Eviction Moratorium

Critics of the SCOTUS Decision Against the CDC's Eviction Moratorium Might Miss the Rule of Law When They Need It

The Court said it "strains credulity" to believe that Congress gave the CDC the "breathtaking amount of authority" it asserted.

|

When the Supreme Court blocked enforcement of the Biden administration's eviction moratorium last night, it was technically lifting a stay on a federal judge's ruling against that decree. But the per curiam opinion makes it clear that six justices do not buy the statutory rationale for the moratorium, which the Court said would give the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the agency that ordered landlords to continue housing tenants who say they cannot afford to pay their rent, "a breathtaking amount of authority."

According to the CDC's reading of the Public Health Service Act, the Court noted, it has "broad authority to take whatever measures it deems necessary to control the spread of COVID–19." That includes the authority to override rental contracts and property rights across the country, since the CDC argues that evictions could promote the spread of COVID-19 by forcing people to live with friends or relatives, in homeless shelters, or in other "congregate or shared living setting[s]." But as the Court noted, "it is hard to see what measures this interpretation would place outside the CDC's reach, and the Government has identified no limit…beyond the requirement that the CDC deem a measure 'necessary.'"

The Court offers some illustrative hypotheticals: "Could the CDC, for example, mandate free grocery delivery to the homes of the sick or vulnerable? Require manufacturers to provide free computers to enable people to work from home? Order telecommunications companies to provide free high-speed Internet service to facilitate remote work?" But those examples only scratch the surface.

If the CDC's understanding of its powers were correct, it would have the authority to make any of its frequently contentious COVID-19 recommendations, including its advice on mask wearing by K–12 students and the general public, mandatory. Rather than focus on people who move because they are evicted, it could simply decree that no one is allowed to change residences. It could require every American to be vaccinated against COVID-19. It could unilaterally impose nationwide shutdowns of businesses and order every American to stay home except for "essential" purposes. It could prescribe fines and jail sentences for people who defy those requirements, as it has with the eviction moratorium. And it could do any of these things not just in response to COVID-19 but also to control the spread of any communicable disease, including the seasonal flu and the common cold.

Where does the CDC think it gets this limitless discretion? The Public Health Service Act, which Congress approved in 1944, says "the Surgeon General, with the approval of the Secretary [of health and human services], is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession." It adds that "for purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary."

A regulation delegates that authority to the CDC, which has heretofore used it rarely and for narrow purposes such as banning the sale of small turtles that carry salmonella. But last fall, when it first imposed its eviction moratorium, the CDC claimed to discover previously unnoticed dictatorial powers. In the CDC's view, "other measures" includes literally anything it claims will help reduce the spread of communicable diseases.

Two-thirds of the federal courts that have considered the issue, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, have said the CDC does not have the power it claims. They generally have taken the view that "other measures" must be similar in kind to the specific examples listed in the statute. That is what U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich concluded in May, when she issued the order that the Supreme Court has now allowed to take effect. "Because the plain language of the Public Health Service Act…unambiguously forecloses the nationwide eviction moratorium," Friedrich wrote, "the Court must set aside the CDC Order, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act…and D.C. Circuit precedent."

On June 29, the Court declined to lift the stay on Friedrich's order. But even then, it was clear that most of the justices agreed with Friedrich. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who provided the crucial fifth vote against lifting the stay, explicitly said so.

"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," Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion. "Because the CDC plans to end the moratorium in only a few weeks, on July 31, and because those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds, I vote at this time to deny the application to vacate the District Court's stay of its order….In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31."

The Biden administration understood the import of Kavanaugh's concurrence. "The Supreme Court declared on June 29th that the CDC could not grant such an extension without 'clear and specific congressional authorization,'" White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on August 2. Senior presidential adviser Gene Sperling echoed that point.

"To date," Psaki said in an August 2 press release, "CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and her team have been unable to find legal authority for a new, targeted eviction moratorium." Sperling used nearly identical language at a press briefing the same day, saying the CDC had concluded it lacked legal authority "even for a more targeted eviction moratorium that would focus just on counties with higher rates of COVID spread."

The very next day, under orders from President Joe Biden, the CDC nevertheless issued just such a moratorium, which in practice covered about 90 percent of U.S. counties. Biden conceded that "the bulk of the constitutional scholarship" said the moratorium is "not likely to pass constitutional muster." But he hoped the ensuing litigation would drag on long enough to allow further distribution of rental assistance before the eviction moratorium was overturned.

Yesterday's ruling confirms what Biden already knew. The only dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, which indicates that Chief Justice John Roberts agrees with Kavanaugh and the other four justices that the CDC overstepped its authority.

In a dissent joined by Kagan and Sotomayor, Breyer argues that the Court acted precipitously by lifting the stay "in this summary proceeding." But in the majority's view, the existing record, which includes Friedrich's original opinion, her August 13 ruling on the renewed moratorium, and two rounds of Supreme Court briefing, shows that the landlords and property managers who challenged the CDC's edict "are virtually certain to succeed on the merits of their argument that the CDC has exceeded its authority." The Court says "the applicants not only have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits—it is difficult to imagine them losing," since "it strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts."

The CDC claims the eviction moratorium is based on "a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination," the majority notes. But the statute's list of specific disease control measures "informs the grant of authority by illustrating the kinds of measures that could be necessary: inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of contaminated animals and articles."

While "these measures directly relate to preventing the interstate spread of disease by identifying, isolating, and destroying the disease itself," the Court says, the eviction moratorium "relates to interstate infection far more indirectly: If evictions occur, some subset of tenants might move from one State to another, and some subset of that group might do so while infected with COVID–19. This downstream connection between eviction and the interstate spread of disease is markedly different from the direct targeting of disease that characterizes the measures identified in the statute."

The Court adds that "even if the text were ambiguous, the sheer scope of the
CDC's claimed authority…would counsel against the Government's interpretation," since "we expect Congress to speak clearly" when it means to authorize powers of "vast 'economic and political significance.'" The fact that nobody seems to have noticed that the CDC had such powers until last September (76 years after the Public Health Service Act was passed), coupled with the fact that Biden himself contradictorily takes the view that the executive branch does not have the authority to impose measures such as general mask and vaccination requirements, shows how implausible the CDC's interpretation of the statute is. Under the nondelegation doctrine, which says Congress cannot transfer its legislative powers to the executive branch, it is not even clear that Congress could give the CDC such sweeping authority if it wanted to do so.

For the eviction moratorium's most passionate supporters, the question of whether the CDC has the legal authority to impose it is irrelevant. "A group of right wing extremists just decided to throw families out of their homes during a global pandemic," New York Mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted last night. "This is an attack on working people across our country and city."

