rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
5 years ago
His attempt at political accommodation invited the latest Biden abuse.

WSJ Editorial Board
Key to the fiasco is a 5-4 Supreme Court order at the end of June. A lower court had ruled that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s nationwide eviction moratorium—then in effect without congressional authorization—was unlawful, but granted a stay pending appeal. Five High Court Justices agreed the CDC action wasn’t legally justified, but one of the five—Justice Brett Kavanaugh —offered a political olive branch.

Justice Kavanaugh agreed that the CDC “exceeded its existing statutory authority,” but he noted the agency “plans to end the moratorium in only a few weeks.” Therefore, he voted to leave the stay in place until the end of July, when the moratorium expired. He invited Congress to extend the moratorium through legislation if it wished. Congress failed.

Perhaps Justice Kavanaugh hoped his June concession on the law would improve governance. He wrote that “those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds.” But that’s not the judiciary’s job. It’s the responsibility of the executive branch and state governments.

The Biden Administration responded to Justice Kavanaugh’s concession first by blaming him for saying the ban is illegal and then reinstating it anyway. So much for returning the favor. Meanwhile, Congress and state legislatures continue to evade political responsibility for their decisions on rental policy.

As the Justices navigate a polarized political climate, one temptation is to avoid direct confrontations with the elected branches. But polarization is increasing the willingness of political officials of both parties to exceed the limits of their power. The Justices can’t let legal caution become a license to lawlessness.

I thought he was supposed to be a "textualist"?
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
5 years ago
I thought he was a rapist?
View All Posts by User
BuckyB93
5 years ago
The category is Therapists, not The Rapists

View All Posts by User
MACS
5 years ago

I thought he was a rapist?

HockeyDad wrote:



Yeah, uh... that was then... and the broad we tapped to discredit him was a Frankin' retard... so... um.. yeah.

Brett's cool.
View All Posts by User
Stogie1020
5 years ago
Sounds like MACS partied with Brett back in high school. I heard it was pretty wild.
View All Posts by User
MACS
5 years ago

Sounds like MACS partied with Brett back in high school. I heard it was pretty wild.

Stogie1020 wrote:



MACS was a poor kid. Brett had some serious white privilege. So, um... nah. We never hung out.
View All Posts by User
RayR
5 years ago
Yep, you can't trust the Supreme Court to protect and defend the Constitution. One way or another they'll many times just rubber stamp the crimes of the other branches.
Illegal means illegal all the time, not well...it's illegal but we'll let them get away with it for a little while and see if they can finagle a way to turn it into legal.
View All Posts by User
MACS
5 years ago
Careful. It's unpopular to believe our system is badly broken.
View All Posts by User
RayR
5 years ago

Careful. It's unpopular to believe our system is badly broken.

MACS wrote:



Oh ya I forgot, that butthurts some of them.
View All Posts by User
rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
5 years ago
Unfortunately, the only proposition that that case stands for is that the court wasn't virtually certain which side would win at a full hearing ahead of time so it held off making a decision until after the full hearing. S.O.P. Blame it all on Kavanaugh playing games.
View All Posts by User
MACS
5 years ago

Unfortunately, the only proposition that that case stands for is that the court wasn't virtually certain which side would win at a full hearing ahead of time so it held off making a decision until after the full hearing. S.O.P. Blame it all on Kavanaugh playing games.

rfenst wrote:



Lawyer speak. Hence BULL****.

Tell the masses what that Bullsheit really means, Robert. Spell it out, in PLAIN ENGLISH please. I'm asking you.
View All Posts by User
RayR
5 years ago
Agreed, enough of all that lawyer weasel talk.
View All Posts by User
rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
5 years ago

Lawyer speak. Hence BULL****.

Tell the masses what that Bullsheit really means, Robert. Spell it out, in PLAIN ENGLISH please. I'm asking you.

MACS wrote:


1. A lower court ruled that the CDC eviction ban was illegal because congress didn't authorize it.
2. The Supreme Court said it was illegal too for the same reason by a vote of 5-4, which included Kavanaugh.
3. But, Kavanaugh then also said that even though it's illegal, let's give people a few extra weeks for congress to authorize the next CDC ban on evictions.

As a strict textualist, he should not have opined on anything other than the illegality. He certainly should not have expressed any opinion regarding the end-result of the process, no matter what the consequences. In other words, he should have just "let the chips fall where they may," instead of "bending" the law to come to a conclusion contrary to the simple 5-4 ruling on an uncomplicated/straight forward matter.
View All Posts by User
RayR
5 years ago
Why didn't you say that in the first place instead of all that weasel talk? Geesh!

The CDC eviction ban was illegal because congress didn't authorize it the robed lawyers said?
Where in the U.S.Constitution is there an enumerated power stated that gives Congress the authority to infringe on private property rights?
View All Posts by User
JadeRose
5 years ago

MACS was a poor kid. Brett had some serious white privilege. So, um... nah. We never hung out.

MACS wrote:





Peasant


wheel,,,
View All Posts by User
DrafterX
5 years ago
It's somewhere towards the back.. 😟
View All Posts by User
tonygraz
5 years ago
I found it was advisable to hang around with the more privileged kids. Chances of arrest were less than chances of covering things up.
View All Posts by User
rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
5 years ago
Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021) 1
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________
No. 20A169
_________________
ALABAMA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, ET AL. v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY
[June 29, 2021]
The application to vacate stay presented to THE CHIEF
JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is denied.
JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE GORSUCH, and
JUSTICE BARRETT would grant the application.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.
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. See Utility Air Regulatory Group v.
EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 324 (2014). 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. See
Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Hospital Medical & Surgical Ins. Plan, 501 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1991) (Scalia, J., in
chambers) (stay depends in part on balance of equities);
Coleman v. Paccar Inc., 424 U. S. 1301, 1304 (1976)
(Rehnquist, J., in chambers). In my view, clear and specific
congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be
necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July
31.
View All Posts by User
frankj1
5 years ago

It's somewhere towards the back.. 😟

DrafterX wrote:


you're the bestest!
View All Posts by User
RayR
5 years ago

Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021) 1
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________
No. 20A169
_________________
ALABAMA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, ET AL. v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY
[June 29, 2021]
The application to vacate stay presented to THE CHIEF
JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is denied.
JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE GORSUCH, and
JUSTICE BARRETT would grant the application.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.
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. See Utility Air Regulatory Group v.
EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 324 (2014). 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. See
Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Hospital Medical & Surgical Ins. Plan, 501 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1991) (Scalia, J., in
chambers) (stay depends in part on balance of equities);
Coleman v. Paccar Inc., 424 U. S. 1301, 1304 (1976)
(Rehnquist, J., in chambers). In my view, clear and specific
congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be
necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July
31.

rfenst wrote:



More lawyer weasel talk! Obviously the SCOTUS isn't guided by the originalist interpretation of the Constitution or they never read it.
View All Posts by User
Users browsing this topic
Mobile! Terms | Privacy | Contact Us | Help | © 1998-2026, CigarBid.com