4 ms·

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/biden-s-rebuff-to-supreme-court-on-eviction-ban-will-backfire https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/biden-s-rebuff-to-supreme-court-on-eviction-ban-will-backfire https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/biden-... > The president knows this. He told the press that his administration had surveyed the opinions of constitutional scholars, and that most thought an extension would be unlawful. Yet under political pressure from the left, Biden nevertheless ultimately decided to issue the extension. In other words: SCOTUS wrote words clearly indicating a ban would be illegal. By a technicality (expiration date), they didn't issue an explicit ruling. Biden did it anyway, while admitting he knew it was illegal.

Spivak 5y ago
Seems like a good political move though, now the courts actually have to make the administration stop and get all the negative heat from putting people on the street. I mean the supreme law of the land let an order they believed was unconstitutional stand because of their personal moral imperatives and empathy toward renters. Is it really that crazy to shoot your shot and see if they do it again? Like the whole situation is nuts — “I think this is unconstitutional but I’m not going to say so because the law is gonna expire soon.” If that’s really the case then you could rule the other way with a clear conscience since it’s only a few days. Taking a bet that it was a bluff with little downsides if your wrong seems like a no brainer. And the administration gets to say they did all they could and it’s up to congress now.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > let a law they believed was unconstitutional Nobody alleged anything was unconstitutional. The question was whether the CDC exceeded the authority Congress gave it. The Court declined to answer that question when it was first raised. It answered it, definitively, the second time, striking down the moratorium extension.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    Right, my only point was that it essentially cost the administration nothing to extend it on the chance that they would decline again or vote differently when it actually mattered.

Spivak 5y ago

Seems like a good political move though, now the courts actually have to make the administration stop and get all the negative heat from putting people on the street. I mean the supreme law of the land let an order they believed was unconstitutional stand because of their personal moral imperatives and empathy toward renters. Is it really that crazy to shoot your shot and see if they do it again? Like the whole situation is nuts — “I think this is unconstitutional but I’m not going to say so because the law is gonna expire soon.” If that’s really the case then you could rule the other way with a clear conscience since it’s only a few days. Taking a bet that it was a bluff with little downsides if your wrong seems like a no brainer. And the administration gets to say they did all they could and it’s up to congress now.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> let a law they believed was unconstitutional Nobody alleged anything was unconstitutional. The question was whether the CDC exceeded the authority Congress gave it. The Court declined to answer that question when it was first raised. It answered it, definitively, the second time, striking down the moratorium extension.
- Spivak 5y ago
  Right, my only point was that it essentially cost the administration nothing to extend it on the chance that they would decline again or vote differently when it actually mattered.