Rep. Cori Bush (D–Mo.), who protested the expiration of the CDC's previous moratorium by sleeping on the steps of the Capitol, likewise has no patience for legal niceties. "Tonight, the Supreme Court failed to protect the 11 million households across our country from violent eviction in the middle of a deadly global pandemic," she said. "We already know who is going to bear the brunt of this disastrous decision: Black and brown communities, and especially Black women."

The Supreme Court is not "throw[ing] families out of their homes," and it is not the Supreme Court's job to "protect" tenants threatened with eviction. The Court's job is to say what the law is—in this case, to say whether it is reasonable to suppose that Congress granted plenary disease control powers to the CDC, powers that somehow exceed even the president's. If Congress did not do that, pretending that it did blatantly violates the separation of powers and the rule of law. These are safeguards that even the most ardent eviction opponents might find useful in the future, at which point they will have a hard time explaining why the principles they were so quick to abandon should be enforced when they happen to like the result.

NEXT: Families Are Fleeing Government-Run Schools

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fuck you CDC. Just stick to changing narratives about viruses and the PPE associated with reducing the risk of infection.

    1. And fucking up the covid testing role out. Only they could make the test, which failed spectacularly and wasted time for real tests to be developed.

      1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid in WSd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

        See……………VISIT HERE

      2. A local hospital here in Seattle had an accurate AND cheap test for COVID-19 in early 2020, long before the CDC approved their flawed test. But they couldn’t use it because without CDC or FDA approval, it wasn’t a legal procedure to use on humans!

        1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.FGy simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing. Try now………

          Click Below Webpage………….. VISIT HERE

        2. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…DWq And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

          Try it, you won’t regret it!…….. VISIT HERE

    2. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

      You can check it out here…………………VISIT HERE

      1. I am making a good salary online from home.I’ve made 97,999 dollar’s so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I’m just so happy that I found out about it.
        I highly recommend to everyone to apply…

        Join this right now………………… VISIT HERE

    3. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.ryh Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

      You can check it out here………………Visit Here

    4. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.ryg Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

      You can check it out here………………Visit Here

    5. Its hard to believe that we’re looking back *fondly* on the days when the CDC just wanted to treat gun ownership and obesity like they were communicable diseases.

      1. Don’t forget the vaping epidemic.

        1. They fucked that up, too. The problem is black market products, so the solution is clearly to ban legal products, driving everybody to the black market.

          1. We should try this with alcohol!

              1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

                You can check it out here………………JOBS APP

          2. Well, they can’t ban black market anything, that’s a feature of the black market. And they can’t ban smoking because reasons. So they went after a product 20 times safer than smoking, because it wasn’t completely safe.

      2. Actually, I read a CNN article today that Wallensky is all in on the gun control thing again.

        1. I saw her interview and she was definitely coming for our guns using the same authority and indicating that guns create a health crisis that the CDC should regulate. This ruling should nip that shit in the bud. But why in the hell is the coverage always so completely lopsided as to the tenants? What about the millions of homeowners out there who can’t make their mortgage payments because they are not getting rent? No concern for them apparently.

          1. I wouldn’t count on this ruling nipping it in the bud; The Supreme court is notoriously reluctant to take 2nd amendment cases, and the lower judiciary is generally, (With the occasional exception.) open to arguments in favor of gun control they’d laugh at then sanction for anything else.

            Wallensky could argue that there are a couple fewer levels of remove between guns and the harm the CDC is attempting to reduce than is the case with eviction moratoriums and Covid.

            It would still be a bad argument, because the harm consists of crimes, and the CDC doesn’t have jurisdiction over crimes. But I could see them making it, and with a fair chance the lower levels of the judiciary would eagerly swallow the bait.

    6. I agree, fuck the CDC. For starters, most folks cover their mouths and noses when the cough or sneeze with their hands, so neither masks or the idiocy of the CDC will help.

  2. Pretty sure congress can’t rescind A5.

    1. Article V; I am attending a town hall on that very subject tomorrow.

      1. >>town hall … tomorrow

        in Dallas you’d be shot.

          1. Don’t tell me!
            No spoilers!

  3. “we expect Congress to speak clearly” when it means to authorize powers of_________.”

    Now that will be a great day when Congress has very circumscribed powers of delegation.

    1. One of the lessons to be kept in mind should we get the opportunity to start over is to not just divide the government and set its parts against each other but to prevent one or more parts from simply delegating their power to another in exchange for basically a free-ride for life.

      1. There need to be checks and balances outside government. The Framers apparently never considered that the opposing parts of government would circle the wagons and protect each other if there were ever an attack on government itself.

        I’d suggest that anyone can sue the government to void laws for any reason; every such trial would be judged by a jury of 12 random people, and if a single one says a law is out, it is voided immediately. No appeal by the government, no do-overs, no waiting period. No voir dire, just 12 random adults who aren’t in jail. If you cannot explain a law to 12 ordinary people, then it is not clear and be properly understood to be obeyed.

        As for how you limit vexatious litigators, I have several thoughts.
        * These trials should be over and done within the day. If a law is so damned long and convoluted that it takes longer, that’s pretty damning i itself; but so be it, let the trial go for weeks if need be.
        * Plaintiffs pay all costs. If they aren’t willing, they aren’t serious. If they aren’t able, and can’t get anyone else to chip in, then the law is too mild and boring to sweat.
        * Anyone in government who backed the law, whether the authors, those who voted for it, or the suckers who defended it, gets tarred and feathered and is forbidden from ever working for the government again. The tar is the old lukewarm pine tar, not something which has to be heated to scalding.

        1. That final bit about tar and feathers should also have read to apply to whichever side lost the case. If the random jury says it’s ok, the plaintiffs get tarred and feathered.

        2. Sounds very realistic.

        3. “If you cannot explain a law to 12 ordinary people”

          What planet are you on?

          That’s de rigor for 95% of all federal, state and local laws.

          It’s also why every time one is trying to figure something out related to laws and regs, one is advised to seek legal counsel. Because the law is for lawyers and us layman can’t possibly be trusted to understand, obey or implement it. We need specialists by God!

          1. If it weren’t for lawyers, we wouldn’t need lawyers.

      2. The chief lesson has to be, (IMO) that it is no better that a man nominate and/or confirm the judge in his own case, than that he BE the judge in his own case.

        The whole constitutional scheme started unravelling when federal politicians realized that the Constitution wouldn’t constrain them anymore if they just appointed ‘justices’ who didn’t care to uphold it.

        If you want the courts to uphold a constitution, you need the courts to be staffed by people who find it being upheld to be in their own interest.

        The original constitutional scheme gave confirmation to a body selected by the state legislatures, but said legislatures almost immediately shed that power, rendering Senators federal officers in the same sense as the House members. With the 17th amendment, even the theoretical possibility of reclaiming that power if sufficiently outraged was given up, and it’s no wonder the Court gave up on enforcing Constitutional limits on federal power after that.

