CDC extending eviction ban (1 Viewer)

[whoknew]

I would say that during the lock-down period of the pandemic that this policy would have been a "necessary evil", but the last time I used that phrase a bunch of people claimed I was calling them evil for supporting the policy so I'm gun shy.

But that is my answer.  It was the best choice among nothing but bad choices.  It resulted in real harm being shifted by the government onto innocent people.  But it was still for the best.   The policy was a "necessary evil" supported by people who were not being evil. 

As for today I kind of think we need to be getting past this stuff, but it concerns me that we aren't.  What don't I know about the current or projected near future state?

I don't agree with that. The "best choice" would have been for the government to subsidize or pay rent for the folks in need as a result of COVID. That would have spread the burden around to everyone, as opposed to just putting it on landlords.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I don't agree with that. The "best choice" would have been for the government to subsidize or pay rent for the folks in need as a result of COVID. That would have spread the burden around to everyone, as opposed to just putting it on landlords.

My "best choice" was in the context of "politics being the art of the possible".  I have lots of better choices that would have been better such as rolling out a UBI where those CARE checks came monthly rather than just once without the caps, but those wouldn't have been feasible in our political environment.   And while I'd be on your side in disagreeing, I'm guessing those that created the various relief bills would argue that such relief was in the bills in some form or another. 

But point taken.  I don't disagree with you, but was narrowing the menu of choices available that were feasible.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't know it I'm just being way too forgiving, or what. I'm really not sure. But I don't think, at this point, that it's impeachable. Then again, I didn't think the first Trump offense was impeachable and you did, so maybe we have differing standards for the executive. I don't know. 

I don't think legislating or rulemaking that violates the Constitution is generally impeachable. I certainly don't think this CDC business is impeachable.

To be impeachable, I think an action must be corrupt. If Biden were taking a bribe to affect housing policy, or otherwise acting illegally to elevate his own personal interests over the country's, that'd be impeachable. But just acting unconstitutionally in order to promote a policy goal he deems worthwhile unless and until a court tells him not to, I don't think that's remotely impeachable. It's still unconstitutional, though.

 

[woodstock]

But just acting unconstitutionally in order to promote a policy goal he deems worthwhile unless and until a court tells him not to, I don't think that's remotely impeachable. It's still unconstitutional, though.

This might be the difference here. I think up top, I was arguing impeachable offenses by saying it was not unconstitutional. You’re saying it is but not impeachable. I guess I see your point, but it’s a grey area, IMO. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Except that Biden doesn't really believe that any valid interpretation of the Constitution authorizes the CDC to countermand state laws regarding housing policy. He's not interpreting the law the way he believes it should be interpreted. But if he says he is, that's enough to nullify any talk about impeachment.

I stole this quote from this abstract from this 2002 student paper (i.e. not  related to Covid.)

"The federal government possesses broad powers under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act to regulate the entry and spread of communicable diseases into and among the United States."

I believe that Biden agrees with this statement and I think the statement isn't that controversial.  And that he believes the CDC actions can be shoehorned into those "broad authorities".  I also think that the law is old enough to be presumed Constitutional until ruled otherwise.   So I do believe that he believes that this is Constitutional while concurrently acknowledging out loud that the consensus is that at some point the Supreme Court will say otherwise.  At that point if it ever happened I think Biden will still believe that the actions were Constitutional despite begrudgingly accepting the Supreme Court's decision.

Sure this is a lot of "beliefs" rather than "knowings" on my part, but it is what it is.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I would say that during the lock-down period of the pandemic that this policy would have been a "necessary evil", but the last time I used that phrase a bunch of people claimed I was calling them evil for supporting the policy so I'm gun shy.

WHY ARE YOU THREATENING ME WITH A GUN??????????

 

[Sand]

To be impeachable, I think an action must be corrupt. 

High crimes and misdemeanors means exactly what the majority of House members at the time define High Crimes and Misdemeanors to be.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

High crimes and misdemeanors means exactly what the majority of House members at the time define High Crimes and Misdemeanors to be.

Yes, to precisely the same extent that the Due Process Clause means exactly what the majority of the Supreme Court Justices at the time say it means.

Which is to say that it may be true in some realpolitik sense. But it's not exactly an oxymoron to say that the Supreme Court got something wrong, or that Congress is dumb.

In principle, there are better standards of correctness than "whatever some designated group says at a given time, no matter how well or poorly reasoned."

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I don't agree with that. The "best choice" would have been for the government to subsidize or pay rent for the folks in need as a result of COVID. That would have spread the burden around to everyone, as opposed to just putting it on landlords.

I think this was mostly included in the COVID bill, but most the money hasn't gone out. 

 

[Sand]

In principle, there are better standards of correctness than "whatever some designated group says at a given time, no matter how well or poorly reasoned."

In theory I'd agree, but this one is a purely political process.  I'm not giving Congress credit for reasoning capability.

 

[RCon]

In theory I'd agree, but this one is a purely political process.  I'm not giving Congress credit for reasoning capability.

No?  I think most of them are quite good at it.  It's just that their reasoning aligns with their motives, which are generally "say and do whatever is most likely to get me, personally, reelected".

