Moratorium extended

[dolphins4life]

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.   

[pondwater]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

[Fau Teixeira]

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.

[pondwater]

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Sunstroke]

If the Biden administration isn't proof that the Democratic party is just about freeloading and laziness, I don't now what is.   

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

[pondwater]

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

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"

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 agency told the administration Monday they did not believe such authority existed.

One administration official told CNN: "We spent a lot of time looking at it. The Supreme Court ruling is very clear."

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.

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

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.

[Dave Gray]

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.

[Tenshot13]

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

[Phishfan]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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"

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.

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:

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.

Who are the relevant legal entities? The SCOTUS is the highest legal entity in the country and they have already ruled on the issue.

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.

[pondwater]

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,

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

let's quote what they said on Tuesday:

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.

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". 

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.[/i]

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.

"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.

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.

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.

However, that interpretation would itself need to go through the court system.

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....

[Spider-Dan]

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

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"?

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".

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."

"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.

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.

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.

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

Especially when the Biden administration told CNN: "We spent a lot of time looking at it. The Supreme Court ruling is very clear."

Did they say that on Tuesday, or before Tuesday?

[pondwater]

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.