        My proposal is that confirmation must be done by a body composed of actual state officers. Perhaps the states’ governors could meet periodically to handle it. So that nobody who’d obviously tilt the balance in favor of the federal government could be confirmed.

  4. “…is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.”

    So even in the most generous interpretation of the law, the CDC could only ban evictions if the deadbeat tenant was forced to move to another state.

    1. No, it’s worse than that. The interstate commerce argument the feds love to use is that if Person A moves within their state, they take up housing that might cause Person B to have to cross state lines for housing, therefore Person A’s move is interstate commerce.

      By that argument, NOTHING isn’t some form of interstate commerce.

  5. This analysis ignores the salient point here that it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to second-guess the findings of the executive-branch agencies regarding their own interpretations of their powers. It’s one thing to declare the actions of the President or of Congress to be unconstitutional or unlawful, but nowhere does the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to weigh in on the actions of the unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy that runs our government.

    1. Well played, sir.

    2. StArT yOuR oWn GoVeRnMeNt

    3. And honestly, a very wise man told me that Government is just a name for the things we do together. And the SCOTUS doesn’t have jurisdiction over US.

  6. The dissents are priceless.

  7. William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

    Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

    William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”

    Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

  8. Critics of the SCOTUS Decision Against the CDC’s Eviction Moratorium Might Miss the Rule of Law When They Need It Their Ass When They Look For It With Both Hands

    Fixed

    1. So if your average street thug shoots someone in the face, do we let them off as long as they showed courage and because they saved countless lives?

      1. If a “street thug” saved countless lives, yes, we might very well let him off. What exactly is your hypothetical scenario here?

        1. A random tourist minding her own business at the Capital building was shot by a cop for absolutely no reason at all.

          1. Yes, I’ve heard. The odd thing that incident, admittedly an outrage, keeps getting confused with the incident where Ashli Babbitt breaking though the door of the Speaker’s Lobby at the head of a mob with apparent intent to harm the Vice President, members of Congress and their staff, and their guests while they were trying to finalize the results of a fair and honest Presidential election.

            1. where Ashli Babbitt breaking though the door of the Speaker’s Lobby at the head of a mob with apparent intent to harm the Vice President, members of Congress and their staff, and their guests

              But that’s what tourists do! They go places where they’re not invited! That doesn’t mean they deserve to be shot! This is no different than wandering into the janitor’s closet! Nobody gets killed for that!

              1. I don’t know much about the Ashli Babbitt shooting, so I tend to not comment much on it. I don’t know what threat the officer was under, what his level of fear was, how reasonable it was.. how aggressive the crowd was at that time.

                And I wouldn’t believe a fucking ounce of any account that was in the media. Even if they were accurate, they’ve lied so much that I just dismiss them out of hand. Not that I believe the Babbitt shooting WAS justified, but that with the current state of the venal liars that have almost entirely captured the Journalism game, I’ve just decided to stay away from the whole thing.

                But I will say this… if the Babbitt shooting was justified, then in my opinion, Police could have set up a fucking MG-42 on a bipod and mowed down most of what was going on in the rest of 2020, and that too would have been justified. You know, using the justifications I’ve heard in favor of the Babbitt shooting, and taking them at their word.

                Make of that what you will.

                1. Sarc is a fucking hypocrite troll so this post will have no impact on his thoughts. Just FYI.

                  1. You need to invite him to a $500,000 house to build AR uppers and then you’ll be besties.

                2. There were 3 cops in tactical gear on the same side as the crowd not in fear of their lives. That is all that you need to know to understand reasonableness of fear.

                3. You don’t have to rely on second hand reporting. It’s on video.

                  1. Like the SWAT team behind her that Byrd fired at? They certainly didn’t feel threatened and they didn’t have much between her and them.

                4. It probably would have been justified to shoot some (I don’t know about “most”) of the looters last year. Do you acknowledge that the January 6th riots are in a category of their own, in the sense that it was an attempt to interfere with the confirmation of the electoral college results?

                  1. Do you acknowledge that the January 6th riots are in a category of their own, in the sense that it was an attempt to interfere with the confirmation of the electoral college results?

                    I’m not sure how to unravel that. The United States is not a tiny third world country in the 1930s where a revolution or a coup can be exacted by occupying the railway station, the police barracks and a post office.

                    As far as what the intent of the people entering the capitol building were– I can’t say. I can surmise that if you really believe an election is stolen, then I suspect it’s reasonable to assume that they were there to stop that from happening, even though it’s patently obvious there was no plan beyond storm the building and then *blankout*.

                    I really see it as any other protest. Make noise, disrupt things, get on camera, and hope that somehow, somewhere policy is modified. In the most charitable sense, that’s what the antifa/blm protests of 2020 were. Those gender-fluid twinks in Seattle or Portland or wherever weren’t going to start a revolution and topple the “system, maaaan” of a country of 330,000,000 people. They were there to make noise, disrupt things, get on camera and hope that somehow, somewhere policy is modified.

                    Putting aside any violence or property damage, it’s hard to get animated when the people occupy… the People’s House. So on the flipside, if a bunch of lefty protesters occupy various administration buildings while smoking Thai stick…. or the chambers of a city council– or… you know.. the Whitehouse itself (which if no one is getting the subtlety here… actually happened), I’m not sure I’d treat them as terrorists, insurrectionists, seditionists or whatever. They should be prosecuted for trespassing, property damage or assault if applicable.

                  2. “Do you acknowledge that the January 6th riots are in a category of their own”
                    No, not with respect to what constitutes justifiable homicide.

            2. You are repeating a false narrative justice you did the fire extinguisher. At this time the VP and most of congress was already evacuated. There were 3 armed tactical officers on the side of the door ashli babbitt came from. There were 3 more on the other side. This is the asshole cop who left his loaded gun on a Capitol bathroom. He is incompetent. And you defend it.

          2. I’m glad you found the one cop shooting you can jerk it to.

          3. Bitch should have outside minding her own business and protesting instead of trying to kill congress.

        2. From what I’ve read she was a piece of work. At least Nardz-level conspiracy theorist, possibly higher. Had a long history of harassing people and generally being a jerk over political bullshit. Like Nardz.

          Shit dude! I think Babbitt was Nardz’s twin! Separated at fission! (Nardz’s kind reproduces by fission, like all other bacteria.)

          1. Speaking of being a jerk, here’s sarc!

            1. You misspelled asshole.

          2. Calling out people you despise not in thread is generally considered trolling. You do it often.

            1. I’d like sarcasmic to cite one “conspiracy theory” I’ve proposed that’s been proven incorrect. One that’s even proven unlikely.

