have the power to add a new moratorium - OPINION
But they haven't RULED that way YET. - FACT

pondwater, the argument that you are making is that Kavanaugh declared the moratorium "illegal" while upholding its enforcement.

So, honest question: when the Supreme Court rules that a law is "unconstitutional" but nevertheless shall remain in force, what do you believe the actual legal precedent is?  "Do what I say, not what I do" is not a valid legal philosophy; regardless of his written opinion, if Kavanaugh voted to allow the moratorium to remain, his actions necessarily MAKE the moratorium constitutional.

The Supreme Court does not have the ability to uphold a law as it stands while simultaneously declaring that it is unconstitutional.  If SCOTUS upholds the law as written, then BY DEFINITION it is constitutional, regardless of their commentary.

The closest analogy to this is when SCOTUS declared that Bush v. Gore was not to be used as precedent for future rulings.  That's not how our judicial system works.

Again, did the CDC have authority to issue the moratorium? Yes or No? If your answer is yes, you're arguing with 5 SCOTUS justices, Biden, Psaki, and the CDC. Why should anyone believe you over Justice Kavanaugh and the "bulk of constitutional scholars"?

LMFAO, thanks but no thanks. I'll believe what I research over some bullshit propaganda that a self proclaimed "radical" leftist tries to push while engaging in some strange fetish that involves arguing on the internet and never being wrong. I can only imagine your hypocritical calls for another impeachment if this was Trump.

I, personally, think the debate in this thread is boring, because I don't really think the answer matters.

Biden has the right to try something that's gray-area constitutionally.  The courts have the right to strike it down, if so.  Everyone kinda understands that, so us arguing a court decision is kinda missing the point.

The more interesting question is whether or not this is good policy.

The economy is like a beehive.  It's one organism made up of many things.  So, it makes sense in general to ensure that people aren't losing their living situations in large numbers, all at once, for something that is likely temporary.  As a concept, I'm on board.  It's not good for us as a whole to have families and kids literally on the street.  It's not like "normal" unemployment, because there's a lot of it all at once and jobs in certain sectors might not be there.

On the flip-side, we may be seeing changes in how some of these job markets work and I don't think we can indefinitely allow people to live somewhere that can't pay for it.

I think the play here by the Biden administration is that they don't really care if it turns out to have lasting legal standing or not, but while it's being decided by the courts, more assistance will arrive, which will allow some people to catch up, make some payments, and it will be better for both the renter and the landlord.  ...whether that will work or not, I can't really say.

If we're talking about policy in the general term. I have a randomly radical one to share.

I would like to see single family homes, or townhomes that aren't your primary residence have their property taxes increased by a factor of 10.

I think single family homes as investments for rentals are morally wrong. Shelter unfortunately isn't something people can live without. Much like water or electricity. Why do we allow private individuals to mandate rental costs without any regulations. It would be like allowing people to buy all the water in lake Okeechobee and then having to pay private people for water. Or an electrical company like FPL, except one that is unregulated by the state.

Now what's happening is that venture capital firms are buying up all the single family homes they can through debt financing and driving house prices nuts. A regular first time buyer can't compete with Blackrock who's paying 20% above market, with no inspection, no conditions, and all cash offers. They're trying to corner the rental market and turn as many people as possible into renters.

It was a good stopgap when initially implemented.The government turning private property into public housing isn't going to workout in the long run. Ironically, it expires just in time to evict people for the holidays. Merry Christmas children. Sincerely, the Democrats.

More interestingly, there are two legal questions raised by this new eviction moratorium:

(1) Is the Government liable for punitive damages for deliberately adopting a rule that it knows is unconstitutional?

(2) Is CDC Director Walensky personally liable for the damages incurred by landlords as a result of this order, or is she protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity?

 

Constitutionally, the federal government can't impose property taxes,  a “direct tax” must be apportioned among the states by population. You would need a constitutional amendment, the 13th amendment only authorized an "Income Tax". Which is why the individual states impose property taxes.

