SCOTUS reminds Biden of what he already knows – or should know
SCOTUS has ruled on Biden’s eviction moratorium:
A District Court had ruled the moratorium illegal, but stayed its decision pending appeal. In a prior visit to SCOTUS, the stay was left in place because the moratorium was about to expire anyway, but a majority made clear that the moratorium was illegal. But after the moratorium expired, it was quickly reimposed in a slightly modified format, basically thumbing their noses at SCOTUS.
The case came back to SCOTUS, and this time the majority of Justices, with the usual suspects dissenting, ruled that the CDC exceeded its authority.
It was a summary proceeding.
The vote was 6-3, which means that all the liberal-appointed justices thought the moratorium was okay, or at least didn’t think it should be stopped without a full hearing on the merits. Breyer said the following in his dissent, joined by the other two liberals:
Applicants raise contested legal questions about an important federal statute on which the lower courts are split and on which this Court has never actually spoken. These questions call for considered decisionmaking, informed by full briefing and argument. Their answers impact the health of millions. We should not set aside the CDC’s eviction moratorium in this summary proceeding.
If there had been a full hearing on the merits, my guess is that those three would have allowed the eviction moratorium to stand.
If the minority opinion became the majority it would open up that ANY government agency could set what ever laws it wanted. Why even have a legislative branch? Even dim witted Joe knew this was a non-starter.
And would the 3 dissenters have ruled against banks foreclosing on landlords rental properties when the landlord would have been unable to pay his morgage?
At the risk of falling prey to another conspiracy theory, the fact that investment companies, hedge funds, etc., are buying up properties all over the country, this seems to align with the “you will own nothing, and be happy about it” plan that I have heard about.
How much of the astronomical sums the democrats have already ‘spent’ could have been directed to the landlords with nonpaying renters? To home owners in arrears on their mortgages?
In effect, taxpayers helping out taxpayers whose employment was lost through government ordered lockdowns.
Of course that would prevent the banks from soon foreclosing on thousands of landlords for mortgages on rental properties in arrears and tens of thousands of home owners in arrears.
And prevent the banks from then selling the distressed properties to Freddie Mac(?). One might almost suspect that the end goal is to greatly increase the amount of goverment dependent renters. Formally, middle class renters and home owners.
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
And would the 3 dissenters have ruled against banks foreclosing on landlords rental properties when the landlord would have been unable to pay his morgage?
I suspect that periodically a bat signal goes out to Clinton and Obama judges, hence you have completely political opinion like theirs in this case and hence the persecution of the 6 January defendants (and the persecution of Gen Flynn).
I’ve been slack-jawed at the positions that the three progressives have taken recently. Breyer had his fig leaf here about it being too early in the process, but his opinion more than hinted that he would vote for the CDC on the merits too as our host suggested.
That means that Breyer would allow the CDC, an executive branch agency, to exercise the full Article I power of Congress based on a residual clause in a statue that otherwise deals with fumigation. That’s absolutely breathtaking. And all three progs joined that opinion.
The other one that struck me recently was Kagan’s opinion in the Arizona voting case. The equal protection clause requires legal ballot harvesting? Really? And Kagan is usually the sanest of the progressives.
I criticize Trump a lot, but thank goodness for his SC nominees.
Keep in mind the notion that Congress has a franchise to impose an eviction moratorium is derived from a fiction the courts have maintained since 1942 – that the distinction between inter-state and intra-state commerce is factitious. If we had an honest judiciary and an honest law professoriate, it would be acknowledged that such an ordinance is the province of state legislatures if it can be instituted at all.
If the minority opinion became the majority it would open up that ANY government agency could set what ever laws it wanted. Why even have a legislative branch?
physicsguy:
I still find Charles Cooke at NRO useful. Here he takes a strong line along your line.
_____________________________________
There is simply no way of reading Justice Breyer’s dissent in last night’s eviction-moratorium case without arriving at the conclusion that Breyer, along with his two co-dissenters, believes that the executive branch of the federal government is permitted to do whatever the hell it wants providing that somewhere within the thicket that is the U.S. Code there exists a law that might be plausibly connected with their aim.
–Charles Cooke, “Justice Breyer’s Eviction-Moratorium Dissent Would Turn the President into a Dictator”
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/justice-breyers-eviction-moratorium-dissent-would-turn-the-president-into-a-dictator/
Its scary that the Zimri proditor Breyer doesn’t seem to care about our constitution
There was “… over $46 billion in rental relief was allocated by the federal government, just $3 billion has made it out. ”
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/03/why-tenants-are-still-struggling-despite-46-billion-dollars-in-rental-relief.html
So, people knew that there was an eviction pause for all these months, but they didn’t know there was money allocated to cover it? If I had an apartment and a bunch of non-payers, I would have been prepping all of the paperwork for them in order to get the funds.
If you want to find the true positions of judges on this, CDC should have offered to pay the rents. Alternately CDC could have mandated some other government body pay the rents.
My prediction: no judge would allow this. It’s only when helpless citizens are oppressed by an agency imposing their vision of morality … it’s only then that judges would find the issue debatable.
I always want to see how Kagan voted. On occasion she does the right thing. But it would seem that the bat signal went out on this one.
Interesting point Art Deco, on the interstate commerce clause. The post 1942 interpretation is one of the more odious perversions of the Constitution.
Im not a lawyer. And frankly progressives largely ignore laws they disagree with anyway. But I see two hurdles for them in the Supreme court
1) This was not done legislatively. And is outside the purview of the CDC to make such a ruling
2) To me this violates the takings clause. And while progressives may argue they budgeted for this. The fact that all renters have to participate with landlords to receive re numeration for their rent. Would seem to put this in violation.
Anyone with more experience in this area. If this was allowed to stand. And the landlords then evicted tenants anyway. The government could then proceed with civil forfeiture against the property and then use it for the same purpose.
It is a clear violation of the takings clause.
If the CDC can find a line in their budget to pay the rent of anyone in the country that can’t or doesn’t want to pay their rent, then by all means go ahead.
We all know that they don’t have that budget line. Therefore, they need to go and do the things we pay them to do.
}}} If there had been a full hearing on the merits, my guess is that those three would have allowed the eviction moratorium to stand.
Exactly. All a “full hearing” would have done is given the left an opportunity to grandstand on the issue, tossing up this or that “poor family left homeless” by “heartless landlords”.
IN NYC, perhaps one of the hardest hit by the moratorium, I’ve read that a mere fraction of the government relief funds for landlords has been disbursed. And I see from @Liz’s comment above, the same is the case for the billions in federal funds.
It really seems like a frontal attack on the heart of the prosperous, disciplined Middle Class – yet again. Nice to see the SC is capable of making well-supported decisions.
Of course as we have seen over the past few years, the real playing field lies somewhere between the Law and Regulation, and the Courts. It’s a big, roomy expanse in these times. A lot can go down on that field of play if you’re in favor of playing the game Wrong and Strong – you can blow the game wide open, Winner Take All, before it ever gets all the way over to the Courts side of the field, where the referees are standing. And just remember: All of them have only have two eyes, and some of them don’t always notice fouls. That’s the home field advantage, right there.
Mythx’s second point is one that I’ve wondered about myself. Why isn’t an eviction moratorium a violation of the takings clause? I understand that federal relief was available, but I believe that was for renters rather than landlords. Maybe the statutory interpretation argument was just stronger.
Bauxite-the last thing the US Supreme Court (The estimable Justice Thomas, and possibly Alito, excepted) wants to do is give anyone the idea that the straightforward language of the Constitution means what it says. The high priests must pronounce on scripture before the subjects may act.