          3. So what?
            All that you have said does not make her homicide justifiable

            1. She was trying to get at Congress along with the rest of the crowd to kill some people. She got exactly what she deserved. She should have been peacefully protesting instead of trying to overthrow the government. There was no real loss here to the genetic pool

              1. She didn’t even have a bottle of ice water to throw.

                1. Who knows what she had in her backpack?

                  -dk

        3. If a “street thug” saved countless lives, yes, we might very well let him off. What exactly is your hypothetical scenario here?

          Doesn’t matter. You’ve demonstrated that you’ll accept ‘saved countless lives’ out of hand. Every murderous cartel leader and child rapist need only utter the incantation and *poof!* Not guilty of anything! Hitler saved countless lives! *Poof!*

    2. No, but they did post an article about a local cop in Colorado being sued for shooting a dog…

    3. The officer makes his case quite well.

    4. What’s amazing is that it took eight months for him to learn his script.

      1. The writer’s have been very busy the last eight months…

      2. Did we get alligator tears like the 3 stooges at Pelosi’s show trial?

    5. If Babbitt had been black and the officer white, would this have played out the same way?

      More Burn, Loot, Murder perhaps?

      I see racism. Why don’t others?

      It’s easy after all. He shot her because she was white and, he don’t like whitey too much.

      Isn’t that how it works now?

        1. Liar!… Ihat is to say, i don’t believe you believe that.

        2. “Not at all.”, Mike lies.

      1. If-if-if-if is all y’all got. If she would have been peaceful and protesting outside she would be a live. Invading the capitol try to get at congress is a stupid game. She got here stupid prize.

        1. her* 🙂

  9. If De Blasio and Booker are so concerned, they’re welcome to pool their resources, buy an apartment complex, and let people stay there for free.

    If I was a landlord and a tenant who wasn’t paying rent happened to be in the military, could I still have evicted them under the 3rd Amendment?

    1. Well, then De Blasio and Booker would get great kudos for solving our homeless problem single handedly. Wouldn’t they?

  10. Lulz. Who needs the rule of law when you can just have the executive issue executive orders and bureaucrats promulgate regulations whenever you need them to?

  11. So the six evil right wing extremist judges ruled on this.

    Clearly shows that Congress needs to pack the court full of progressives to prevent this from happening again.

  12. Heard this on NPR while driving around today. They were practically in tears over hundreds of thousands of people being forced out of their homes by greedy landlords, and lamenting about how we’ll soon see a surge in homeless families walking the streets. May as well have been the end of the world.

    Then again these are people who feel that housing is a basic right (like education, health care, food, clothing, internet, smart phones, Nike shoes…) to be paid for by… well they never seem to figure that part out.

    “Government is the great fiction where everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.” -Bastiat

    1. Hey, someone hacked your account. You didn’t blame Trump here.

      1. This is screetch’s “both sides” personality in which he can refer you back to and claim he was always even handed.

        1. Or he forgot to log out and into one of his socks.

      2. When did I blame something on Trump, or are you just making stuff up again?

        1. Might be confusing you with me, because I never miss an opportunity, when there is a story about the CDC eviction ban, to remind everyone the eviction ban started with an executive order from the desk of President Donald J. Trump.

          1. They think anyone who disagrees with them is all the same person, because they can’t imagine multiple people having similar opinions that differ from theirs.

            1. Which is funny, because I’m pretty sure there are issues you and I don’t agree about.

              Well, the other day, I did a piss poor job of explaining the point I was trying to make, and you disagreed with what I wrote. But even I disagreed with what I wrote.

              1. They call that socks arguing with each other.

                Which further proves their point the lone person who runs all these socks that disagree with them is terminally insane because he keep arguing with himself!

              2. These are the guys who would, on the school bus, find the wimpy kid and play the “Stop hitting yourself” game. Then laugh.

                1. I was thinking maybe people like JesseAz and Nardz were the ones who were the wimpy kid on the school bus, which is why they are acting out now, behind the safety of an anonymous handle on an obscure comment board.

                  1. Glad to see you both still in the honeymoon phase of your relationship.

                  2. You’re still mad you had to ride the short bus?

          2. Oh please. Let’s not pretend that you wouldn’t have whined had trump shot down the moratorium, if he even could have.

            With paranoid lockdowns wrecking the economy he probably decided not to oppose it in the short term.

            But you get to bitch either way. Win-win!

          3. “Might be confusing you with me,..”

            Easy to do; two lying piles of lefty shit. Hard to tell ’em apart.

          4. Indeed, it was the Orange Clown’s futile attempt to buy votes.

        2. You mention trump more in this thread than you have criticisms of democrats demanding cdc overreach. Weird.

    2. And there’s still $41 billion or so of the $46 billion Congress allocated for rental relief just sitting in the States, undistributed. Maybe the Liberals should be picketing at State Houses, instead of SCOTUS.

      1. ^This

    3. The very fact that NPR and others use the term “their homes” for renters is quite telling.

      No, it’s your landlord’s home. You’re renting it. You’re rental interests are protected. As long as you pay rent.

      You no pay rent, you no longer have protection. Maybe not even a home.

      There’s a reason that we must all ensure that we have food, clothing and shelter in our lives, and ignore all that other stuff if need be. It’s basic living 101. Too bad they don’t teach that in school anymore.

      1. I hate to be pedantic, but it is the landlord’s house or apartment and it is the tenant’s home. The only time it is the landlord’s home is when the landlord is renting out a room in their home and then it is both the landlord’s home and the renter’s home.
        I hope landlords make arrangements with the renters who have been trying their best to pay the rent and kick out the one’s that have been taking advantage of the pandemic to avoid paying rent, whether they catch up now or not.

  13. Out of control Trump Court! Aaaargh! Aaaaargh!

  14. Rule of law?
    LOL
    That ship’s sailed, and you faggots helped.

    1. Weezon wuz meen to Twump! Waaaaah!

      1. Be vewy vewy quiet. Nadz is hunting wibowuls. Whey’s dat waskuwy wibowul go?

      2. Sarcasmic for totalitarian control

        1. Because making fun of Nardz is the same as wanting totalitarian control. You got me.

          1. Yes. Youre trolling.

      3. There’s screetch, he figured out he messed up earlier.

  15. Oh, and:

    Australia is building concentration camps.

  16. Heard this on NPR while driving around today. They were practically in tears over hundreds of thousands of people being forced out of their homes by greedy landlords, and lamenting about how we’ll soon see a surge in homeless families walking the streets. May as well have been the end of the world.

    Thank You,
    Attitude Status In English

    1. Sarcasmic got a new sock?

      1. hey hey Julia acting sort of peculia

        1. Well I didn’t give her permission to pretend to be me. I’m easy. All she had to do was offer a blowjob.. But she lacks the common decency to do even that.

