a threshold crossed

@mott-the-hoople said
fed corurt have ruled...

why do you ignore this?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/eviction-moratorium-about-end-yet-federal-relief-funds-largely-remain-n1275297

because biden bungled it?

didnt have no problem getting out that free stimulus money did they?

Actually the States bungled it: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/03/rent-aid-coronavirus-502346

The stimulus money was distributed by the IRS; States fortunately couldn't gum up those programs with red tape.

@dood111 said
SCOTUS upheld the rent moratorium only until it was supposed to end on July 31.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1003268497/the-supreme-court-leaves-the-cdcs-moratorium-on-evictions-in-place

The SCOTUS ruling was not to vacate a stay imposed by a lower court to keep the eviction moratorium intact. Kavanaugh's concurring opinion said he would not support a stay past July 31st, but that is what is called "dicta" and is not legally binding (in fact, there was no majority opinion). Moreover, the new moratorium imposed by the CDC only applies in areas where COVID cases are over a certain threshold whereas Kavanaugh wrote:

"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. "

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a169_4f15.pdf

We'll see how the courts decide on the new moratorium, but nothing in the prior SCOTUS decision is binding law finding that moratorium unlawful.

@mott-the-hoople said
Biden is openly defying a scotus ruling that stealing private property from landlords is unconstitutional.

biden admitted the act is unconstitutional but will keep on doing it.

For the people here, sonhouse comes to mind, claiming Trump was a dictator, well here is an example of how a dictator works.

We are entering dangerous territory. The constitution is what makes us a free country. It now means nothing.

The SCOTUS made no such ruling; if the moratorium violated the "takings clause" (hard to see how since billions of dollars was allocated to reimburse landlords) it would be irrelevant what branch of government did it.

@mott-the-hoople said
it was unconstitutional then, Trump didnt do it, an unelected cdc official did.
we have the govt taking property from private citizens unlawfully.
The states were given covid relief money that they still have most of left over. Let them pay for giving people a free ride.

At Trump's direction:

"On August 8, 2020, then-President Trump issued an executive order directing the Secretary of HHS (“the Secretary&rdquo😉 and the Director of the CDC to “consider whether any measures temporarily halting residential evictions of any tenants for failure to pay rent are reasonably necessary to prevent the further spread of COVID-19 from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” Fighting the Spread of COVID-19 by Providing Assistance to Renters and Homeowners, Executive Order 13,945, 85 Fed. Reg. 49,935, 49,936 (Aug. 8, 2020)."

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Alabama-Realtors-HHS.pdf at p. 2

@vivify said
In that very post you quoted from, I agreed we should do things legally.

My problem is that conservatives don't care about laws being violated when it's done to benefit them; if it's to stop an election, ignore congressional subpoenas, violate the Emoluments Clause, conservatives are say nothing.

You pick and choose when to be outraged at laws not being followed; and ...[text shortened]... lping those in need, but never to when it comes to benefiting yourselves financially or politically.

To hell with the what-aboutisms. Please.

Some landlords lost their property because they could not pay taxes and mortgage.
Other landlords had tenants that are WORKING but chose not to pay rent because they *could*.

What Big Gov *should* have done was to make funding available to pay back rents.
Passing and unfunded mandate and leave a few individuals to pay for it is SLAVERY.

Your favorite motto, "Eat the rich"!!

@no1marauder said
At Trump's direction:

"On August 8, 2020, then-President Trump issued an executive order directing the Secretary of HHS (“the Secretary&rdquo😉 and the Director of the CDC to “consider whether any measures temporarily halting residential evictions of any tenants for failure to pay rent are reasonably necessary to prevent the further spread of COVID-19 from one State or posse ...[text shortened]... 0)."

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Alabama-Realtors-HHS.pdf at p. 2

“ “This order simply suggests that the CDC and HHS consider whether or not evictions are necessary,” says Smiley. “If Trump really wanted to help struggling renters, he would work toward a full eviction moratorium.””



“While Trump has publicly pushed for Congress to extend the eviction ban put in place by the CARES Act, his housing order does not actually issue an eviction moratorium. Rather, it instructs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to “consider” whether temporarily banning residential evictions is “reasonably necessary” to prevent further spread of Covid-19.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/10/president-trumps-executive-order-does-not-extend-eviction-moratorium.html

@no1marauder said
The SCOTUS ruling was not to vacate a stay imposed by a lower court to keep the eviction moratorium intact. Kavanaugh's concurring opinion said he would not support a stay past July 31st, but that is what is called "dicta" and is not legally binding (in fact, there was no majority opinion). Moreover, the new moratorium imposed by the CDC only applies in areas where COVID ...[text shortened]... oratorium, but nothing in the prior SCOTUS decision is binding law finding that moratorium unlawful.

that is because the previous resolution was made law by congress. If you think it is constitutional, then why the hullabaloo about it expiring?

@mott-the-hoople said
that is because the previous resolution was made law by congress. If you think it is constitutional, then why the hullabaloo about it expiring?

Actually it wasn't. The Congressional extension applied only from December31, 2020 to January 31, 2021; the CDC has extended the moratorium three times since then. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Alabama-Realtors-HHS.pdf pp. 3-4

The legal question is whether the CDC had statutory authority to authorize the moratorium, not whether it was an unconstitutional taking.

@mott-the-hoople said
good thing republicans put an end to that isnt it?

They were called Republicans at the time.

Now they're called Democrats.

@earl-of-trumps said
To hell with the what-aboutisms. Please.

Some landlords lost their property because they could not pay taxes and mortgage.
Other landlords had tenants that are WORKING but chose not to pay rent because they *could*.

What Big Gov *should* have done was to make funding available to pay back rents.
Passing and unfunded mandate and leave a few individuals to pay for it is SLAVERY.

Your favorite motto, "Eat the rich"!!

While your favorite motto, Mr. "Libertarian", is "FEED the rich!"

And no, it's NOT slavery. Are mask mandates like the holocaust, too?

@suzianne said
They were called Republicans at the time.

Now they're called Democrats.

it doesnt work like that hun..

@vivify said
When Trump defied the Constitution by trying to stop the certification of an election, no complaints from conservatives....even though SCOTUS dismissed Trump's claims of election fraud.

Now, when it's a matter of people becoming homeless, suddenly the opinion of SCOTUS matters?

The difference is that, back then, SCOTUS had not been stuffed with MAGAhats by The Great Trump Himself. Today, it has.

@shallow-blue said
The difference is that, back then, SCOTUS had not been stuffed with MAGAhats by The Great Trump Himself. Today, it has.

Actually the SCOTUS has the same Justices it did then.

@shallow-blue said
The difference is that, back then, SCOTUS had not been stuffed with MAGAhats by The Great Trump Himself. Today, it has.

just an ignorant comment

@kevcvs57 said
Yeah I'm sure the kids that won’t have to sleep on the street are really fretting about a constitution and wealthy SCOTUS panel that would toss them on it.

The above is a great ‘heart string’ segue from the issue. Gets tiresome. Please start a thread about kids sleeping on the street. Whew.