Business & Finance SCOTUS tosses Eviction Ban

[Emperor Tippy]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf

So the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion, tossed out the Eviction Ban in language that is pretty absolute. The CDC does not have the authority to ban evictions, and absent specific Legislation that is highly unlikely to change.

The biggest potential implication of this is with lawsuits against the CDC/federal government alleging that the Eviction Ban was an illegal taking and that the Feds owe the landlords all the unpaid rent, plus interest, plus penalties. If the ban was legal, the takings claims would still have legs but about the best the landlords could hope for is getting the rent owed to them and even that has issues. With the ban being illegal, the feds liability skyrockets.

Also note that with this SCOTUS opinion, every lower court (including state courts) is required to accept that the CDC issued Eviction Ban was flatly illegal from day one. This is now a settled question of law with SCOTUS being both quite explicit and leaving very little wiggle room. So Happy Fun Time Lawsuits if you are a landlord.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I was very happy to see this ruling, and I'm not even a land lord!

 

[Zachowon]

But I thought SCOTUS was not helping the right and was controlled opposition!

 

[prinCZess]

Frankly, the decision still gives too much credit to the idea of such being potentially legal if done via congressional mandate, and the fact three members wanted to uphold unconstitutional overreach without even that excuse on fearmonger-reasoning about Wuhan flu is still disgraceful of their claimed legal knowledge--at least Ginsburg would've come up with a legal justification, however tortured, instead of 'Thing is dangerous and danger means we ignore constitutionality!'

 

[History Learner]

Well, that's one way to raise the proverbial temperature several degrees and further discredit the Neoliberals. Really don't see how anyone can be happy with this ruling except for the Landlord class.

 

[Zachowon]

Well, that's one way to raise the proverbial temperature several degrees and further discredit the Neoliberals. Really don't see how anyone can be happy with this ruling except for the Landlord class.

Anyone who wants to make sure only Congress can create laws

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I'm happy because I'm going to see less retirees suffer from lack of income.

 

[History Learner]

Anyone who wants to make sure only Congress can create laws

So the hill you choose to die on is the one that results in millions of people being rendered homeless?

 

[The Whispering Monk]

That's a red herring. Millions of people won't get suddenly tossed.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Well, that's one way to raise the proverbial temperature several degrees and further discredit the Neoliberals. Really don't see how anyone can be happy with this ruling except for the Landlord class.

Anyone who supports property rights, contract enforcement, or the rule of law should be happy with this decision.

The government abrogated legal contracts and seized private property on a legally indefensible basis.

The fundamental basis of society and why we actually have governments is property rights and contract enforcement. EVERYTHING else derives from that most basic of foundations.

In this case, the government said that Alice has to allow Bob to live in her home in violation of the legal contract signed by Alice and Bob. This is a fundamental violation of both property rights and contract rights. We, as a society, recognize that sometimes it is necessary for those rights to be violated in the service of some societal good and have created processes for the government to follow when it decides to violate those rights. In this case, the government ignored those processes

 

[Zachowon]

So the hill you choose to die on is the one that results in millions of people being rendered homeless?

Millions have been getting unemployment to pay rent. Or should get jobs to pay their rent.
So, millions of land lords, who are form all aspects of life as we have a few on here, should suffer, and potentially lose more then one house, because the renters get free housing?

 

[History Learner]

Anyone who supports property rights, contract enforcement, or the rule of law should be happy with this decision.

The government abrogated legal contracts and seized private property on a legally indefensible basis.

The fundamental basis of society and why we actually have governments is property rights and contract enforcement. EVERYTHING else derives from that most basic of foundations.

In this case, the government said that Alice has to allow Bob to live in her home in violation of the legal contract signed by Alice and Bob. This is a fundamental violation of both property rights and contract rights. We, as a society, recognize that sometimes it is necessary for those rights to be violated in the service of some societal good and have created processes for the government to follow when it decides to violate those rights. In this case, the government ignored those processes

And anyone with an ounce of Humanity is rightfully appalled. As I said earlier, if you are actually concerned about property rights, you pick this hill to die on? If you recognize the need to violate said rights, but your only concern is with the systematic nature of such that immediately to me raises questions about how serious your small government position actually is rather than just situational.

Millions have been getting unemployment to pay rent. Or should get jobs to pay their rent.
So, millions of land lords, who are form all aspects of life as we have a few on here, should suffer, and potentially lose more then one house, because the renters get free housing?

