On narrow vote, Supreme Court leaves CDC ban on evictions in place

Yes agreed, Kavanaugh ruled based upon pragmatism and not the law. That's not his role.

 

Somebody beat me to the pragmatism post. Suppose things in German had gone a little differently 100 years ago and in 1934 the German Supreme Court had 9 members, 6 sensible and Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels. The sensible 6 would have to be very creative finding ways to keep the other 3 from ever writing a majority or minority opinion.
Maybe Roberts is thinking that way now.

 

A "conservative court" in that it applies the law rather than the ideology. Yep, you got it correct. Imagine my shock.

Notice the rationale offered by one of those "conservative" Justices:

 

Agreed and disappointed by it. Now was the time to rule on the constitutional issue and settle it not wait for the next time.

 

Well, many people rely on jobs for income, many jobs were lost because of the pandemic, so landlords are not the only ones hurting.

If one is going to put a moratorium on evictions, it only seems fair to put moratorium on foreclosures, and a program to prevent foreclosure once the moratorium on evictions is lifted because the two are not necessarily synchronous. Note, these moratoriums are not done in a vacuum, they are done because of the Coronavirus.

 

Kavanaugh is a liberal activist judge now? That's a new one on me.

 

I wouldn't support forcing a landlord to accept a new non paying tenant. But, during the pandemic, I would support a moratorium on evictions for tenants who were already living in a given residence, on the condition that a corresponding moratorium on bank foreclosures was in place -- assuming the eviction wasn't for reasons that the tenant was a threat to the landlord, or other persons, or posing harm the property.

Also, I would support lengthening the moratorium on foreclosures beyond the time the moratorium on evictions was lifted, due to the fact that it might take a month or two get square with the bank and find a new tenant.

For troubled banks due the moratorium on foreclosures, something can be worked out with the Fed Reserve, I'm not keen on such details.

 

So I have a right to your income because I lost my job and I'm hurting? I can come live at your house. Why should the landlord bear the burden of the person living on his property? A landlord has to have that rental income to pay his mortgage on the property and the maintenance and upkeep of the buildings. Can he just tell the people living there they have to hurt when something breaks?

And shifting to the banks only means the the depositors and investors in that bank now have to bear that burden, why should they why do after there money? Are we going to tell people with money in the bank that we are going take money out of their accounts to pay the mortgage of these landlords so they can let people live on their properties without paying rent and keep them maintained?

 

All strawman arguments. They are strawman arguments because your characterizations are twisting the facts by personalizing via anecdote.

If there is a moratorium on evictions, that does not equal 'you are going to come in live at my house'.

That's a strawman argument.

If you can't figure that out, your debate skills are piss poor. What you are doing here is a typical debate tactic by right wingers. It's specious reasoning.

Also, if you had read my post I stated I favor a concomitant moratorium on foreclosures due to rental loses due to inability to evict.

No, depositors accounts are insured, they won't feel a thing. The Banks might have to work something out with the Federal Reserve and Congress, policy wise, if there is cash crunch. It's a lot easier for big banks to deal with cash problems than it is for little folks.

Personal anecdote is not the right way to approach public policy. It's not a 'you versus me' thing at all. Where do you get this nonsense?

Yes, the system will be stretched, temporarily due to the coronavirus.

But, placing the stress in places where it will hurt society by fanning it out, in a way where it will be more gently felt, overall, rather than allow certain sectors to be victimized more than others, due to the virus which is no one's fault, is the strategy.

Remember, this is not a permanent thing, it's driven by unforeseeable events, the coronavirus. In times like this, the Government must act to prevent undue stress in society. So far, it's doing a fair job.

 

Are landlords being compensated for their loss?

 

Hmm little do you know my friend the last thing I want is an activist judge on either side. I want someone who is guided by the constitution and the constitution only.

 

no such thing as free lunch when will you liberals start understanding that?

if you dont pay your bill someone or ones else will be forced to do so on your behalf

if landlords aren't being compensated for their loss he would have no choice but to raise rent on his paying tenets to cover it

and if he does get compensated by state or federal government that means everyone paying taxes is paying other peoples rent

 

Unfortunately in this case he admitted he based his decision based upon pragmatism instead of the law. That's disappointing.

 

Obviously, the Supreme Court decision is unconstitutional, but the decision would effectively toss over ten million people out on their asses.

However, the Federal and State governments should compensate these property owners by paying their state and local taxes during the duration of the ban. States depriving owners the use of these properties should also compensate them for repairs.

While investment groups own 50% of rental properties, about 75% of Renters own between 1-4 units, and many are individual investors that purchased cheap residential units like apartments and mobile homes with retirement savings. Some are using this money in lieu of safety nets, and others need the supplemental income to pay expenses on their homestead properties. Many need that income. These are little guys that will have to sell their northern rental properties on the cheap to large investment groups that can take the short-term hit from the eviction ban (Blackrock).

Ultimately, the rest of United States will have to come to terms with the lockdown policies, supply chain issues, and inflationary cost associated with policies enacted in Blue States and Localities. The BLM and Antifa movement to "defund the police" has also struck deep into the economic centers of African American and impoverished communities. Insurance isn't cheap when your stores windows are smashed and all your goods are stolen repeatedly. I'd say it's a problem when a third of your pharmacies are closed in black communities of Chicago.

There is a huge economic disaster on the horizon, and playing woke games will only deepen the pending crisis. Every day people are bitching about having to pay $250-300 every time they go to the grocery store in order to feed a family 2-4.

 

Every Democrat should be down on their hands and knees thanking him for that decision. If ten or more million homeless are shelter insecure Americans are walking around in November of next year, the Democrats lose the house.

 

Only if they rented and had paid staff. Plenty of businesses own their premises and only employ family members.

 

It's genie out of the bottle, for sure. There's no putting it back in.

Having said that, it will be very interesting to see what happens if they try to end it.

 

If it's any comfort to you, plenty of private citizens are buying up land also.

As for the difference ... that's why it's referred to as rent slavery.

 

And everyone that does pay its rent will be charged double to cover for all those freeloaders that don't and can't be evicted

that is my concern all the responsible tenets the ones that pay their rent will no have to pay more

 

There's only one thing that you can do about it - buy property. Bleating does nothing. If millions of us each buy a small chunk, those 'security' outfits can't buy the big chunks.

 

The reason doesn't change the fallout, once they're removed.

 

Many people are too selfish and/or stupid to consider that.

 

I'm talking about the retirees and small-time guys. I know immigrants that worked 9-5 for 25 years just to afford rental property via mortgage. You gonna pay their mortgage and taxes?

No one refers it to rent slavery unless they have a few screws loose. OMG... I have to pay for food, water and electricity? That food, water, and utility slavery. Oh Lordy. And then there's the car payment slaver. I tried to get away one time, but they sent car payment slave catcher to bring me in.

 

Did you eat the food? Drink the water? Drive the car?
Now do it for food someone else eats water someone else drinks car that someone else owns? That's the slavery he was talking about someone else enjoying the fruits of your labor without any compensation, slavery

 

I have no idea what some of that means, sorry.

Meantime, I married into a family of immigrants who did all that stuff, plus I mix extensively with migrants socially. One thing almost all have in common is a terror of rent and debt. They will pay down any debts/mortgages as fast as possible, and they're highly allergic to renting.

The point is to reduce liabilities to as few as possible. Every liability eliminated, is one less 'slavery'.