Posted on 07/06/2021 6:36:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court recently wrapped up its first term following the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, the third in a trifecta of conservative justices President Trump nominated to the Court -- conservative by reputation, at least. In practice, their rulings so far have left fellow conservatives scratching their heads.
Take for instance a recent ruling that involved a moratorium on evictions the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had imposed upon landlords last September and is scheduled to expire on July 31.
To control the spread of the pandemic, the CDC banned landlords from evicting tenants who were behind in their rent. Last year, based on CDC recommendations, states shut down businesses and put in place stay-at-home orders. But if landlords can evict their tenants for being delinquent on the rent, then those people obviously can’t shelter in place. They’re either outside because they’re homeless, in a shelter where there are lots of other people around or sharing space in a relative or friend’s house. This creates the potential for a “super-spreader event.” Hence, the moratorium.
A group of landlords sued to get the ban lifted and won, but the Biden administration appealed and the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court. And in a 5-4 ruling, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh siding with the liberal justices, the Court rejected their petition.
Kavanaugh explained in a concurring opinion that although the CDC does not have the authority to impose such a ban, because it was set to expire in a few weeks, he was voting to “deny the application.” He also wrote that to extend the ban beyond July 31 would require legislation from Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
On the one hand, nobody likes to see someone get kicked out onto the street. But landlords have the legal right to evict a tenant for failure to pay their rent. There is a process involved, and states have different requirements that landlords have to comply with to evict someone.
But here’s the constitutional question this case raises: does a federal agency like the CDC have the authority to issue orders preventing a landlord from evicting a tenant?
QUOTING TRUMP HIMSELF:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/politics/supreme-court-6-3-conservative-liberal/index.html
“Disappointed, and that’s the way it goes. ... I fought very hard for them but I was very disappointed with a number of their rulings,”
I think it is a little too soon to determine the arc of these three.
I am most concerned about Gorsuch, but let’s give them some time.
They make it to the Court and then they suddenly become full of themselves; they get their heads so far up their own asses that they can lick their earlobes.
RE: I think it is a little too soon to determine the arc of these three.
I was never convinced of the Constitutionalist credentials of Kavanaugh based on some of his previous rulings as a judge.
But I had such high hopes for Amy Coney Barrett. Since the November 2020 election, she has revealed herself to be a TIMID and UNINVOLVED judge, trying to weasel out of tackling important cases.
It’s an uncompensated taking by the government. At a minimum, the landlords should be compensated
The Supreme Court exists to enforce the will of the oligarchs on the public in case they vote the “wrong way” (Ex: gay marriage)
But the 6-3 ruling last week regarding election law was a major victory. But I believe in some respects it was a “make-up call” for avoiding the issues of election fraud in 2020.
Amy Conme Barret is turning out to be a leftist troll.
As Eisenhower once said about his time as President, “I’ve only made two mistakes, and they are both on the Supreme Court.”.................
“So basically Kavanaugh is saying that the CDC didn’t have the authority to institute the ban but since it’s almost over he’s going to let it stand.”
And when the CDC extends it yet again without legislation, and they will, what’s the recourse for the landlords? Another million dollar lawsuit that will take a year to get back to SCOTUS?
That’s not justice and it’s not law. It’s making **** up as he goes along.
L
The SCOTUS has always been somewhat of a wild card.
The Lefty judges are predictable, Judges appointed by Republicans not so much, about 50/50
Eisenhower said (I think it was him) that he didn’t understand why all SCOTUS justices appointed by Republicans, ‘turned’ once on the bench
Agree!
On this topic, the failure was in not suing the Trump administration/CDC immediately.
I don’t fault SCOTUS in this respect. ‘Delay’ - ostensibly for ideological reasons, i.e., not wanting to sue Trump - exacerbated this problem.
So be it. Now a democrat congress will be forced to take a position on the matter.
That pleases me.
The Federalist Society is another uniparty setup.
It wasn’t the CDC....It was the Governors. And it expires and that’s the end of it. It was nice of the court to take it...and dispose of it.
Yes wild cards are ALL appointed by Republicans. Is this by accident or purposeful?
You're far too kind - this spineless group hasn't taken on a case that has far reaching consequences at all. This would have been a perfect case to reign in government overreach. Dumb asses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.