CDC extending eviction ban (1 Viewer)

[stlrams]

This is a clear example of our democracy being dismantled.  The cdc has no authority here to disregard legal contracts without congress passing law.  Even the president agreed with this saying it would take several months for Supreme Court to overturn.  Personal story, my good friend owns 2 single family houses.  One family stop paying rent 13 months ago and moved out suddenly but destroyed the property.  Per the rental assistance program, tenant must be still be residing to qualify.  He estimates that between damages and lost rent that he is out about $45,000. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/03/cdc-will-extend-the-federal-eviction-moratorium-through-oct-3.html

 

[Max Power]

The delta surge sure hit at the right time. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

A big question is why did this administration wait until the last millisecond to even start the process on this anyway?  

 

[Zow]

This is an incredibly difficult issue that I can see both sides to. The timing of the delta variant is really unfortunate. 

 

[stlrams]

A big question is why did this administration wait until the last millisecond to even start the process on this anyway?  

Guessing delta variant change things and or they didn’t want to afford the courts any time to overturn.

 

[Biff84]

They need to find a solution for this. Write a check to the landlords for a portion of the missed rent and a tax break on the rest conditioned that they don’t evict anyone who meets normal requirements going forward. Exception for those who made no effort to try and pay some rent, they can be evicted.

At the very least they should forgo the normal credit reporting that happens. Evict them with a clean slate.

Either way we can’t keep kicking this can down the road, people can find work now.

 

[GoBirds]

This is a clear example of our democracy being dismantled.  The cdc has no authority here to disregard legal contracts without congress passing law.  Even the president agreed with this saying it would take several months for Supreme Court to overturn.  Personal story, my good friend owns 2 single family houses.  One family stop paying rent 13 months ago and moved out suddenly but destroyed the property.  Per the rental assistance program, tenant must be still be residing to qualify.  He estimates that between damages and lost rent that he is out about $45,000. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/03/cdc-will-extend-the-federal-eviction-moratorium-through-oct-3.html

Man sorry to hear about your friend. It’s a complete joke, are they also going to help landlords pay their mortgages? Complete joke. 

 

[stlrams]

Man sorry to hear about your friend. It’s a complete joke, are they also going to help landlords pay their mortgages? Complete joke. 

No help unless you qualify.   Anyone that owns property is screwed. 

 

[Sand]

This tells you all you need to know.  The rule of law means #### to the administration.

 

[GoBirds]

No help unless you qualify.   Anyone that owns property is screwed. 

Selective bailouts, government picks who survives. It’s brutal. 

 

[GoBirds]

This tells you all you need to know.  The rule of law means #### to the administration.

That clip is pretty disturbing, the Lefts position on rule of law sure has conveniently changed. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This is a clear example of our democracy being dismantled.  The cdc has no authority here to disregard legal contracts without congress passing law.

I think the eviction ban is bad policy, but reasonable minds can differ about that.

What I don't think reasonable minds can differ about is whether it's constitutional (when done by the federal executive branch).

I generally like Biden precisely because of his apparent respect for democratic institutions and the rule of law.

But this is a rather troubling move by him. He's knowingly acting unconstitutionality. I guess all presidents do that sometimes (except for William Howard Taft), but it's particularly disappointing from Biden because upholding constitutional norms was supposed to be one of his better qualities.

 

[stlrams]

I think the eviction ban is bad policy, but reasonable minds can differ about that.

What I don't think reasonable minds can differ about is whether it's constitutional (when done by the federal executive branch).

I generally like Biden precisely because of his apparent respect for democratic institutions and the rule of law.

But this is a rather troubling move by him. He's knowingly acting unconditionally. I guess all presidents do that (except for William Howard Taft), but it's particularly disappointing from Biden because upholding constitutional norms was supposed to be one of his better attributes.

Welcome to Cuba, North Korea  China etc unless he plans to make all landlords whole which we have heard nothing so far.  What’s troubling is he is doing this knowing it’s illegal and screws property owners.  Silence from msm which we should trust for whatever reason...

 

[Sand]

Welcome to Cuba, North Korea  China etc unless he plans to make all landlords whole which we have heard nothing so far.  What’s troubling is he is doing this knowing it’s illegal and screws property owners.  Silence from msm which we should trust for whatever reason...

There is a lawsuit out there right now alleging that these actions violate the takings clause (which I believe it does).  If that's true it's undoubtedly true that some cases will have violated the 3rd amendment.  

