|
Can it be done by reconciliation or does it need 10 Republicans?
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Can it be done by reconciliation or does it need 10 Republicans? No and no. But also it doesn't matter because the legislation couldn't even pass the House. Too many members of congress are in the pocket of real estate interests
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 05:44
|
|
Barreft posted:Hello is anyone alive here? It has been talked about. It's just not an interesting topic because pretty much everyone agrees that landlords are bastards. The vast majority of landlords don't trust their tenants in the slightest so when someone needs federal aid to pay rent they see the tenant as untrustworthy and want to evict them regardless of getting their money or not.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 05:51
|
|
|
"Small" landlords: "The rent moratorium is driving me out of house and home! I can't afford all my mortgages! Why doesn't anybody care about us!"  Also "small" landlords: "Sign a piece of paper so you can get federal relief to pay the back rent you owe me? Now hold on buster brown: you fell behind your rent once, how do I know you're not going to do it again? Unfortunately I have to do the moral and upstanding thing and evict you while forgoing the debt you owe me, for your own good as well as mine."
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 06:03
|
|
|
SCOTUS siding with the landed gentry my word!  And by landed gentry I mean the REAL landed gentry: the corporations that own a shitload of rentals
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 06:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No and no. I think there's a contradiction here; if it passed the House, doesn't that mean it also needs to pass the Senate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 06:05
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think there's a contradiction here; if it passed the House, doesn't that mean it also needs to pass the Senate? I think you may have misread something there. They are saying that it wouldn't be able to pass either the house or the senate so talking about the senate is kind of pointless.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 06:10
|
|
|
This may be an unpopular opinion, but if there's an idea that can't be supported by a majority in either body of representatives of the people, why should the executive get to unilaterally implement it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 12:06
|
|
|
saintonan posted:This may be an unpopular opinion, but if there's an idea that can't be supported by a majority in either body of representatives of the people, why should the executive get to unilaterally implement it? because the constitution gives the executive that kind of power with the understanding that the president and VP are elected by a majority of the people as a check to the legislature, whose role as 'representatives of the people' has a gigantic asterisk called gerrymandering.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 12:35
|
|
|
saintonan posted:This may be an unpopular opinion, but if there's an idea that can't be supported by a majority in either body of representatives of the people, why should the executive get to unilaterally implement it? Because the legislature is gerrymandered to hell, which allows a party which hasn't had even a plurality (let alone a majority) of voters on its side for literally years enact minority rule when they "win" the elections, and block any and all effort from the ruling party when they lose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 12:37
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Because the legislature is gerrymandered to hell, which allows a party which hasn't had even a plurality (let alone a majority) of voters on its side for literally years enact minority rule when they "win" the elections, and block any and all effort from the ruling party when they lose. If they're ruling from the minority it means the other side wants them to because the constitution was purposely designed not to allow congressional minorities to block anything except in a few narrow circumstances
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 12:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If they're ruling from the minority it means the other side wants them to because the constitution was purposely designed not to allow congressional minorities to block anything except in a few narrow circumstances https://youtu.be/OgVKvqTItto I too was shocked to find out the house is not the only chamber of the legislature
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 12:42
|
|
|
saintonan posted:This may be an unpopular opinion, but if there's an idea that can't be supported by a majority in either body of representatives of the people, why should the executive get to unilaterally implement it? Congress lawfully delegated authority for emergency public health orders to the executive. The Supreme Court’s opinion to the contrary is wrong and bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 12:45
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:https://youtu.be/OgVKvqTItto Oh word? Who has the senate majority
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 12:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If they're ruling from the minority it means the other side wants them to because the constitution was purposely designed not to allow congressional minorities to block anything except in a few narrow circumstances It's as if a system designed centuries ago in a very different political environment doesn't work entirely as intended and actors with less than charitable motivations have had a drat long time to figure out how to exploit its shortcomings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 12:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh word? Who has the senate majority *presses buzzer* what is filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 12:51
|
|
|
Mikl posted:*presses buzzer* what is filibuster. How did Trump get three judges confirmed to make this ruling if the filibuster stops the senate from doing anything
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 12:53
|
|
|
