Moratorium extended

[Fau Teixeira]

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

[pondwater]

^^^^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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[pondwater]

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.

our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.

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.

[Fau Teixeira]

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

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?

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.

[pondwater]

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

[Fau Teixeira]

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?

[pondwater]

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?

[Fau Teixeira]

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?

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?

[Dave Gray]

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?

[CF DolFan]

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.

[ArtieChokePhin]

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.

[pondwater]

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.

[ArtieChokePhin]

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

[Dave Gray]

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.