On the MSM I will plug CBS radio for asking the question I linked above.  Good to see.

 

[stlrams]

There is a lawsuit out there right now alleging that these actions violate the takings clause (which I believe it does).  If that's true it's undoubtedly true that some cases will have violated the 3rd amendment.  

On the MSM I will plug CBS radio for asking the question I linked above.  Good to see.

Heres the problem, the administration knowingly accepts this will get overturn but realizes it will take months because they will fight it while screwing landlords. One apartment owner here in ct is complaining that he is issuing parking passes for new vehicles for tenants that haven’t paid rent since pandemic.. a lot of tenants have the money but using pandemic as an excuse,

 

[Herb]

There are several reports and op-eds circulating the MSM talking about this, so we can leave that bit out of the discussion for now. IDK or care what TV networks are saying or not saying, they have proven they are not worth listening to.

I see this from both sides, and am really happy that I don't have any rental properties,  which is something I've considered getting into over the years. Owners and tenants all have very legitimate problems that need to dealt with.

That said, WT flying F is going on? The CDC has about as much authority to do this as I do. And Biden going along with it is... I don't even know a single useful term for it. This is the sort of crap I voted against the last president for pulling. C'mon, Joe! Get your #### together! 

 

[woodstock]

There is a lawsuit out there right now alleging that these actions violate the takings clause (which I believe it does).  If that's true it's undoubtedly true that some cases will have violated the 3rd amendment.  

On the MSM I will plug CBS radio for asking the question I linked above.  Good to see.

Quartering? 

You are looking for the 5th Amendment. 

That a federal executive agency, especially the CDC, is getting into the eviction process is way, way, way out of Constitutional bounds and every layperson knows it. This is a joke and Biden should be completely egged for this. 

 

[Sand]

Quartering? 

You are looking for the 5th Amendment. 

Takings clause is the 5th.  If the govt. violated that clause you can be sure there are servicemen that were forced to be housed because the landlords were denied eviction.  That would violate the 3rd.

 

[woodstock]

Takings clause is the 5th.  If the govt. violated that clause you can be sure there are servicemen that were forced to be housed because the landlords were denied eviction.  That would violate the 3rd.

Ah, abstraction. Not sure I follow, but that's okay. 

 

[Maggot Brain]

I'm seeing a lot of discussion about constitutionality, legality, landlord's interest, etc.  How about the 40 million or so people legitimately screwed by states that have neglected distributing the money put in the stimulus package in the first place?. 

  I honestly  believe Biden KNOWS it's not going to stand a chance with SCOTUS, but is just buying time until a better solution can be found.  And yeah, he and Congress waited too long to address this.  Classic passing the buck. 

 

[Navin Johnson]

I think the eviction ban is bad policy, but reasonable minds can differ about that.

What I don't think reasonable minds can differ about is whether it's constitutional (when done by the federal executive branch).

I generally like Biden precisely because of his apparent respect for democratic institutions and the rule of law.

But this is a rather troubling move by him. He's knowingly acting unconstitutionality. I guess all presidents do that sometimes (except for William Howard Taft), but it's particularly disappointing from Biden because upholding constitutional norms was supposed to be one of his better qualities.

You're talking about the guy who takes credit for writing the Patriot Act, right?

 

[Maggot Brain]

Evictions are traumatizing and follow you for years.  Here's some perspective....sorry gents but this is sensitive issue and very personal. 

 

[TwinTurbo]

This is an incredibly difficult issue that I can see both sides to. The timing of the delta variant is really unfortunate. 

Same. I can see both sides. I also don't think most people understand how the wave of evictions and foreclosures is going to impact the economy overall. There are reportedly over 11M people behind on rent and mortgage payments. What happens to the housing market when all that starts to work its way through the system over the coming months?

There's no question that some unscrupulous landlords would have attempted to start eviction proceedings against tenants without any empathy early into the pandemic in the absence of this policy. However, this also can't continue indefinitely. 