          1. saw Robert Palmer a couple of years before he passed and he didn’t do Sailing Shoes / Julia / Sneaking Sally wtf

            1. I would have been pissed. Seems like that would have been his encore songs.

          2. To be fair, that currency can buy almost anything.

      2. Nope.
        sarc isn’t that smart, or that easily confused with a sentient being.

    2. hundreds of thousands of tenants have used this moratorium to get a free ride, while displaying a childish, self absorbed disregard for the rental agreement they entered into, as well as a lack of respect for the rights and property of others.

      1. With backing from the proggies and leftists in government.

        So, why would we expect anything else?

    3. It was coming to an end. They got a free ride for many months. They can now squat in a tent village and shit in the streets.

  17. People that think a fed burocracy should have totalitarian control are known as subhuman scum

  18. I note the 3 illiberal justices still clinging to politics. Know it’s wrong, know it’s illegal but gogogo Team Blue!

  19. There is no need to quote Cori Bush, just like there is no need to quote any of the far left “squad” or their lap dogs in the media. They are bat shit insane progtards who don’t have cogent thoughts, are deceitful, and fraudulent. Those reps should be primaried, but apparently there’s enough of their brain dead constituents to keep them in the grift for a while.

    Anyway the CDC was clearly wrong, the leftie shitbag democrats are always wrong, and they have been handed a clear 6-3 decision.

    in a few years it will be 7-2, then 8-1, and finally we’ll start ending far left influence on laws, in Congress, in the bureaucracy, and finally in corporations. Their power is waning.

    1. [B]ut apparently there’s enough of their brain dead constituents to keep them in the grift for a while.

      Demographics are destiny.

    2. One can dream.

      Move to California to find out what “California Dream ‘in” really means.

  20. https://twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1431292946637283334?t=1yQIwUl7dz8oXt3bZWhW7Q&s=19

    Are you using #inclusive language? CDC’s Health Equity Guiding Principles for Inclusive Communication shares preferred terms and language. [Link]

    1. Cool. The just managed to eliminate prisoners, felons, the poor, the disabled, the insane, illegal immigrants, etc., so apparently, we’ll have no problems along those lines in the future.

  21. Just want to drop this here. Will Reason retract it’s story that people who question the vetting are evil Nativist because only SIV holders are being evacuated to the US? The Pentagon just admitted that 50% or less of evacuees are SIVs and SIV applicants.

    1. Reason didn’t call you that. We called you a xenophobia, and I apologized for calling you that.

      1. They called Vance, Ingram and Tucker Nativist for asking about the vetting by stating they are lying because only SIV holders are getting into the US. But that turns out not to be the case.

        1. Let’s go back and look at Fiona Harrigan’s blog post:

          https://reason.com/2021/08/25/afghan-refugees-coming-to-the-u-s-arent-unvetted-security-threats/

          Here’s a quote from Vance: “Let’s help the Afghans who helped us, but let’s ensure that we’re properly vetting them so that we don’t get a bunch of people who believe they should blow themselves up at a mall because somebody looked at their wife the wrong way.”

          As support for your argument that we should know more about how the non-SIV holders were being vetted, you brought up rape statistics from Germany.

          Vance made the quote above. What is your opinion of Vance’s quote above?

          In your opinion,

          1. Also I told you the quote was completely taken out of context by not including the question he was responding to. And you are lying again about me bringing up rape in Germany. I was responding to Bill talking about crime and how societies view crime. And I didn’t bring up rape as an argument for why we should know be vetted. You are lying now because I explained that to you at length and you then apologized for calling me xenophobic. I never said that is why the should be vetted. You are lying now. Blatantly and since you linked the article people can go back and read the comments and see you are lying. My argument for why we should know is because the state department is expediting the process and refuses to answer how they are expediting the process. They are doing in days what normally takes months. And I states that multiple times. Everyone can read the article and the comments and see I am telling the truth not you. Thank you for doing the work for me.

            1. And because we now know you lie here is what Bill wrote
              Bill Dalasio
              August.25.2021 at 7:38 pm
              Flag Comment Mute User
              Again, I’m not saying that some of these people wouldn’t be perfectly fine to bring into the country. But, saying “Gosh, they were all vetted. What’s your problem?” probably isn’t the best response without detailing exactly what the vetting process constituted. I’m sure they were all deemed not security risks. But, “not a security risk” is not the same as “not going to commit crimes that are tolerated in their own culture” or, as you suggest, “keeping their women in bags”, no matter how much they “want to be American”.

              1. And my response which you falsely claim is an argument for wanting to know what the vetting process is:
                soldiermedic76
                August.25.2021 at 7:41 pm
                Flag Comment Mute User
                This should be noted, that after the refugee crisis, many of which were actually Afghanis not Syrians, rape increased by over 100% in Germany, when it was going down before. Austria is reporting Afghani refugees because of the market increase in crime from that population.

                At no point do you notice that I argue this is why we should know the vetting process because of rapes.

                1. Curious, then. Why bring the statistic up?

                  1. Because Bill mentioned crime as everyone can see. And as I explained to you on the 25th that to he intellectually honest you have to provide both data that supports and negates your position.

                  2. Here is me explaining that to you:
                    It doesn’t state how they are being vetted, especially in light of the State Department expediting the vetting. It implies, the story, that questioning the vetting process is wrong. So we are supposed to not question how the government is vetting the refugees? Is that your argument? Because my argument is bring in Afghanis, especially SIVs but we should be able to question the vetting process and ignoring facts that hurt your position is intellectually dishonest. Labeling people racist and xenophobic is just another way to tell them to shut up because the facts they offer don’t fit your narrative.

                  3. soldiermedic76
                    August.25.2021 at 6:24 pm
                    Flag Comment Mute User
                    According to sources, including the State Department, and DoD, the majority evacuated are not SIV holders or American citizens and that they are “expediting” the vetting of these refugees to clear them from those so called lilly pads. By focusing on just the SIV holders brought in so far is ignoring the forest for the trees. I expect better from Reason, not sure why I do but I do. Address the whole issue, not just what supports the narrative and especially not just what supports the orange man bad narrative.

                    This is my very first post of the evening in which I lay out the outline of my argument.

                  4. One more thing you’ve said you’ve read my posts for a while on the 25th, you should know by now I often will respond to a comment truthfully with data rather or not I support the original statement and rather or not it supports my position. I always look at both sides of the story.

