The Biden (interim) Dictator

[Kat Kid]

I honestly didn't read all of the opinions, I'm assuming it went: 4 said yes it was FULLY CONSTITUIONAL, 4 said nope, then Kavanaugh was like well who cares it is going away.

And Kavanaugh said he thought it requires legislative action to go beyond July 31.  To me, that's a pretty clear indication that legislative action is required for the moratorium to be extended past July 31.

That isn’t how Supreme Court rulings work. Kavanaugh not anyone else is bound by Kavanaugh saying something in a concurring that he would probably rule differently in the future.

The whole point of this is to buy time for a temporary extension, which it did and then if the Supreme Court says no later, fine deal with what to do then.

[sonofdaxjones]

Perfect outcome for Biden here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

eff them laws and eff those small real estate investors.   As we have 1.5 million more jobs open than people on unemployment.

[Justwin]

I honestly didn't read all of the opinions, I'm assuming it went: 4 said yes it was FULLY CONSTITUIONAL, 4 said nope, then Kavanaugh was like well who cares it is going away.

And Kavanaugh said he thought it requires legislative action to go beyond July 31.  To me, that's a pretty clear indication that legislative action is required for the moratorium to be extended past July 31.

That isn’t how Supreme Court rulings work. Kavanaugh not anyone else is bound by Kavanaugh saying something in a concurring that he would probably rule differently in the future.

The whole point of this is to buy time for a temporary extension, which it did and then if the Supreme Court says no later, fine deal with what to do then.

Then there should never be a complaint from anyone about a president doing something unconstitutional.  Just let them do it and then see what the Supreme Court says.

[Kat Kid]

I honestly didn't read all of the opinions, I'm assuming it went: 4 said yes it was FULLY CONSTITUIONAL, 4 said nope, then Kavanaugh was like well who cares it is going away.

And Kavanaugh said he thought it requires legislative action to go beyond July 31.  To me, that's a pretty clear indication that legislative action is required for the moratorium to be extended past July 31.

That isn’t how Supreme Court rulings work. Kavanaugh not anyone else is bound by Kavanaugh saying something in a concurring that he would probably rule differently in the future.

The whole point of this is to buy time for a temporary extension, which it did and then if the Supreme Court says no later, fine deal with what to do then.

Then there should never be a complaint from anyone about a president doing something unconstitutional.  Just let them do it and then see what the Supreme Court says.

Who interprets what is Constitutional?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[420seriouscat69]

https://twitter.com/38godfrey/status/1425088315347329026?s=21

[Justwin]

I honestly didn't read all of the opinions, I'm assuming it went: 4 said yes it was FULLY CONSTITUIONAL, 4 said nope, then Kavanaugh was like well who cares it is going away.

And Kavanaugh said he thought it requires legislative action to go beyond July 31.  To me, that's a pretty clear indication that legislative action is required for the moratorium to be extended past July 31.

That isn’t how Supreme Court rulings work. Kavanaugh not anyone else is bound by Kavanaugh saying something in a concurring that he would probably rule differently in the future.

The whole point of this is to buy time for a temporary extension, which it did and then if the Supreme Court says no later, fine deal with what to do then.

Then there should never be a complaint from anyone about a president doing something unconstitutional.  Just let them do it and then see what the Supreme Court says.

Who interprets what is Constitutional?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Everyone interprets what they think is constitutional.  In terms of what laws and executive orders are allowed to stand, we have a 200+ year tradition of allowing the Supreme Court to make that determination.

In this case, it's pretty clear how the Supreme Court views the eviction moratorium.  Biden even admitted it himself.

[Woogy]

I honestly didn't read all of the opinions, I'm assuming it went: 4 said yes it was FULLY CONSTITUIONAL, 4 said nope, then Kavanaugh was like well who cares it is going away.

And Kavanaugh said he thought it requires legislative action to go beyond July 31.  To me, that's a pretty clear indication that legislative action is required for the moratorium to be extended past July 31.

That isn’t how Supreme Court rulings work. Kavanaugh not anyone else is bound by Kavanaugh saying something in a concurring that he would probably rule differently in the future.

The whole point of this is to buy time for a temporary extension, which it did and then if the Supreme Court says no later, fine deal with what to do then.

Then there should never be a complaint from anyone about a president doing something unconstitutional.  Just let them do it and then see what the Supreme Court says.

Interviewer David Frost has a difficult time with his subject, former President Richard Nixon, in the day’s early questioning (see April 6, 1977). Frost attempts to recoup with a line of questioning suggested by his adviser James Reston, Jr., one used in the trial of former Nixon aide John Ehrlichman (see January 1, 1975). Were there no limits to what a president can do, even if the president wants to do something plainly illegal? he asks. Could he do anything despite the law? Burglary? Forgery? Even murder? “If the president does it, that means it’s not illegal,” Nixon retorts. “Never had his imperialism been so baldly stated,” Reston will later reflect. Frost asks if the dividing line between, for example, a police burglary and the murder of an antiwar protester is only the president’s judgment? Nixon agrees, and adds: “There’s nothing specific that the Constitution contemplates in that respect. I haven’t read every word, every jot and every tittle, but I do know this: That it has been, however, argued that as far as a president is concerned, that in war time, a president does have certain extraordinary powers which would make acts that would otherwise be unlawful, lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the nation and the Constitution, which is essential for the rights we’re all talking about.”

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a040677nixonnotillegal

[sonofdaxjones]

The imperial presidency is perfectly acceptable . . . as long as it's our guy/woman (ProgFascist Nation)

See also fist pumping at candidate Biden's proclamation about executive orders being a dictatorship . . . and the subsequent fist pumping at the unprecedented pace of executive orders once iPOTUS Biden was sworn in.   

