Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The question here is do we still recognize property rights, contract obligations and economic reality for business owners? Or are we going full fascist, with federal government bureaucrats at the CDC controlling and directing the means of production?
A group of landlords on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to end a nationwide freeze on evictions so that property owners can proceed with removing financially distressed renters from their homes. The emergency request comes a day after a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., rebuffed the group's bid to nullify the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) eviction moratorium.
Led by the Alabama Association of Realtors, the group asked Chief Justice John Roberts to reinstate a lower court ruling that found public health officials had overstepped their authority in halting evictions across the U.S. "Landlords have been losing over $13 billion every month under the moratorium, and the total effect of the CDC's overreach may reach up to $200 billion if it remains in effect for a year," read the brief filed to Roberts, who handles emergency requests related to D.C.-based litigation.
The CDC order, which is set to expire at the end of June, aims to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus by helping cash-strapped tenants remain in their homes. Renters seeking protection must declare under penalty of perjury that they would face overcrowded conditions if evicted and that they have made their best effort to pay rent.
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
If someone wants to make the case for a short term emergency, certainly that argument is long gone now, unless the emergency is going to be a permanent one.
Please note that the DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment. They are going to have to pick a side here. Are they going to do that based on the law, which is their duty, or on the basis of the partisan howls of the corporate media-led leftist mob? We will see.
I do not want to see anyone ever evicted from their home. But if someone owns a property, they have to be able to manage it within the law and with a mind towards being economically responsible for the assets that they are invested in. To demand that property owners across the country be required to provide free rent to millions of people - indefinitely - is as unsustainable as it is irresponsible.
The question here is do we still recognize property rights, contract obligations and economic reality for business owners? Or are we going full fascist, with federal government bureaucrats at the CDC controlling and directing the means of production?
If someone wants to make the case for a short term emergency, certainly that argument is long gone now, unless the emergency is going to be a permanent one.
Please note that the DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment. They are going to have to pick a side here. Are they going to do that based on the law, which is their duty, or on the basis of the partisan howls of the corporate media-led leftist mob? We will see.
I do not want to see anyone ever evicted from their home. But if someone owns a property, they have to be able to manage it within the law and with a mind towards being economically responsible for the assets that they are invested in. To demand that property owners across the country be required to provide free rent to millions of people - indefinitely - is as unsustainable as it is irresponsible.
This cannot go on.
If people can "afford" to thumb their noses at their previous job because it doesn't pay at least $15/hour, they afford to pay they rent or be evicted.
I also hope that the landlords can sue for back rent not paid during the lockdown.
In this liberal SJW, racial equality, antifa, BLM day and age, you can forget about it. People of color and minority will no longer have to pay for anything.
I am 100% in favor of ending the moratorium at this point but this group needs to go to District Court. There is no baisis for a Supreme Court justice to make a ruling here unless there's a lower court order out there on this of which I am unaware. Emergency orders are uncommon anyway and where they are granted they relate to lower court decisions such as a stay of a Circuit Court decision. If there is no lower court order this is likely an attempt at publicity for the cause.
I am 100% in favor of ending the moratorium at this point but this group needs to go to District Court. There is no baisis for a Supreme Court justice to make a ruling here unless there's a lower court order out there on this of which I am unaware. Emergency orders are uncommon anyway and where they are granted they relate to lower court decisions such as a stay of a Circuit Court decision. If there is no lower court order this is likely an attempt at publicity for the cause.
As discussed in the article linked in the OP, this case was originally filed in district court and the district court agreed with the landlords. That case was appealed and overturned by the appeals court. So the next stop is SCOTUS.
As discussed in the article linked in the OP, this case was originally filed in district court and the district court agreed with the landlords. That case was appealed and overturned by the appeals court. So the next stop is SCOTUS.
OK got it - that makes more sense. Thank you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.