Posted on 07/12/2021 11:07:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Guess what’s unconstitutional? When the federal government tells property owners they cannot be paid by tenants who rent their property.
In September 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told state courts that they could not hear eviction proceedings and unilaterally declared that private property owners had to allow non-paying renters to live rent-free until the CDC says otherwise. At the time, the CDC pointed to COVID-19 as justification for its unprecedented power grab, but it quickly proclaimed that the federal agency could stop evictions at anytime in the name of “fairness”—pandemic or not.
If this sounds illegal and unconstitutional, that is because it is. In February 2021, a federal district judge in Texas declared that the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to stop evictions. He ordered the moratorium to be set aside. The ruling came as a result of a lawsuit filed by Southeastern Legal Foundation and Texas Public Policy Foundation on behalf of a coalition of private property owners who were forced to house others for free and carry all the costs that come with owning a house like property taxes and mortgage. Since then, at least three other judges have found the eviction moratorium to be unlawful or unconstitutional.
Even though the Texas court set the eviction moratorium aside and the CDC agreed in open court that it would honor any final judgment issued by the court, the CDC in an obnoxious abuse of power refuses to lift the moratorium. This blatant disregard and disrespect of the judiciary by the CDC should shock Americans.
But what may turn heads even more is that the United States Supreme Court is allowing the CDC to continue to ignore judicial rulings that the moratorium is illegal and unconstitutional because it will expire in a few weeks anyway. Ignoring the fact that the moratorium has already expired and been renewed three times, every day the moratorium is in place, private property owners are being deprived their constitutional rights.
The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court on an emergency appeal after a federal judge in D.C. stayed the injunction against the CDC. Four justices—Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Gorsuch—voted to lift the stay, enforce federal law, and stop the CDC from its unlawful power grab. But the other five—Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh—refused to hold the CDC accountable.
Emergency appeals are denied, that is not unusual. But what makes this case different is that Justice Kavanaugh, who voted with the majority, wrote a concurring opinion in which he acknowledged that the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium.” But because the moratorium is set to expire at the end of July—“only a few weeks” away—Justice Kavanaugh said it was OK to leave the moratorium in place. He opined that it was better to wait anyway, because it would give the CDC time to distribute rental assistance funds in a “more orderly” manner.
Once again, this should shock all Americans. A justice sitting on our nation’s highest court just acknowledged that a federal agency is violating the Constitution and federal law. Yet because the constitutional violation will continue for “only a few weeks,” he (and four other justices) does not see the urgency in striking down the agency’s action. And what’s more, he believes that the agency needs time to continue violating the Constitution so that it can sort through certain logistics.
But what may turn heads even more is that the United States Supreme Court is allowing the CDC to continue to ignore judicial rulings that the moratorium is illegal and unconstitutional because it will expire in a few weeks anyway. Ignoring the fact that the moratorium has already expired and been renewed three times, every day the moratorium is in place, private property owners are being deprived their constitutional rights.
The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court on an emergency appeal after a federal judge in D.C. stayed the injunction against the CDC. Four justices—Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Gorsuch—voted to lift the stay, enforce federal law, and stop the CDC from its unlawful power grab. But the other five—Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh—refused to hold the CDC accountable.
Emergency appeals are denied, that is not unusual. But what makes this case different is that Justice Kavanaugh, who voted with the majority, wrote a concurring opinion in which he acknowledged that the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium.” But because the moratorium is set to expire at the end of July—“only a few weeks” away—Justice Kavanaugh said it was OK to leave the moratorium in place. He opined that it was better to wait anyway, because it would give the CDC time to distribute rental assistance funds in a “more orderly” manner.
Once again, this should shock all Americans. A justice sitting on our nation’s highest court just acknowledged that a federal agency is violating the Constitution and federal law. Yet because the constitutional violation will continue for “only a few weeks,” he (and four other justices) does not see the urgency in striking down the agency’s action. And what’s more, he believes that the agency needs time to continue violating the Constitution so that it can sort through certain logistics.
Are there still tolls to get to Niagara Falls?
I lived there when they removed the tolls to get to downtown Buffalo. Anyone with brains could exit before tolls and get back on after tolls where it was free. STUPID set up!
Not sure, haven't been there in ages.
Odd, I thought the constitution was a contract that the government had to honor, outlining its powers and our rights. The government doesn’t get to decide.
Now we have a government/SCOTUS asserting that it can change the contract if IT decides, so long as it’s ‘temporary’. Such subjective wording opens the door to interpretation and renders the Constitution worthless.
SCOTUS seems to be doing the opposite of what it should be doing.
Roberts and Kavanaugh.
This experiment is over. Just like the Soviet one, the American experiment is done. Even Putin knows this. Maybe especially Putin knows this.
Looks like it’s down to the second amendment.
Party boy rapist says it’s ok for the CDC to grab illegal power and hold it a few more weeks. We should have never assisted him against Blasey-Ford.
Kavanaugh has become just another joke of a justice — just like Roberts and with the same ridiculous reasoning.
And I’m constantly told, with certainty, how dangerous an Article V Convention of the States would be.
Tru dat
“Temporary” like the “15 days to flatten the curve” temporary?
There was a tax put on telephones in 1898 to pay for the Spanish American War since only rich people had phones. To the best of my knowledge that tax is still on all of our phones. I think that war is over.
If I am mistaken, please correct me.
So, let’s ban this court temporarily, like 5 years.
Until now I’ve been hearing that CDC guidelines are just that, and the states have mindlessly accepted them.
Well, as Aaron Burr said, “The law is whatever is boldy asserted and plausibly maintained.”
In our state the public and the elected officials discovered that the law granted blank check authority to health departments of four counties. The other counties fall under state guidelines.
There was no check on their power, which nobody should ever have unchecked power. The legislature corrected that and clipped the wings of those four health departments.
Now the state government has the power back and they are not following CDC guidelines. We are open.
Guess what state it is. Hint: we are not blue, and neither is our governor.
Kav has had too many brewskis again?
We know Traitor Roberts is off his rocker.
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.