CMYK BLYAT! posted:It's as if a system designed centuries ago in a very different political environment doesn't work entirely as intended and actors with less than charitable motivations have had a drat long time to figure out how to exploit its shortcomings. Yes, yes! We need to rip up the constitution!!! Finally someone agrees with me
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 12:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How did Trump get three judges confirmed to make this ruling if the filibuster stops the senate from doing anything Because the GOP removed the filibuster on Supreme Court judicial nominations. Which the Democrats won't do for other stuff because 1. they have senators which are Democrats in name, but are voting against the democrat party line, and 2. they are dumb. tl; dr: CMYK BLYAT! posted:It's as if a system designed centuries ago in a very different political environment doesn't work entirely as intended and actors with less than charitable motivations have had a drat long time to figure out how to exploit its shortcomings. See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 12:56
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Because the GOP removed the filibuster on Supreme Court judicial nominations. Which the Democrats won't do for other stuff because 1. they have senators which are Democrats in name, but are voting against the democrat party line, and 2. they are dumb. VitalSigns posted:If they're ruling from the minority it means the other side wants them to because the constitution was purposely designed not to allow congressional minorities to block anything except in a few narrow circumstances But also the senate isn't the real reason because the eviction moratorium failed to pass in the house as well, too many congresspersons are in the pocket of the real estate business or are landlords themselves
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 13:00
|
|
|
granted you could push that particular argumentative envelope a micron further and say the public broadly approves of the arrangement because nobody's started murdering politicians - after all what are individual consequences when the greater good's at stake?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 13:19
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:granted you could push that particular argumentative envelope a micron further and say the public broadly approves of the arrangement because nobody's started murdering politicians - after all what are individual consequences when the greater good's at stake? I guess admitting that the house can't pass an eviction moratorium because some individual members would lose money is an argument (and a factually correct one) but I think it's understandable that some people are going to be somewhat pissed at them for caring about their individual real estate portfolios more than the well-being of the people they're supposedly there to represent
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 13:26
|
|
|
If this is the defense of congress for not following the court's suggestion to make the moratorium a law, then why is anyone mad at the court. The court didn't want to uphold the moratorium therefore, by  logic it's nobody's fault that this happened and it's just plain gauche to demand people do things they don't want to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 13:29
|
|
|
Congress has always had the power to overrule SCOTUS decisions. They have done so in the past. The congress of the past decade (and really since earmarks were removed) is nonfunctional and cannot pass legislation. The Court saying "congress can fix this" is said with a wink and a nudge because everyone knows that the current congress cannot actually fix anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 13:37
|
|
|
Yes but, checks and balances. You know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 13:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If this is the defense of congress for not following the court's suggestion to make the moratorium a law, then why is anyone mad at the court. Because the gridlock is by design and the court knows they can dump everything into the "but congress should do something about it" hole to make it go away. Congress is bad for being utterly paralyzed by wealth but knowingly handing off life-and-death decisions to a legislature they know full well is incapable of acting is deeply cynical and evil, as is trying to force the situation into a zero-sum framing for the sake of vitriol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 13:53
|
|
|
The legislature isn't incapable of acting, the majority party just doesn't want to. They can act whenever they want just like the other party did when they wanted to put three new judges in the court. If the court overturned the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act today on a technically and said congress has the power to reinstate it by tweaking the law it would pass by lunch E: if we're defining "doesn't want to" as "incapable" now then this isn't the court's fault either, they're incapable of doing things a majority doesn't want to do so this decision is nobody's fault VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Aug 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 14:00
|
|
|
If renters don’t want to be evicted, why don’t they ask daddy to wire them some spending money?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 14:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The legislature isn't incapable of acting, the majority party just doesn't want to. and yet the supreme court chose to entrust the matter to them, the fact that the legislative branch refuses to act doesn't absolve the court's culpability - this isn't a "one must be good because the other bad" scenario, they're both trash how many times do you have to miss that fact before it sticks?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 14:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No and no. Congress did in fact pass legislation including an eviction moratorium last year. Twice, in fact! So it's clearly not completely impossible. It's just that when those moratoriums expired, the executive decided to unilaterally claim the power to extend them or replace them with its own, rather than going back to the legislature. And the courts have been giving pretty clear warnings about that for a while. The last time the eviction moratorium reached the Supreme Court, it only survived because even though five justices thought it was illegal, Kavanaugh figured that since its expiration date was coming up they might as well leave it in place until then. When the administration extended the moratorium again after that, they did so knowing full well that five Supreme Court justices thought the CDC lacked the authority to impose an eviction moratorium. I sure hope they already had a Plan B in mind when they did so. Here's the actual Supreme Court opinion. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