You are in a very microscopic minority with that opinion.

Because the United States was founded as "We the People", not the government regulates everything. The government was created and tasked to provide very specific things. Free and discounted housing wasn't one of them and that's a good thing.

It's interesting you say that. Because when Biden burns all the individual private investors through government overreach and they realize that their investments are losing their positive cash flow. They're going to dump the properties and guess who's going to outbid everyone and scoop them up? The venture capital firms. Sounds like a liberal self fulfilling prophecy.

Doesn't have to be federal, states or counties could implement this.


yep, I understand that


"We the people" is the government, It's a synonym. And government can be about whatever we want it to be about. Government was never tasked with fighting fires, or policing. And now it does. Stuff evolves.  Besides, government is already in the free and discounted housing game and this isn't section 8 housing I'm referring to.


Biden is on the side of the corporations and whomever bribes the democrats the most. If you haven't figured out I'm not #TeamBiden yet I don't know what to tell you.  The choices this past election were a center-right democrat and a far-right republican, there was no left of center option. Biden was just least bad. Or as someone more eloquent than I put it, "the difference between eating a bowl of shit or eating half a bowl of shit."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhoT67i5L8Q   How is this fair to the landlords?  How are they going to feed their families?   

With the recent SC ruling, this post of yours didn't age well. It's okay lil buddy, you don't have to say anything.

the post aged perfectly fine .. it was 100% correct and his prediction was 100% correct.

^^^^No, the SCOTUS said that it was an unlawful action. So not only was he wrong, by default that makes you are wrong for defending him and his incorrect nonsense.

I said that SCOTUS would have to rule on whether this new, different moratorium was permitted.  They did, and said it was not.

So now the law has been clarified: the original eviction moratorium which SCOTUS upheld as lawful and allowed to remain in effect can neither be extended, nor replaced with a different eviction moratorium that has altered criteria.  I said SCOTUS would need to rule on the latter, and they did.

You should be aware that the SCOTUS ruling from June does still count as precedent.  So if President AOC decides to implement an eviction moratorium in response to the 2045 global outbreak of airborne chlamydia, her administration's lawyers will cite the June 2021 ruling as precedent for this authority.

SCOTUS doesn't get to make rulings that don't count, even when they contradict each other.

None of your spin or hogwash nonsense is relevant. It's really a simple black or white question. Did the CDC/Administration have authority to extend or issue a new moratorium after the last ruling in June? Regardless of what anyone on this site says, the SCOTUS has said clearly answered that question. Their answer was that they don't have authority and that their action was unlawful.


It's sad watching grown ass adults scramble around and argue like children because they can't admit they're wrong. You're wrong because the SCOTUS says you're wrong. Thanks for playing, good day.

I just think you have a very poor understanding of cause and effect.


Plainly said, the answer is no-one knew until the supreme court ruled on it.  So in absence of that ruling, the answer was yes until there was a ruling.

The supreme court answered the question NOW, they didn't travel back in time to pre-answer a question that wasn't asked then.

That's funny because I knew, half the media knew, the bulk constitutional scholars knew, Biden, Psaki, and the head of the CDC knew. They even stated as much before they went forward with their unlawful actions. That's the whole point of this thread, I said that the CDC/Administration didn't have authority and Spider said they did. That by definition made him wrong. Is that the new argument you guys are going to use when you're obviously wrong? I wasn't wrong because no one actually knew the answer beforehand. LMFAO, more twisted logic

They weren't unlawful until they were.

If you disagree, then tell me what law, or ruling at least they were going against?

Besides you're claiming that Biden ignored a supreme court ruling (which didn't exist) and went with a new moratorium anyways. So let me ask you, what would be the difference if they ignored this ruling (which does exist) and did a moratorium anyways?

You're claiming there's no difference, so what's the difference if there isn't one?