                    1. I did not know that. I’m not keeping tabs on everything you say that carefully.

                    2. Bullshit. You are making an excuse, you’ve even commented on it in the past. So don’t hand me that bullshit.

              2. And just to clarify Bill was responding to DoL, not to anything I wrote.

              3. I’ll also leave this here and it how I called you out that night for taking my comments out of context to label me xenophobic:
                Mike Laursen
                August.25.2021 at 9:42 pm
                Flag Comment Mute User
                The article above explains that both SIV and non-SIV Afghan refugees are being vetted. What can bringing up rape statistics from Germany be seen as anything other than “we should fear these strangers”, literally what xenophobia means.

                1. soldiermedic76
                  August.25.2021 at 9:47 pm
                  Flag Comment Mute User
                  Since part of the article was questioning about how they are vetted, and how the State Department has stated they are expediting the process, and the comment I was responding to mentioned the difference in cultural understanding of crime, the point is pertinent in that it is a problem others have had. Where did I say we should fear them? You read a lot into that, which says more about you than me. Do you deny the fact I stated without offering any opinion on it? How do you get I am saying we should fear them, when I never said anything to that extent

            2. OK, let me take this one at a time:

              “And I didn’t bring up rape as an argument for why we should know be vetted. You are lying now because I explained that to you at length…”

              I don’t think I ever saw the comments where you gave such an explanation. I apologize for missing them. But the rape statistics backed up your arguments for stronger vetting; without them, it’s not clear why you are so concerned about how well the refugees are vetted.

              1. “You are lying now. Blatantly and since you linked the article people can go back and read the comments and see you are lying.”

                So, I am not lying. I just didn’t see where you said the German rape statistics were not being presented as arguments in favor of more thorough vetting.

                1. So you attack people and don’t even bother to read their rebuttal, because above I just posted the thread where you call me xenophobic.

                  1. Dee’s a squawking bird, and should be treated as such. You put way to much effort into having an real discussion with her.

                  2. Oh, well, I apologized. You can accept the apology or not. Up to you.

                    You have not apologized to me for your “When?” comment where you implied that I am a progressive/Biden backer. You made that dig at me before any conversation about refugee vetting.

                    1. No you apologized by changing it to ‘your afraid I understand’ when nothing I said mentioned fear. It was a backhanded apology. Which is total bullshit and you and everyone else who reads the comments can see that.

                    2. Hint it isn’t an apology when you change the charge of me being xenophobic to just me being afraid that isn’t an apology.

                    3. How does asking When imply any of that? Self defensive much? Also, why should I apologize to you when your apology was a bullshit, because you didn’t really apologize you said, to paraphrase “sorry for calling you a xenophobe, you’re just afraid”. That isn’t a real apology.

                    4. I apologize for calling you xenophobic. A good argument was made below that phobia is irrational fear, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are only rationally fearful of bringing rapists into the country, based on your German crime statistics.

                      This is your bullshit apology word for word. I’ll let everyone else decide if I should accept it.

            3. You still haven’t answered: what do you think of Vance’s quote. It seems a bit over the top to me, especially when he uses the word, bunch. What do you think of it? Do you think his using the word, bunch, is over the top?

              1. I did I said they were taken out of context and I said that on the 25th too.

                1. What context would make it not sound like a bigoted exaggeration to talk about a “bunch” of suicide bombers coming in a refugees.

                  1. He never said that in the quote you asked me to defend. Now you are putting words into his mouth he never uttered. More dishonesty from you. You don’t deserve my respect.

                    1. Vance uttered the words. From the article:

                      “Let’s help the Afghans who helped us,” he said, “but let’s ensure that we’re properly vetting them so that we don’t get a bunch of people who believe they should blow themselves up at a mall because somebody looked at their wife the wrong way.”

                    2. I never had your respect in the first place. You proved that with your “When?” dig yesterday.

                    3. You get the level of respect that you dish out as I explained to you yesterday. Calling people mean girls is not respectful. How is asking a simple question disrespectful? You haven’t yet explained that. But you have disparaged me.

                    4. Didn’t an Afghani just kill 13 IS servicemen to with a suicide belt? All he said is make sure we don’t get people who do exactly what happened yesterday. I do acknowledge he did say that, you are correct but he appears to be correct that we should be worried about that as well. Especially after they have already flagged 100 refugees for ties to terrorist and at least one was an active member of ISIS K the very group who killed 13 US Servicemen and over a 100 Afghanis yesterday. So how is he wrong?

                    5. It was hyperbolic but as we see it is a real consideration we need to take into account. Or are you denying that an Afghani blew himself up barely 48 hrs after Vance said that using a suicide belt?

                    6. You weren’t asking a simple question. You were trying to make a snarky little dog at me. Stop pretending otherwise.

                      By the way, I did answer your “When?” question with an example of my engaging in non-partisan, serious discussion.

                    7. He is wrong because we have no history of importing “bunches” of suicide bombers.

                    8. An ISIS member did, and he didn’t do it in an American mall and he didn’t do it because someone looked at his wife funny, and he didn’t do it after being vetted too laxly and being OK’d to come to America as a refugee.

                    9. God, you can’t even admit it is a valid concern can you? Mendacious.

                    10. Did you miss the part where I said the statement was hyperbolic but that the essence of the statement is correct? Or are you trying for the “it happened over there, we don’t need to worry about it here because Top men assure us that their expedited vetting will weed out any threat to us’ defense?

              2. You might just as well explain something to a lamp-post; the lamp-post is more intelligent than the asshole Mike.

          2. Or, maybe in an airport perhaps?

            1. At least 100 so far that have been evacuated from. Kabul have been flagged for ties to terrorism, most have been cleared but some have been identified as being on the terror watchlist and one was identified as belonging to ISIS K. Other Afghanis , who actually worked for the US, have stated that we are missing a lot.

              1. Let me say that if we experience any terror attacks from these refugees, it will set back the libertarian argument for open borders by decades. It will turn Americans against open borders the same way any time an illegal alien commits a crime. The libertarian argument, which I support mostly, is that we can allow in anyone after a background check. It would be in Reason’s best interest and the best the best interest of Libertarian border policies and Libertarian principles overall is not to attack people wanting to know how the vetting of a massive, rushed refugee crisis brought about because of failures in government. Instead maybe Reason and Libertarianism would be better served in also calling for proper vetting of refugees and save their criticism oy for calls to limit the number of refugees (which Carlson does appear to do and which I disagree with him on).

              2. The current policy as demonstrated by the Aug 25th article seems to be “just trust Top Men, any questioning is wrong”. This seems to be happening a lot in Reason over the past five years (unless the Top Man is orange). This is the most anti-libertarian stance I can think of.

  22. Missing from both sides is the ‘hidden in plain sight’ fact that the supremes said that the legislature can confiscate your property to house a preferred class just by saying so.