 

[GordonGekko]

This is a clear example of our democracy being dismantled.  The cdc has no authority here to disregard legal contracts without congress passing law.  Even the president agreed with this saying it would take several months for Supreme Court to overturn.  Personal story, my good friend owns 2 single family houses.  One family stop paying rent 13 months ago and moved out suddenly but destroyed the property.  Per the rental assistance program, tenant must be still be residing to qualify.  He estimates that between damages and lost rent that he is out about $45,000. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/03/cdc-will-extend-the-federal-eviction-moratorium-through-oct-3.html

DNC HQ and the DNC Super Delegates will keep trying to push this until past the 2022 election cycle, where the HOR is projected to flip Red. No one in the DNC wants Nikki Haley to have a Super Majority during her first term in POTUS, or possibly even into her 2nd term if she can hold it. Haley is an establishment Republican and with a Super Majority will go scorched Earth on anything resembling Pro China or identity politics.

It's also part of "The Great Reset"   Drive Mom and Pop landlords out of the game and force them to sell for pennies on the dollar. Who will buy? Cronies linked to leftist power brokers. And some on the right side of the aisle as well. Greed is greed.

Big Blue Cities are the keys to holding states and their natural electoral votes. The lockdowns in Big Blue Cities plus the rioting and looting have decimated many small business owners, many of them minorities. Some of them will end up homeless. Some of those will have children. Children on the street that are cold and starving because their family business, their only lifeline to earn, was burned and looted out. That's media optics no one is going to survive politically.  The RNC has been progressively picking off stalwarts one by one. Newsom, Cuomo, Whitmer, Lightfoot and it won't end anytime soon.  It takes time to groom a functional political candidate for your party, these type of losses en masse is a staggering blow to the DNC. This impacts their fundraising across the board and it opens up a pathway for Progressives to take seats from them.

What no one else is talking about is the massive police overtime during the 2020 riots killed the city budgets in Blue strongholds. This is why Pelosi pushed for so much stimulus to states holding Big Blue Cities. But on the other side of it, lots of state and city employees were laid off or furloughed because of the budget crunch. Those people aren't going to magically start voting Democrat watching the entire DNC celebrate a new federal holiday for themselves.

AOC said it best right after the election in 2020, if you push for all these new voters and they vote for you and you make promises and don't deliver, they aren't going to vote for you ever again.

Political power in the United States is cyclical. At some point, a Republican was going to take POTUS again and at some point, the GOP would have a Super Majority again. This smoke and mirrors game the DNC is playing only holds as long as they hold POTUS. They can only print money wildly and try to buy votes for so long.

The issue no one wants to discuss is what happens if Nikki Haley decides to turn the current overwhelming purity tests in the opposite direction.  I think traditional liberals will survive that but those of you on the woke cancel culture radical left might have to run the gauntlet.  All she needs to do is make it clear that war with China is inevitable and that nationalism is paramount. Not the white nationalism that many on the left are screaming about all the time in fits of identity politics rage. Does anyone here want to be in Jack Dorsey's shoes if Haley goes on the warpath?

America's grandchildren are being sentenced to financial slavery and inevitable death but the biggest arguments of the day are going to be about if a boy can wear a dress and play on a girl's soccer team or the hypocrisy of the true meaning of "My Body, My Choice" or which people need to lose their careers and ability to earn a living for something they said 30 years ago.

What a sad pathetic disgusting way to watch actual freedom die.

 

[Max Power]

Hearing the clip of Biden saying he knows this is unconstitutional is pretty bad. 

So much for that Oath of Office. 

 

[Herb]

Hearing the clip of Biden saying he knows this is unconstitutional is pretty bad. 

So much for that Oath of Office. 

Agreed. I prefer it to the last guy, who had no qualms about violating the constitution to suit his own personal ends, but this is a terrible look. I suppose I should take solace that it seems like Biden is at least doing it for the right reasons.  But that's cold comfort.

 

[Maggot Brain]

Politifact's analysis

Five justices — the three more liberal justices, plus Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh — supported keeping the moratorium in place. However, Kavanaugh emphasized in his appended statement that he agreed to continuing the moratorium only because it was about to end. As a matter of law, Kavanaugh wrote, he thought extending the moratorium further was unconstitutional.

"In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31," Kavanaugh wrote.

While Kavanaugh’s statement did not carry the same weight as a ruling signed by a majority of justices, legal experts said it was a clear sign of where the court stood.

"Most federal agencies would be reluctant to ignore or proceed in the face of such an indication," Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, told us.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I'm seeing a lot of discussion about constitutionality, legality, landlord's interest, etc.  How about the 40 million or so people legitimately screwed by states that have neglected distributing the money put in the stimulus package in the first place?. 

  I honestly  believe Biden KNOWS it's not going to stand a chance with SCOTUS, but is just buying time until a better solution can be found.  And yeah, he and Congress waited too long to address this.  Classic passing the buck. 