No, I'm claiming that Biden himself said that it wouldn't pass constitutional muster. I'm claiming that according to Biden the bulk of constitutional scholars said that they didn't have authority. I'm claiming that Psaki and the head of the CDC conceded that they didn't have the authority. I'm claiming that a sitting Supreme Court Justice said that they didn't have authority. Those are all facts. Where did all these very different people get the information to come to that conclusion?

We're here on this website constantly having debates about many different issues. In most cases someone is right and someone is wrong. Just because the ruling was a few days ago doesn't mean that the CDC at some point had authority. Since no laws were changed to ever give them authority, they never had the authority to begin with. Either something is legal or not. It doesn't matter when it makes it through the courts.

If you predict that the Dolphins will beat the Bills. And I claim that the Bills will win. Someone will be right and someone will be wrong. If the Bill win you can't claim that you weren't wrong because the game wasn't played yet and no one knew.

I said that they didn't have authority and agreed with the consensus of the CDC, Biden Administration, Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, and the bulk of constitutional scholars. You and Spider said that they did have authority with no citations of anything. Both of you were wrong. First you tried to argue that it was a "New moratorium" then you changed your stance an said that a sitting Supreme Court Justice opinion doesn't matter. Since the recent ruling confirmed what Kavanaugh had already stated back in June, both of you were wrong.

Just to flip the script for you. Did you claim that Zimmerman was guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin before the court ruled on the outcome? Were you right or wrong?

Not to be short about this .. but so what? .. so what if everyone and their cousin thought it would be struck down by the court?  It's one thing to have the majority of people think something is going to happen vs. something actually happening.

One justice thinking he'd rule one way on an unasked question doesn't mean people don't have the right to ask that question.

As for your other questions:

1 - The CDC had authority for the moratorium, which is why the supreme court let it stand. Or maybe you're just forgetting that actually was decided.
2 - We cited the supreme court decision that said the moratorium wasn't unconstitutional until they just recently said it was.
3 - Zimmerman was found not guilty. But he sure as shit was responsible and did murder trayvon martin. Unless you think space aliens shot travon martin with a replicated duplicate of zimmerman's gun using his duplicated hand. By the way. Do you think OJ was innocent as well?

I'm pretty sure we expected this to get shot down.  But they did it to buy time.  I think shutting it down was probably the right call by the courts.  ...what's the issue?

I saw a guy on Tik tok calling out his residents who haven't paid a dime in almost a year. He stated he has offered both the guy and his wife jobs but they refused and are accepting unemployment benefits. He was filming this in front of the guy and calling him out.

If they're getting unemployment, they should be paying rent.   This moratorium should've never been put into place except for special circumstances like spouses of deployed military personnel.

Maybe instead of a moratorium, the government should have given people the option of receiving unemployment or government rent vouchers that the landlords could redeem to cover the rent. Then if the recipient choose the option of receiving the unemployment money and didn't pay the rent they get their scamming ass booted out on the street.

Very good idea

Rent sucks.

I get that it's a necessary evil, but it's basically just another way that poor people get fucked.  Wealthy people (land owners) have enough to buy multiple places, then they get a poor person to pay the bill for them while they build equity on someone else's dime.

We really need to move away from that model and help families get into property ownership so communities are better themselves.

My daughter makes enough to purchase a house but she loves living in an upscale apt. Most people who can afford rent can afford to purchase albeit maybe not as nice. It's usually a matter of choice or in some circumstances poor choices that lead people to renting vs owning.

Rent is basically the same as a mortgage payment. You're going to pay a monthly payment either way. It they don't rent the property, they'll have to buy the property and give the owner a profit, give the bank a profit, and pay for maintenance for the next 30 years.

It's no different than the sandwich you bought for lunch. Someone buys a commodity and then someone else who wants it, pays for it at an agreed upon price. No one forces anyone to do anything. It's the exact same capitalism that you guys prop up and support in your many posts about consequences for shitty world views and free speech that hurts your feelings. Gotta take the good with the bad, can't have it both ways.