    1. exactly right. the eviction moratorium does three things: 1) removes my private property rights, 2) invalidates legal contracts and 3) create a new right to live on someone else’s property for free. congress does not have the authority to do any of those things. to legally accomplish any of these things requires a change to constitution. why is this part of the scotus ruling?

    2. This is an excellent point that should be a much larger part of the discussion. It seems like SCOTUS basically invited congress to violate the takings clause of the 5th amendment.

    3. Great. Now I have another reason to live in fear of Walking Dead Pelosi and the Senate Whisperers led by Kamalpha Harris.

  23. why does everyone forget about landlords in this moratorium? And no I am not and never have been a landlord, but I have also been an out of work renter. Landlords must pay mortgages,property taxes. maintenance, even utilities on many units. How long can they survive without rent money? If you want a rent moratorium, how about a mortgage, property tax, maintenance fee, and utility moratorium?
    Understand the longer this goes on, the worse it will be when it ends, and it will have to end. Eventually smaller landlords will be forced to default, and then deep pocket property management corporations will be buying up those foreclosures, They have political power, and then you will see a moratorium on moratoriums. Good luck renters with sympathy from them.

    1. Sleepy Joe and his administration will handle it with the cool aplomb of their Afghanistan withdrawal. The resultant homelessness will be blamed on Trump’s initial bow to the CDC to enact the moratorium. As Mike Laursen and the continuing narrative will memory hole the extensions the current administration enacted while coming up with zero solutions to the problem other than an additional $300 to parents with children. The $3.5 Trillion will not be able to help, as it is earmarked for more pressing needs. The fruit of the poisonous Trump tree will continue to grow new limbs with each incompetent strategy from Walkaway Joe and his entourage of idiots.

      1. “As Mike Laursen and the continuing narrative will memory hole the extensions…”

        Where did I try to memory hole the extensions to the moratorium?

        1. Future tense, Mikey Mike. I’m predicting the narrative that will follow the resultant homelessness.

          1. Hate to disappoint, but I’m not going to “memory hole” anything the Biden Admin does. I didn’t vote for the guy, and have no reason to defend him or promote him. I’m a libertarian, and I voted for Jo.

            1. “..,I’m a libertarian,..”

              You’re a lying pile of lefty shit.

    2. All Landlords are considered rich and have the wealth to cover not being paid rent for long periods of time, just ask Cori Bush.

    3. Uh, do you read other sources?

      I’ve seen a lot of discussion about the moritorium and, in a nutshell, most posts can be summed up:

      “Fuck the landlords! They’re greedy bastards that own more than one home anyway and should have all but one taken away. It ain’t my problem they got a mortgage.”

      I only wish I were exaggerating. The public lynch mob mentality goes way beyond billionaires. It’s downright scary!

      1. Lol. They wanna let people keep one? How benevolent!

        Used to be that people grew out of this resentful bullshit and learned to appreciate property rights. (You know, as they acquired property of their own.)

        The “you’ll own nothing and be happy crowd” might be too far gone to appreciate the notion of earning anything for oneself.

  24. So the Biden Administration is courting a constitional crisis by defying the court’s original ruling by continuing the moratorium in order to crassly pander to the idiotic left wing of the Democrats. Not to mention, as a practical matter, the moratorium is contributing to the rental hosing shortage and subsequent inflation in rent pricing.

    This is all around showing how bad the Biden administration is policy wise, and rule of law wise. Biden , or the people running his cadaver, are unfit to be president.

    1. Yup. I have a small 2 bedroom house. Before the moratorium and gym closures, I was considering renting out the spare bedroom, but then decided it wasn’t worth the financial risk. So I turned the spare bedroom into a permanent gym. Killed two birds with one stone.

  25. Should CDC’s lawyers be sanctioned because they should have known their claims had no chance of succeeding? I sure would like my money back for this blatantly unconstitutional power grab.

  26. The history of the eviction moratorium, reinstating it after congress refused to even take it up, at this stage of the pandemic when they’ve had every opportunity to make it law, shows they intend for a permanent pandemic, with permanent emergency regulation.

    1. Exactly. The minute they said, “two weeks to flatted the curve” knowing it was a lie and started using the terminology “essential businesses” I knew where this was headed. This was planned as a totalitarian power grab from the beginning. Everything the “paranoid right wingers” predicted is coming true, yet people still wont listen.

  27. It’s becoming ever clearer how the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party views law and ethics as relative — relative to their own interests, that is. There is no law Biden won’t bypass, and his administration has the worst record in history for being “corrected” by the courts. The “ends justify the means” philosophy of the Democrats is a dangerous and lethal game. Let’s hope the Republicans can put a stop to this insanity in 2022.

  28. Rep. Cori Bush (D–Mo.)…likewise has no patience for legal niceties.

    What “progressive” does?!

  29. Actually this article has it completely wrong. After talking to the progressives I know, they fully support the risk of having a “bad actor” with such powers. There mindset is that sometimes you have to crack some eggs to make an omelet. They know that eventually their movement will be in charge and that’s when things can truly progress. They can’t foresee any other future where they don’t end up in power to enforce society to their will. I point out that’s pretty fascist of them and they immediately double think.

    1. Yep. But, the only double thinking their doing is, imagining how it will feel when they bend you over, fuck you right in the ass, without the benefit of lubricant. That just gets them off!

  30. This article is ridiculous. There is no need for a thousand word essay. In simple terms

    “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” – 5th amendment

    In other-words, Rent moratoriums are clearly unconstitutional under the 5th amendment unless Landlords are payed rent by the government.

    1. There are all kinds of laws relating to rentals that clearly violate the 5th. And yet, they go on.

      1. This is the problem with using precedence in court, propagation of error.

  31. Why are we still beating this dead horse. The president informed us that unemployment is no longer an issue, so there is no excuse for people not to pay rent.

  32. Critics of the SCOTUS Decision Against the CDC’s Eviction Moratorium Might Miss the Rule of Law When They Need It

    No they won’t. These people have demonstrated over and over again that they don’t give a f*ck about the rule of law. They will do what they can get away with, and they will refused to follow the law. And they will be in power for decades to come.

  33. I really couldn’t care less about Congressional authority here.
    Where the G.D. Constitutional Authority for the ‘feds’ to even have a CDC? Nazism has been taking over the USA long enough!

  34. Whether due to a wider housing shortage or lack of income, homeless citizens unjustly cannot afford an official residence and therefor, by extension, are too poor to be permitted to practice what’s frequently platitudinously described as all citizens’ right to vote in elections. Progressive voters need to electorally act like fiscal conservative voters and strongly unite as a block.

    1. What you couldn’t see the FHA (UN-Constitutional), Massive Building Codes, Builder Licensing, FLPMA (UN-Constitutional) hording land, the EPA hording land, the Tree-Huggers, Massive USD spending killing the Value, etc, etc, etc…………….