Also a great question.  

 

[Sand]

Also a great question.  

No doubt - the government shut industries down knowing this was a consequence.  Things like this should have been first on the list.

 

[Max Power]

Agreed. I prefer it to the last guy, who had no qualms about violating the constitution to suit his own personal ends, but this is a terrible look. I suppose I should take solace that it seems like Biden is at least doing it for the right reasons.  But that's cold comfort.

Biden does violate his oath of office better, so I guess this is an improvement. Dems could have picked anyone and you all chose this guy.  In record breaking fashion too. 

 

[Navin Johnson]

Biden does violate his oath of office better, so I guess this is an improvement. Dems could have picked anyone and you all chose this guy.  In record breaking fashion too. 

Speaks volumes about the alternative. 

 

[Sand]

Same. I can see both sides. I also don't think most people understand how the wave of evictions and foreclosures is going to impact the economy overall.

Well, let's talk about that.  The effects of the current "screw the landlord" policy are pretty clear.  We have a general housing shortage.  When this does clear landlords will take units off the market and sell them.  Rents will go up (they already are).  Up front money will be increased.  The overall situation for renters will get much worse thanks to what we've been doing.  The "rent is too damn high" party will make a resurgence.

Screw the landlord was the easiest direction to go - after all, they're evil, right?  What we're finding, though, are those small landlords with one or two units are getting decimated.  They're citizens, as well, and the current political leadership has chosen to pick winners and losers there.  That's abhorrent.  And unconstitutional.  And the dislocations of undue government interference will cause huge ripples for years to come.  Not good ones, either.

The rental assistance monies have come too late and weren't prioritized anywhere where they needed to be.  That doesn't, however, absolve the government for unconstitutionally abrogating contract law.

 

[Sand]

Speaks volumes about the alternative. 

The blue team was always going to win that election.  So the alternatives were folks like Kamala (puke), Bernie, Buttigieg, etc.  I don't know if there was a better choice, to be honest.

 

[Herb]

Biden does violate his oath of office better, so I guess this is an improvement. Dems could have picked anyone and you all chose this guy.  In record breaking fashion too. 

Touche. 

 

[Navin Johnson]

The blue team was always going to win that election.  So the alternatives were folks like Kamala (puke), Bernie, Buttigieg, etc.  I don't know if there was a better choice, to be honest.

I am assuming he is talking about the general with the record breaking fashion qualifier.  Biden performed poorly until the choreographed exit of the other moderate candidates.  There was nothing record breaking about his selection other than how poorly he did in the early primaries.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Straight up admitting to violating the Constitution knowingly is grounds for impeachment IMO. Completely unacceptable. We can not allow our Presidents to operate this way, no matter how sympathetic we are to the end result.

 

[woodstock]

The blue team was always going to win that election.  So the alternatives were folks like Kamala (puke), Bernie, Buttigieg, etc.  I don't know if there was a better choice, to be honest.

I gently disagree. Harris, Bernie and Buttigieg would have lost to Trump. We might see what'll happen next time. 

 

[woodstock]

DNC HQ and the DNC Super Delegates will keep trying to push this until past the 2022 election cycle, where the HOR is projected to flip Red. No one in the DNC wants Nikki Haley to have a Super Majority during her first term in POTUS, or possibly even into her 2nd term if she can hold it. Haley is an establishment Republican and with a Super Majority will go scorched Earth on anything resembling Pro China or identity politics.

It's also part of "The Great Reset"   Drive Mom and Pop landlords out of the game and force them to sell for pennies on the dollar. Who will buy? Cronies linked to leftist power brokers. And some on the right side of the aisle as well. Greed is greed.

Big Blue Cities are the keys to holding states and their natural electoral votes. The lockdowns in Big Blue Cities plus the rioting and looting have decimated many small business owners, many of them minorities. Some of them will end up homeless. Some of those will have children. Children on the street that are cold and starving because their family business, their only lifeline to earn, was burned and looted out. That's media optics no one is going to survive politically.  The RNC has been progressively picking off stalwarts one by one. Newsom, Cuomo, Whitmer, Lightfoot and it won't end anytime soon.  It takes time to groom a functional political candidate for your party, these type of losses en masse is a staggering blow to the DNC. This impacts their fundraising across the board and it opens up a pathway for Progressives to take seats from them.