When the alternative is millions being homeless, including many children, yeah, fuck their rights I don't give a damn.

 

[Zachowon]

And anyone with an ounce of Humanity is rightfully appalled. As I said earlier, if you are actually concerned about property rights, you pick this hill to die on? If you recognize the need to violate said rights, but your only concern is with the systematic nature of such that immediately to me raises questions about how serious your small government position actually is rather than situational.



When the alternative is millions being unemployed, including many children, yeah, fuck their rights I don't give a damn.

So..you are all for people living off the government paying them? WHy cant these people get jobs in a VERY open market right now? Can they not afford it? Well time to move. Under the age of 35, and in shape? Well join the military if you want free fucking housing.

 

[Abhorsen]

So the hill you choose to die on is the one that results in millions of people being rendered homeless?

You mean basic property rights? The same property rights that are constantly under attack and the lack of which cause housing crises?

Because that's what the eviction moratorium is: a communist solution. It can work in the short term, but eventually you run out of other people's money (in this case, via mortgages coming due, among other problems). And then come shortages and other problems. Now as a practical matter, if one wants to toss ethics out the window, some could argue that this temporary government intervention can be useful (a classic example of a temp government intervention working is Keynesian economics, which does definitely work), because you need the short term solution now, and you are willing to pay the long term cost.

But by it's nature, you are accruing a debt that must be paid off somehow, where the market itself is your creditor. And the deeper you go, the more screwed up the market will become and the worse long term effects this will have. So yes, it's a good thing this is over ASAP.

 

[History Learner]

So..you are all for people living off the government paying them?

Remind me what is your occupation lol

WHy cant these people get jobs in a VERY open market right now? Can they not afford it? Well time to move.

Can you prove they don't?

Under the age of 35, and in shape? Well join the military if you want free fucking housing.

So....have people live off the government paying them?

 

[History Learner]

You mean basic property rights? The same property rights that are constantly under attack and the lack of which cause housing crises?

Because that's what the eviction moratorium is: a communist solution. It can work in the short term, but eventually you run out of other people's money (in this case, via mortgages coming due, among other problems). And then come shortages and other problems. Now as a practical matter, if one wants to toss ethics out the window, some could argue that this temporary government intervention can be useful (a classic example of a temp government intervention working is Keynesian economics, which does definitely work), because you need the short term solution now, and you are willing to pay the long term cost.

But by it's nature, you are accruing a debt that must be paid off somehow, where the market itself is your creditor. And the deeper you go, the more screwed up the market will become and the worse long term effects this will have. So yes, it's a good thing this is over ASAP.

This would be a hot take with actual bite if it was still 2010, but unfortunately it's not. Worried about debt? Congratulations, the U.S. Federal Reserve is our creditor. Don't want debt at all? Easy, nationalize the properties. A "Communist" solution that won't work? Go research HUD real quick for me.

 

[Zachowon]

Remind me what is your occupation lol



Can you prove they don't?



So....have people live off the government paying them?

I am asking, not making a statment.

I am owned by the government. I don't get to lay around and do what ever. I have to keep myself in shape, do my job, and put my life on the line should the need arise. Those under that moritorium dont.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

And anyone with an ounce of Humanity is rightfully appalled. As I said earlier, if you are actually concerned about property rights, you pick this hill to die on? If you recognize the need to violate said rights, but your only concern is with the systematic nature of such that immediately to me raises questions about how serious your small government position actually is rather than situational.

I don't recognize the need to violate property rights in this case. I recognize that, in principal, situations exist where the society good outweighs an individual's property rights in a specific case.

This is not one of them.

More, if the government is going to mandate that one citizen house another in their private property when they have no contractual obligation to do so then - at a bare minimum - the government should provide market rate compensation for the service.

This would be a hot take with actual bite if it was still 2010, but unfortunately it's not. Worried about debt? Congratulations, the U.S. Federal Reserve is our creditor. Don't want debt at all? Easy, nationalize the properties. A "Communist" solution that won't work? Go research HUD real quick for me.

Ah yes, "steal it all". The classic communist solution to all of life's problems.

 

[History Learner]

I am asking, not making a statment.

I am owned by the government. I don't get to lay around and do what ever. I have to keep myself in shape, do my job, and put my life on the line should the need arise. Those under that moritorium dont.

Can you prove they don't? This is, of course, ignoring they all pay taxes.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Who pays taxes? The renters? The land lords? Soldiers?