Moratorium extended

[Spider-Dan]

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!"

[pondwater]

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.

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

I  agree  with  the  District  Court  and  the  applicants  that  the  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium

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.   

[Fau Teixeira]

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."

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[pondwater]

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."

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.

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.

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.

Because the CDC plans to end  the  moratorium  in  only a  few  weeks,  on  July  31,  and  because those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution  of  the congressionally  appropriated  rental assistance funds, I vote at this time to deny the ap-plication to vacate

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?

[Fau Teixeira]

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

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[pondwater]

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.

[Dave Gray]

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.

[Fau Teixeira]

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.

[pondwater]

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.

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?

 

[pondwater]

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.

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.

I think single family homes as investments for rentals are morally wrong.

You are in a very microscopic minority with that opinion.

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.

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.

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'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.

[Fau Teixeira]

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.

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

You are in a very microscopic minority with that opinion.

yep, I understand that

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.

"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.

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.

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."

[dolphins4life]

[pondwater]

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!"

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.