 

[Snotbubbles]

No!  He is knowingly interpreting the law the way he believes it should be interpreted while acknowledging that the current makeup of the supreme court will likely interpret the law differently in the near future.   I'd say that not carrying out the law as currently interpreted even if everyone knows it is going to be overturned in the near future would be violating the law.

The eviction moratorium isn't law.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The eviction moratorium isn't law.  

Keep reading,

 

[Snotbubbles]

Keep reading,

Keep reading what?  In order for it to be a law and have the moratorium extended it needs to go through Congress which Kavanaugh stated in his concurrence.  He's pretty clear, "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...In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31."  There is no room for interpretation here.  

ETA: Biden knows this exceeds CDCs authority.  He knows this will be overturned in courts.  Applicants are going to seek injunctions.  He's just going to appeal, appeal, appeal to keep a moratorium in place for as long as he can knowing the moratorium was put in place by a body that doesn't have the authority to do so.  It's not an interpretation, it's a strategic maneuver to extend the moratorium for as long as he can because Congress wouldn't/couldn't do it.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Keep reading what?  In order for it to be a law and have the moratorium extended it needs to go through Congress which Kavanaugh stated in his concurrence.  He's pretty clear, "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...In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31."  There is no room for interpretation here.  

No one said the moratorium was "the law".  Just that there are those that believe that the statutory authority  for it exists under the "broad powers under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act to regulate the entry and spread of communicable diseases into and among the United States."  You and Kavanaugh can agree that it exceeds that authority, but that doesn't mean that Biden, the lawyers within the CDC aren't interpreting the law (the Public Health Service Act) because they are!  Maybe they will be ruled that their interpretation is wrong. Maybe it fades before it ever gets that far.

 

[GordonGekko]

.... it's a strategic maneuver to extend the moratorium for as long as he can because Congress wouldn't/couldn't do it.  

It's a strategic move to try to keep as many Blue seats in the 2022 election cycle as possible.

The DNC cannot put forth a true contender, in an actual free and fair election, to stop Nikki Haley in 2024. They don't want her to have a Super Majority because the establishment Republican core will want to go scorched Earth over this seemingly endless romp of psychotic high level identity politics.

Biden also wants those Mom and Pop landlords to be so financially battered, that they have no choice but to sell. At pennies on the dollar to his big business cronies. Make a list of everyone that Comcast's David Cohen knows and you have your buyers list.  If you don't think Biden has the capability to be that ruthless  against the American people , consider Operation Fast And Furious, where he was knee deep in having the US government arm the Sinaloa Cartel so they could bring more slaughter to American streets.

This entire "Biden Can't Do The Right Thing Because Of REASONS OF BUREAUCRACY" is a load of happy horse ####.

The southern border has all but collapsed and Biden is pushing money there by the truckload to essentially buy new votes to be funneled into Red strongholds. Spending money on non Americans while allowing small business owners, many minorities BUT STILL AMERICAN CITIZENS, to be burned and looted out then driven onto the street at some point.

According to the DNC, you can't have Voter ID without RACISM and SUPPRESSION, but you better damn sure have your vaccination card in your pocket soon before you get herded into some fenced off camp. Think about what that message sends about motive and accountability.

Everyone who disagrees with identity politics MUST BE A RACIST AND A BIGOT AND A XENOPHOBE according to the DNC, but Biden authored the Crime Bill and was BFF with Robert Byrd, a high level Klansman, while Kamala Harris as CA AG suppressed evidence to keep young black men in prison to keep her numbers favorable to her political career.

This is for votes and power and money. Can any of you woke radical cancel culture lefties just call it plain? Is it needed to push these rationalizations and logical fallacy bombings and gas lighting to this degree?

Biden and the DNC are trying to forestall the inevitable. Not just people getting thrown out on the streets, but the loss of votes, power and money in 2024.

What kind of world will the grandchildren of the people here inherit?  Some of you voted for this madness, so live with it. Live with it when one day you watch the people you love drowning in woke and identity politics and cancel culture and Marxist anarchy and financial doom and being cast into a new world order feudal system full of purity tests while they watch freedom die in front of them. 

But let me not interrupt any further, let's not talk about people going to soon be living on the streets and eating out of garbage cans, let's hear more regurgitation from something someone heard once in moot court back in law school to explain this all away.

 

[Sand]

At some point the question becomes: Is this house I own even mine?

Very pertinent question in these times.  This administration would resoundingly respond in the negative.

 

[Caveman33]

At some point the question becomes: Is this house I own even mine?

Very pertinent question in these times.  This administration would resoundingly respond in the negative.

I looked into being a slumlord a few years ago.  The numbers looked great but the house were ####ty and the tenants shaky.  Thank god I never got involved.

 

[Sand]

I looked into being a slumlord a few years ago.  The numbers looked great but the house were ####ty and the tenants shaky.  Thank god I never got involved.

Section 8 landlords actually came out ok, or at least subsidized.  The feds kept paying those.  It was the landlords in the private sector who got completely hosed when the government cancelled their rental contracts for them.