What no one else is talking about is the massive police overtime during the 2020 riots killed the city budgets in Blue strongholds. This is why Pelosi pushed for so much stimulus to states holding Big Blue Cities. But on the other side of it, lots of state and city employees were laid off or furloughed because of the budget crunch. Those people aren't going to magically start voting Democrat watching the entire DNC celebrate a new federal holiday for themselves.

AOC said it best right after the election in 2020, if you push for all these new voters and they vote for you and you make promises and don't deliver, they aren't going to vote for you ever again.

Political power in the United States is cyclical. At some point, a Republican was going to take POTUS again and at some point, the GOP would have a Super Majority again. This smoke and mirrors game the DNC is playing only holds as long as they hold POTUS. They can only print money wildly and try to buy votes for so long.

The issue no one wants to discuss is what happens if Nikki Haley decides to turn the current overwhelming purity tests in the opposite direction.  I think traditional liberals will survive that but those of you on the woke cancel culture radical left might have to run the gauntlet.  All she needs to do is make it clear that war with China is inevitable and that nationalism is paramount. Not the white nationalism that many on the left are screaming about all the time in fits of identity politics rage. Does anyone here want to be in Jack Dorsey's shoes if Haley goes on the warpath?

America's grandchildren are being sentenced to financial slavery and inevitable death but the biggest arguments of the day are going to be about if a boy can wear a dress and play on a girl's soccer team or the hypocrisy of the true meaning of "My Body, My Choice" or which people need to lose their careers and ability to earn a living for something they said 30 years ago.

What a sad pathetic disgusting way to watch actual freedom die.

I disagree with the homeless hyperbole but the broader questions, giving you the benefit of the doubt a lot, are interesting. We're printing so much money that our totalitarian foreign adversary is buying up our debts and deficits and we're motivated by and worried about transgender issues in the public realm. It's a sad ####### indictment about the seriousness and moral fortitude of our country, which is ravaged by partisan ideologies on both sides, going to ####. 

 

[woodstock]

Straight up admitting to violating the Constitution knowingly is grounds for impeachment IMO. Completely unacceptable. We can not allow our Presidents to operate this way, no matter how sympathetic we are to the end result.

Check my posts earlier in the thread to ascertain my serious disagreement with Biden on this, but with due respect, I don't think he's doing that. If Kavanaugh only indicated in dicta that's how he'd vote, then Biden isn't knowingly doing transgressing the Supreme Court or its decision. He's not violating separation of powers constructs, anyway. That he's not politically savvy enough to shut up about likely decisions is a gaffe, and not an impeachable one. The Supreme Court does not give advisory opinions, it only rules on "cases and controversies" before it. There has been no case or controversy before other than an off-script (dicta) musing by one judge. 

Is that judge the swing? Yes. Should Biden politically know he's being likely unconstitutional? Yes. Should he say so? No. Should he do so? No. But it's not a violation of the Constitution at all, really, because the Supreme Court hasn't officially decided the case yet. 

That's a big thing. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The idea that evictions will increase homelessness seems wrong to me.

Landlords generally don't evict people with the intention of keeping those units unoccupied. They'll evict people only if they think they'll find someone else to move in and pay rent. So the total amount of housing (and therefore homelessness) shouldn't be affected, in the short term, by allowing or prohibiting evictions. (In the long term, prohibiting evictions will increase homelessness because it makes building and owning rental properties less worthwhile.)

But I hate to even argue the policy merits in this context because even if prohibiting evictions would lead to good short-term results, doing it unlawfully (unconstitutionally) almost certainly causes net harm by eroding democratic norms and the rule of law.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

 Personal story, my good friend owns 2 single family houses.  One family stop paying rent 13 months ago and moved out suddenly but destroyed the property.  Per the rental assistance program, tenant must be still be residing to qualify.  He estimates that between damages and lost rent that he is out about $45,000.

I get how not paying rent while occupying's the property would be impacted by the moratorium, but I don't get what that would have to do with the property damage?  Is there some ban on recouping those loses also?   

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

I disagree with the homeless hyperbole but the broader questions, giving you the benefit of the doubt a lot, are interesting. We're printing so much money that our totalitarian foreign adversary is buying up our debts and deficits and we're motivated by and worried about transgender issues in the public realm. It's a sad ####### indictment about the seriousness and moral fortitude of our country, which is ravaged by partisan ideologies on both sides, going to ####. 

