3 ms·

> "The public interest strongly favors respecting the CDC’s judgment at this moment, when over 90 percent of counties are experiencing high transmission rates,"

> "The public interest strongly favors respecting the CDC’s judgment at this moment, when over 90 percent of counties are experiencing high transmission rates," Breyer wrote. I wonder if the Supreme Court doing their job and weighing in on the legality of executive branch actions is also in the public interest?

loxias 5y ago
> I wonder if the Supreme Court doing their job and weighing in on the legality of executive branch actions is also in the public interest? Apparently not.
detaro 5y ago
... he comments under the Supreme Court doing exactly that. (and yes, a justice having a different opinion is part of that, and no, he didn't just say that public interest overrides, but specifically argues why he thinks the modified moratorium could be legal. But cherry-picking quotes is fun I guess)
- SamPatt 5y ago
  The dissenting opinion is relevant. Judges making policy from the bench is an age old issue.
  - detaro 5y ago
    Yes, and I'm pointing out that the dissenting opinion is weighing in on the legality of it, you just choose a quote that's not about that part.
dehrmann 5y ago
It's been a year and a half. The emergency justifications are gone, so it's time for congress to act. It's the judicial branch's job to act as a check on the power of the executive branch.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Note that it is also the judicial branch's job to act as a check on the power of the legislative branch. (For example, if Congress passed a bill that said that nobody could collect rent for the next two years, that would probably be an unconstitutional "taking".)
  - dehrmann 5y ago
    Probably. It gets into eminent domain law. It would also mean you could sue the government for what it seized from you. Amusingly, if there's someone in the military who wasn't paying rent because of covid, the policy might have been a Third Amendment violation in that particular case.

loxias 5y ago

> I wonder if the Supreme Court doing their job and weighing in on the legality of executive branch actions is also in the public interest? Apparently not.

detaro 5y ago

... he comments under the Supreme Court doing exactly that. (and yes, a justice having a different opinion is part of that, and no, he didn't just say that public interest overrides, but specifically argues why he thinks the modified moratorium could be legal. But cherry-picking quotes is fun I guess)

SamPatt 5y ago
The dissenting opinion is relevant. Judges making policy from the bench is an age old issue.
- detaro 5y ago
  Yes, and I'm pointing out that the dissenting opinion is weighing in on the legality of it, you just choose a quote that's not about that part.

dehrmann 5y ago

It's been a year and a half. The emergency justifications are gone, so it's time for congress to act. It's the judicial branch's job to act as a check on the power of the executive branch.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Note that it is also the judicial branch's job to act as a check on the power of the legislative branch. (For example, if Congress passed a bill that said that nobody could collect rent for the next two years, that would probably be an unconstitutional "taking".)
- dehrmann 5y ago
  Probably. It gets into eminent domain law. It would also mean you could sue the government for what it seized from you. Amusingly, if there's someone in the military who wasn't paying rent because of covid, the policy might have been a Third Amendment violation in that particular case.