[yoga-like_abana]

The imperial presidency

Great beer name

[sonofdaxjones]

I know a place that’s got lots of oil.  But hey, eff them American oil workers

https://twitter.com/javierblas/status/1425420240616411137?s=21

[sys]

for the record, i think biden's order was pretty blatantly in violation of his oath to uphold the constitution, is really no different from when trump ignored laws and dared the supreme court to stop him and sucks complete ass.

but i also don't think the eviction moratorium is good policy, so discount however you want.

[Kat Kid]

Kavanaugh writing a concurring opinion, to which no one else joined, does not decided the interpretation of the Constitution folks. Sorry that isn’t how it works.

[steve dave]

The constitution take volume knob is negatively correlated to the knowing how the constitution works knob. And a lot of folks crank that first knob all the way.

[Spracne]

The constitution take volume knob is negatively correlated to the knowing how the constitution works knob. And a lot of folks crank that first knob all the way.

You will note I have not opined.

[steve dave]

The constitution take volume knob is negatively correlated to the knowing how the constitution works knob. And a lot of folks crank that first knob all the way.

You will note I have not opined.

lording your knowledge over all of us with shutting the eff up

[Justwin]

Kavanaugh writing a concurring opinion, to which no one else joined, does not decided the interpretation of the Constitution folks. Sorry that isn’t how it works.

My understanding is that four justices said they would remove the stay and end the eviction moratorium because it's unconstitutional.  Kavanaugh said he thinks it requires legislative action to go beyond July 31, otherwise it's unconstitutional.  Four justices said they would not remove the stay.

The determination that Biden's eviction moratorium is unconstitutional does not rely only on Kavanaugh's opinion.

If the Supreme Court justices were voting on what temperature to set the thermostat and four said set it at 70, Kavanaugh said set it at 71 and four others said set it at 72, would you say that only one justice thought 71 is preferable to 70?

[steve dave]

Spracne, we’re gonna need you to not shut the eff up for a minute here alright?

[Spracne]

Kavanaugh writing a concurring opinion, to which no one else joined, does not decided the interpretation of the Constitution folks. Sorry that isn’t how it works.

My understanding is that four justices said they would remove the stay and end the eviction moratorium because it's unconstitutional.  Kavanaugh said he thinks it requires legislative action to go beyond July 31, otherwise it's unconstitutional.  Four justices said they would not remove the stay.

The determination that Biden's eviction moratorium is unconstitutional does not rely only on Kavanaugh's opinion.

If the Supreme Court justices were voting on what temperature to set the thermostat and four said set it at 70, Kavanaugh said set it at 71 and four others said set it at 72, would you say that only one justice thought 71 is preferable to 70?

Yeah, so a concurring opinion means you concur in the outcome but don't necessarily endorse all the reasoning employed to arrive at that outcome, right? So that's why you write separately. If you have 4 joining the plurality opinion, plus 1 concurring opinion, that means that you have a majority voting for the disposition (outcome). However, only the reasoning that overlaps between the plurality (4) and Kavanaugh (+1 = majority!) has precedential (as opposed to influential) effect. So, you're pretty much right. If Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome but wrote separately, it is in fact true that the opinion of the Court is clear as it relates to the ultimate outcome, but probably not all of the reasoning involved. Other than the ultimate conclusion, you would have to compare Kavanaugh's opinion to the plurality opinion, and wherever they agree, that would be stare decisis, albeit kind of weak stare decisis.

[Spracne]

There are often multiple issues, though, and you need to read the syllabus and pay attention to which justices are joining which portions of the opinion, just to clarify. If someone can give me the case name, I will take a look and give you my view of what is settled. For steve dave, I am willing to spend 5-10 minutes on this task.

[sonofdaxjones]

Learn my name, Joe

https://www.al.com/news/2021/08/biden-calls-michigan-gov-gretchen-whitmer-jennifer-during-meeting.html

[sonofdaxjones]

You can debate what the SCOTUS is going to do all day long.

Based on the conversations I had with friends in the medical staffing business in Kansas City last night, coupled with the 1.5 million more open jobs than people on unemployment. 

It’s not hard to deduce that at this point and relative to the medical industry it is now a matter of life and death.   The moratorium along with similar programs is only fueling the crisis.   Oh, and Covid is only a small % of the challenge the fuels the crisis.  This is particularly apparent at the healthcare facilities serving the most critically injured/ill and/or those that rely on emergency services for access to medical care. 

My friends are literally turning away business because they cannot find the staff . . . and the hospitals are calling them because they can’t find the staff.

Another friends daughter is at KU’s trauma center.  Overworked but with the respite of knowing she’s going to make tens of thousands of dollars more than she normally would based on the incentives, bonuses and differential payouts they have to pay in order to get people to work.   

[star seed 7]

So hospitals can't find staff because people aren't being evicted? Is that what you're crypticly saying?

[Dugout DickStone]

There are often multiple issues, though, and you need to read the syllabus and pay attention to which justices are joining which portions of the opinion, just to clarify. If someone can give me the case name, I will take a look and give you my view of what is settled. For steve dave, I am willing to spend 5-10 minutes on this task.

sd is worth at least a .3

[sonofdaxjones]

So hospitals can't find staff because people aren't being evicted? Is that what you're crypticly saying?

The incentive not to work. 

You’re going to be the usual total dipshit about this aren’t you.

So on brand.  Sad

[star seed 7]

You're right, it's probably the eviction thing and not that it's been a brutal 18 months that continues on because your side (your words) refuse to be vaccinated.