Again, the proper solution to the current SCOTUS is for Biden to ignore them as a comically corrupt and illegitimate branch of the government. Not just because they're legislating from the bench, but because the SCOTUS has a majority appointed by presidents the US people rejected but were stuck with due to an electoral system that is designed to be rigged in the favor of the wealthy and powerful minority. He won't do it, because he, like Obama, is ultimately ok with the status quo of the government (as opposed to actively making poo poo worse like Republicans), but it has to happen at some point since rebalancing the courts is a non-starter and the longer we wait the worse it'll get as the GOP continues to drive the country towards its dream of theocratic fascism and a white ethnostate. Barreft posted:Hello is anyone alive here? Mao had the proper solution to dealing with landlords. FAUXTON posted:granted you could push that particular argumentative envelope a micron further and say the public broadly approves of the arrangement because nobody's started murdering politicians - after all what are individual consequences when the greater good's at stake? Not that the redhats didn't try on Jan 6th, they were just so stupid that they were baited and lead away from the Senate chambers like the lemmings they are. If they'd gotten into the chambers with senators still there we would've seen bloodshed and dead members of Congress because mob mentality it a hell of a thing. VitalSigns posted:If this is the defense of congress for not following the court's suggestion to make the moratorium a law, then why is anyone mad at the court. Because the court is factually wrong that "congress must pass a law" for the moratorium since Congress has already given the executive the authority to take action in emergencies like this. But, again, Biden should just put it back in place and declare it a matter of national security (which it is, because a sudden influx of millions of homeless is a huge loving problem on multiple levels) and order all agencies to ignore further court rulings on the matter. Force the loving issue you cowards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Again, the proper solution to the current SCOTUS is for Biden to ignore them as a comically corrupt and illegitimate branch of the government. Not just because they're legislating from the bench, but because the SCOTUS has a majority appointed by presidents the US people rejected but were stuck with due to an electoral system that is designed to be rigged in the favor of the wealthy and powerful minority. The Roberts court is a real hosed up institution, but what's Biden supposed to do to "ignore them" here? You say that he should "order all agencies to ignore further court rulings on the matter" but that wouldn't actually do much to stop evictions. Eviction orders are handed down by local courts, who answer to their state and the federal Supreme Court, not the executive branch. They're generally enforced by local police or sheriffs, who answer to city, county, or state governments, not the federal executive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 17:38
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:The Roberts court is a real hosed up institution, but what's Biden supposed to do to "ignore them" here? You say that he should "order all agencies to ignore further court rulings on the matter" but that wouldn't actually do much to stop evictions. On top of that, it's unlikely that local police or local courts would side with the Biden administration over the Supreme Court, especially in red states where they've already been openly defying the eviction moratorium: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/08/26/evictions-are-increasing-judges-grow-tired-national-moratorium/ quote:The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a federal eviction moratorium late Thursday, allowing evictions to resume all around the country. But in several states grappling with a new surge in coronavirus cases, the policy has been effectively dead for weeks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:The level to which this Court is now exposing its blatant partisanship is comical. The comparison to when they would practically hand-hold the Trump Administration through its blatant law breaking so it could do the evil poo poo it wanted to now when they're ripping executive power apart for no reason but to increase suffering while a Democrat is president in the hopes that the President will be blamed could not be more stark. Platystemon posted:Congress lawfully delegated authority for emergency public health orders to the executive. The Supreme Court’s opinion to the contrary is wrong and bad. Evil Fluffy posted:Because the court is factually wrong that "congress must pass a law" for the moratorium since Congress has already given the executive the authority to take action in emergencies like this. FAUXTON posted:Congress is bad for being utterly paralyzed by wealth but knowingly handing off life-and-death decisions to a legislature they know full well is incapable of acting is deeply cynical and evil, as is trying to force the situation into a zero-sum framing for the sake of vitriol. Courts should not be in the business of fixing the legislature's gently caress-ups, and saying that we should override rule of law in "life and death situations" is a deeply cynical position with no meaningful limits. It's like listening to ghouls from the W. Bush administration argue about how they should be allowed to torture people based on a scenario they saw on "24".