 

[Caveman33]

Section 8 landlords actually came out ok, or at least subsidized.  The feds kept paying those.  It was the landlords in the private sector who got completely hosed when the government cancelled their rental contracts for them.

Which ones though?  The few I've talked to have been fine.  I am curious to see where the evictions are going to eventually happen and the effect on the market. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

At some point the question becomes: Is this house I own even mine?

Very pertinent question in these times.  This administration would resoundingly respond in the negative.

Of course not. You didnt build that.

 

[Insein]

The CDCs Unconstitutional Eviction Moratorium

 

[djmich]

At some point the question becomes: Is this house I own even mine?

Very pertinent question in these times.  This administration would resoundingly respond in the negative.

Funny thing is as with most of these government imposed laws, like not allowing property owners to consider credit scores, criminal history, etc., when evaluating tenants...everyone just going to pay more to carry the additional risk.

And then good renters will complain that the price to rent is too high.  And then the government will solve that too.  The beast feeds itself.

Related....Nice eviction scam on CNN

 

[Sand]

Of course not. You didnt build that.

I'm hoping the next R candidate is articulate enough to make good use of this.  Such an easy slam dunk to use over and over.

 

[Sand]

The CDCs Unconstitutional Eviction Moratorium

Statement released by the WH on July 29th featured in this video:

"Given the recent spread of the Delta variant, including among those Americans both most likely to face evictions and lacking vaccinations, President Biden would have strongly supported a decision by the CDC to further extend this eviction moratorium to protect renters at this moment of heightened vulnerability. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has made clear that this option is no longer available.  In June, when CDC extended the eviction moratorium until July 31st, the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that “clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31.”"

 

[Sand]

Small landlords giving up.  If we want half of single family homes to be owned by Blackrock to be rented back to debt slaves forever we're doing a spectacular job of kickstarting that.

The rental assistance program is a red herring.  To qualify a landlord must not raise rents for a year and not evict for a year.  Why should landlords be forced into future concessions to reclaim lost rents due to government mandate?  Horrible state of affairs all around.

 

[jamny]

How is this moratorium different than the original one as Jen Psaki claims?

 

[Snotbubbles]

Except we are talking about the officer in this case.  

I'm sure Derek Chauvin would have wanted you in his jury pool since his interpretation of reasonable and necessary force would be what controlled in his situation.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

How is this moratorium different than the original one as Jen Psaki claims?

It is targeted towards outbreak data.  The same judge that started the last round of cases scoffed because it still covers 85% (I think) of the counties, but the difference being sold is that because it is targeted based on such data that those percentages will naturally decline.

You can scoff also as I am not agreeing with the logic, just telling you what it is.

 

[Sand]

Maybe Reason reads this forum?  I brought up that these moratoriums may be violations of the Third Amendment and they just wrote about it.

BTW, who knew there was a Third Amendment Lawyer's Association?

 

[-fish-]

Maybe Reason reads this forum?  I brought up that these moratoriums may be violations of the Third Amendment and they just wrote about it.

BTW, who knew there was a Third Amendment Lawyer's Association?

When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.   

 

[Sand]

When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.   

As noted in the article lawsuits are pretty rare on Third Amendment grounds.  I wouldn't consider this tactic a hammer/nail one.  Personally I don't think there is any doubt that this amendment has been violated.

 

[the rover]

As noted in the article lawsuits are pretty rare on Third Amendment grounds.  I wouldn't consider this tactic a hammer/nail one.  Personally I don't think there is any doubt that this amendment has been violated.

hey if you're the Third Amendment Lawyer's Association you take whatever action you can get.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich, same Judge that last May "ruled that the CDC lacked the authority for such a sweeping order"  declined Friday to block the moratorium on evictions imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She said she was bound by an appeals court panel's conclusion that an earlier version of the moratorium, based on the same claim of authority the CDC is making now, should be allowed to remain in effect as a public health measure.

link

The Judge states “Absent the D.C. circuit’s judgment, this court would vacate the stay”.  Seems to me that she disagrees that the law allows for the CDC to do this (and has all along), but as of today "the law" she is bound to follow still says otherwise.  So per the article Biden wins "up to two additional months" while the legal wrangling of appealing this ruling plays out.

 

[Snotbubbles]

U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich, same Judge that last May "ruled that the CDC lacked the authority for such a sweeping order"  declined Friday to block the moratorium on evictions imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She said she was bound by an appeals court panel's conclusion that an earlier version of the moratorium, based on the same claim of authority the CDC is making now, should be allowed to remain in effect as a public health measure.

link

The Judge states “Absent the D.C. circuit’s judgment, this court would vacate the stay”.  Seems to me that she disagrees that the law allows for the CDC to do this (and has all along), but as of today "the law" she is bound to follow still says otherwise.  So per the article Biden wins "up to two additional months" while the legal wrangling of appealing this ruling plays out.

Looks like they could only extend it two weeks.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Looks like they could only extend it two weeks.  

The article seems to have gotten that part wrong. (Assuming there isn’t anything “beyond this morning’s headlines”)