      Making all these citizens too poor for shelter???????????? Progressives united already; and that is EXACTLY why there are so many homeless. The Great Depression (FDR), The Great Recession (Obama), Tent-Cities (Blue Cities). Conservatives have been telling everyone these ‘Progressive’ moves towards Nazism is the problem for years; Yet, every-time; Idiot lefties pretend MORE, MORE, MORE is going to fix it.

      Definition of Stupid? Doing exactly the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We do need conservative citizens to unite to restore the USA to it’s once Great Nation; what we don’t need is progressives (i.e. Nazi’s) uniting to destroy it.

      Gov-Gun-Forces **DOES NOT** create wealth.

    2. Steaming piles of lefty shit need to fuck off and die, F. S. Jr.

  35. Could the CDC order that all pests in favor of maintaining the moratorium be exterminated? That seems more in line with it’s historical powers under the regulation. I myself would miss having a big tall ice-cold glass of progressive tears every morning, but with the deluge that has poured out since the ruling, I’m stocked up for a while.

    1. The moratorium starts with an executive order issued by Donald Trump. Would his tears be part of the progressive tears?

      1. It was bad policy when Trump did it.

        It is still bad policy, but now it is a deliberate violation of the rule of law and on top of that, given the availability of vaccines, even the original (bogus) justification doesn’t hold anymore.

      2. It was ‘Orange Man Bad for making moratorium.’ Now it’s ‘SCOTUS bad for stopping moratorium.’ Two sides of the same liberal coin. So Conservatives are now leaning into it. President Trump never shirked from what he did. (I didn’t agree with that, but, unlike liberals, I don’t have to agree with another conservative 100%.) Has President Biden ever stood up for what he did, besides his ice cream orders?

        1. I see. Trump gets a pass because he’s on your team.

          1. soldiermedic76 was right. You don’t won’t read a response when it doesn’t fit your narrative. To repeat my self because you are a mendacious turd, I didn’t agree with President Trump about the eviction moratorium in the first place. To paraphrase your own line, Biden gets a pass because he’s on your team.

          2. I see.
            Willful dishonesty or just plain stupidity from steaming pile of lefty shit.

  36. “…without further legislation from congress”? That is absurd. Such authority simply does not exist, not in the cdc, not in the congress, not in the supreme court.

    This is pure tyranny folks and you have the absolute right to throw off such yokes of bondage.

    1. Why don’t you be the first one Joe Bright. I’ll get the popcorn. Let us know what street you’re throwing off the yokes on.

  37. “Snap decisions…”, we will have get use to this in the “New Normal” I guess. But I think the Court is Right here. We have seen the abuse a manufactured sanitary crisis can create, let’s try to make sure that bogus interpretation which elongates executive, legislative or even judicial power are restrained properly.
    The most interesting thing here is that Congress just shuts up. It’s Congress job to write the laws…The majority in the House loves their POTUS. His signaling was clear…we need to extend the moratorium…yet Nancy stays silent. I guess her Christian virtues are busy somewhere else. It’s also true that virtue signaling is very time consuming.
    Further, while the Right and Republicans cry against the injustice of the current “state” of affairs created by the current coup d’.tat, they are not unhappy to take advantages of the situation, to create a new epidemic of homeless men, because that is what is happening. It’s men 5 to 1 who are being thrown on the street. Crazy that people are saying that women suffered the most in this crisis…emotionally maybe, they always do, but for the remainder?

    1. “…Further, while the Right and Republicans cry against the injustice of the current “state” of affairs created by the current coup d’.tat, they are not unhappy to take advantages of the situation, to create a new epidemic of homeless men,..”

      Whatever you’re smoking, I don’t want it. Seems it causes all sorts of hallucinations.
      IOWs, you’re full of shit.

    2. “Snap decisions…”, we will have get use to this in the “New Normal” I guess.

      I’ve said this before about police shootings, ‘snap decisions’ is when we, as citizens or a society, should be more exacting about the results or outcome. We’re supposed to be choosing these leaders and public servants because of some exceptional decision making ability. Anybody can wait for the dust to settle, perform some forensics, and come up with a good decision based on those forensics. The good leaders are the ones who see through the cloud of dust and make the right decision. If their gut has them making terrible decisions, the pressure should be even greater to remove them.

      Byrd shoots Babbitt to save countless lives from an unarmed woman? Get the fuck out of here! You aren’t even fit for the dust-settled forensics job.

  38. The critics aren’t serious people, it’s nothing more than theater and signaling to the mob. They aren’t capable of reasoned thought.

  39. My friend quit her job and is using all her money to fight her very grave cancer diagnosis. One of the things she hasn’t been paying for is her Bay Area rent because, you know, it’s either pay for rent or pay for chemo.

    Nowthat the rental moratorium is over I wonder where she’ll live. Maybe she’ll get lucky and die quickly trying to navigate how to pay for cancer treatment without medical insurance and stay out of a homeless shelter. If only there was an economic system where such people could actually walk into a hospital and not have to worry about paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for medical treatment maybe she’d actually be able to afford the rent.

    1. Yah, I know where your going with this — If only the she could use Gov-Guns to FORCE landlords into being her SLAVE and pointing GUNS at Healthcare workers into being her SLAVE…

      Criminal Mentality 101. Endless excuses, excuses, excuses why they had to point those guns at others to get what they want/need.

      Here’s a thought; The difference between caring and criminal lies in whether you bring hostages to the table under Gov-Gun control.

      Ironically; As much sob stories as the criminals use to *steal* by armed robbery they are also by far the most ‘greedy’ party according to recent news and don’t give nearly as much charity as the Republicans do.

      So lets start with YOU; If you feel so bad why aren’t you letting her live with YOU! Why aren’t YOU helping to pay for medical treatment?

    2. My friend quit her job and is using all her money to fight her very grave cancer diagnosis.

      My co-worker’s cousin’s uncle leases property in the Bay Area and he’s got two, no, three kids who need chemotherapy to treat their stage 4 cancer. He had the income to support them but for the last year he couldn’t get any of his tenants to pay rent. He couldn’t even sell the property and was just going to have to let the building fall into disrepair and leave the tenants hanging in the breeze. Now that he can charge rent again, he might be able to pay the doctors so that *they* don’t have to leave *their* other patients hanging in the breeze.

  40. Cori Bush is a prime example of why someone should try and enforce the Communist Control Act of 1954.

  41. Critics of this ruling probably can’t conceive of a hypothetical in which any decree made by a leader from their own party could fall on the wrong side of the rule of law; and since they have proven to be incapable of accepting the validity of any election in which their own preferred candidate loses, by extension they can’t imagine a hypothetical in which they’d require the rule of law to protect them from an unjust governmental decree…

Please to post comments