The collective "we" needs to get our act together. The culture war issues are meant to divide the country and our foreign adversaries are the ones who benefit. "The lockdowns in the Big Blue Cities" is exactly the type of divisive rhetoric they're hoping for. We need to stop attacking one another and put country first over "my team is better". 

 

[woodstock]

The collective "we" needs to get our act together. The culture war issues are meant to divide the country and our foreign adversaries are the ones who benefit. "The lockdowns in the Big Blue Cities" is exactly the type of divisive rhetoric they're hoping for. We need to stop attacking one another and put country first over "my team is better". 

We definitely need to put our country before teams. I agree. But let's not forget that one side is asking for brand new rights never seen before and a reevaluation of the public sphere and civil rights law. The other side wants the old way to stay static. The question becomes a difficult one, then. Where do we invest our political energies? Can we really ignore these issues? It takes a better man than me to decide.

My opinion is that any sweeping changes ought be tabled and our energies expended on different things until we can concentrate on things like China owning our freaking country's debt and deficits. 

 

[Zow]

Straight up admitting to violating the Constitution knowingly is grounds for impeachment IMO. Completely unacceptable. We can not allow our Presidents to operate this way, no matter how sympathetic we are to the end result.

I don't interpret it that way. I view it at Biden passively allowing whatever we are calling what the CDC did to stand until it's challenged. From a legal perspective, while I'm not  fan, I do find it far less morally repugnant and, frankly, it's not all that uncommon. 

 

[Zow]

The blue team was always going to win that election.  So the alternatives were folks like Kamala (puke), Bernie, Buttigieg, etc.  I don't know if there was a better choice, to be honest.

I never understand the dislike for Buttigieg. He didn't seem too far left and was certainly likeable. 

 

[woodstock]

The idea that evictions will increase homelessness seems wrong to me.

Landlords generally don't evict people with the intention of keeping those units unoccupied. They'll evict people only if they think they'll find someone else to move in and pay rent. So the total amount of housing (and therefore homelessness) shouldn't be affected, in the short term, by allowing or prohibiting evictions. (In the long term, prohibiting evictions will increase homelessness because it makes building and owning rental properties less worthwhile.)

But I hate to even argue the policy merits in this context because even if prohibiting evictions would lead to good short-term results, doing it unlawfully (unconstitutionally) almost certainly causes net harm by eroding democratic norms and the rule of law.

Those units might be rented out by otherwise home buyers who are having a tough time buying a house in this ridiculous market. Houses are going for way over list price these days, and offers are pouring into the owners that are selling. It's a tough market to buy a house. Those getting evicted will generally have lousy credit and won't make great rental candidates anywhere. I can easily see those two factors leading to homelessness. 

I fully agree with your second point about constitutionality, though see above: I'm not sure anybody is acting unconstitutionally because the case or controversy isn't settled yet. 

 

[supermike80]

So if I am a landlord(which I am not so pardon my stupidity here) and the general consensus is the CDC does not have this authority and it won;t hold up in court.  What is stopping me from evicting tenants right now? They can sue eventually but they will very likely lose right?  Does this CDC Have any real legal backing?

 

[yak651]

I understand COVID is still very active and recently has spiked back up.  Maybe I'm naïve but are there still areas "closed down" that are preventing people from earning money to pay rent?  IMO this extension isn't needed at this time, if people aren't able to pay rent there is some other underlying issue at hand.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So if I am a landlord(which I am not so pardon my stupidity here) and the general consensus is the CDC does not have this authority and it won;t hold up in court.  What is stopping me from evicting tenants right now? They can sue eventually but they will very likely lose right?  Does this CDC Have any real legal backing?

The tenant doesn't have to sue the landlord: it's the other way around. To do an eviction, the landlord must sue the tenant and win. While the eviction ban may not ultimately hold up in court, fully litigating the constitutional issue is going to take more time and money than most landlords would consider worthwhile.

 

[Max Power]

Should Biden politically know he's being likely unconstitutional? Yes. Should he say so? No. Should he do so? No. But it's not a violation of the Constitution at all, really, because the Supreme Court hasn't officially decided the case yet.

Biden conceded that “the bulk of the constitutional scholars say it’s not likely to pass constitutional muster.”

And this was after he said he was going to look into the legalities of it.  Pretty much everyone said it's not constitutional, but he had at least one scholar say "maybe" so he ran with it.  He knows what he is doing is wrong.

This is not a man doing his best to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.