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 20:03
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:and yet the supreme court chose to entrust the matter to them, the fact that the legislative branch refuses to act doesn't absolve the court's culpability - this isn't a "one must be good because the other bad" scenario, they're both trash how many times do you have to miss that fact before it sticks? I have not missed that fact: that was my entire point. The congressional majorities are not incapable or helpless to forces beyond their control, being manipulated by the cynical dastardly court. Congress is being just as cynical and manipulative as SCOTUS is here, refusing to use their power to extend the moratorium and shifting the blame elsewhere (the court is shifting it to congress, congress is shifting the blame for its refusal to act onto the states). Dead Reckoning posted:If you believe SCOTUS is a corrupt, captured institution utterly dedicated to a partisan Republican agenda, you shouldn't want them to step into the vacuum congress has created. The argument as I understand it is that existing law already granted this emergency authority to the executive, and the court is disregarding the rule of law by saying it doesn't. Maybe that's right or wrong, but it's not the argument you claim is being made. And the Roberts court does this a lot. When they don't like a law, but their party can't win enough votes in democratic elections to repeal it, the court just tells congress they have to pass it over again once their allies are in a position to obstruct. Which is also bad for democracy and the rule of law. Repealing laws should happen after people who want to repeal it win elections, it should not happen because courts just say "no we don't like it you have to do it again and again until you finally can't do it anymore", that's like Victorian Era House of Lords poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Congress has always had the power to overrule SCOTUS decisions. They have done so in the past. Did they reinstate earmarks this year?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2021 05:52
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Yes, yes! We need to rip up the constitution!!! Finally someone agrees with me The constitution certainly needs to be replaced with something better, however, I'm very skeptical that if we had a constitutional tomorrow that what would be proposed and passed would be better, at least not without an intervening civil war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2021 05:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:To whatever extent you believe the non-delegation doctrine is real, interpreting §361(a) of the Public Health Service Act to mean "The CDC can promulgate literally any rules it deems necessary to prevent the spread of disease and have them carry the full weight of federal law, YOLO" almost certainly falls afoul of it. It’s an effective measure against the worst pandemic in over a century. If the CDC’s hands are tied in this, what’s the point of the institution? Making slick posters to hang up in break rooms and tweet at each other? Dead Reckoning posted:Courts should not be in the business of fixing the legislature's gently caress-ups Exactly, which is why the courts shouldn’t decide “oh, well, Congress didn’t really mean to give him the authority to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases, so we’re just going to take that back for them. You’re welcome, Congress.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2021 06:14
|
|
|
It’s bonkers that when the executive (R) repeatedly promises “I’m going to ban Muslims” and then much later justifies it (after several false starts) with “there’s secret national security reasons”, the court’s like “Yup. Seems legit to us.” Then when executive (D) is goes “Hey you know this thing that’s killing more Americans in a day than terrorists did in a decade? Yeah, I have a few measures aimed to help with that”, suddenly the court enhances their scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2021 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:It’s bonkers that when the executive (R) repeatedly promises “I’m going to ban Muslims” and then much later justifies it (after several false starts) with “there’s secret national security reasons”, the court’s like “Yup. Seems legit to us.” Putting a robe and a fancy title on a facist makes them more facist not less.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2021 13:02
|
|
