Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   DOJ appeals idiot TX judge ruling which sort-of-threw-out the eviction moratorium   (cnn.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Landlord, Leasehold estate, Eviction, Lease, Eviction Moratorium Order, Renting, U.S. state, Department of Justice  
•       •       •

2272 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Feb 2021 at 3:50 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



92 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-02-28 12:32:17 PM  
Confused here.
Did they reverse the overturn on the ban on the restriction preventing the opposite of something or what?
 
2021-02-28 3:11:06 PM  
Recall the judge too
 
2021-02-28 3:52:20 PM  

vudukungfu: Confused here.
Did they reverse the overturn on the ban on the restriction preventing the opposite of something or what?


Yes.
 
2021-02-28 3:54:28 PM  

vudukungfu: Confused here.
Did they reverse the overturn on the ban on the restriction preventing the opposite of something or what?


Judge essentially argued that the CDC doing its job was unconstitutional because gold fringe flags and pocket constitutions.  It was a hot mess of derp that would have allowed evictions to restart.
 
2021-02-28 3:55:03 PM  
"DOJ appeals idiot TX judge" is at least two oxymorons and three redundancies in one statement.
 
2021-02-28 3:57:15 PM  

Murkanen: vudukungfu: Confused here.
Did they reverse the overturn on the ban on the restriction preventing the opposite of something or what?

Judge essentially argued that the CDC doing its job was unconstitutional because gold fringe flags and pocket constitutions.  It was a hot mess of derp that would have allowed evictions to restart.


Yup, and it showed just how bad a lot of these judges Trump appointed are, and we're stuck with them for decades.
 
2021-02-28 4:03:29 PM  
Good. But it's only a delaying tactic. Without forgiving back rent the evictions will happen eventually. Which is why every household (at a minimum) should have been receiving an indexed monthly payment ... or if that's too complicated $1000 or whatever.
 
2021-02-28 4:03:33 PM  
If these landlords have done the smart thing they would have set the electricity, gas, and water as part of the rent and then turned it off for nonpayment. That's the easiest way to evict people.
 
2021-02-28 4:04:59 PM  

mrmopar5287: If these landlords have done the smart thing they would have set the electricity, gas, and water as part of the rent and then turned it off for nonpayment. That's the easiest way to evict people.


And also blatantly illegal.
 
2021-02-28 4:05:42 PM  

powhound: Without forgiving back rent


One problem: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
 
2021-02-28 4:07:33 PM  

jake_lex: Murkanen: vudukungfu: Confused here.
Did they reverse the overturn on the ban on the restriction preventing the opposite of something or what?

Judge essentially argued that the CDC doing its job was unconstitutional because gold fringe flags and pocket constitutions.  It was a hot mess of derp that would have allowed evictions to restart.

Yup, and it showed just how bad a lot of these judges Trump appointed are, and we're stuck with them for decades.


That's baffling to me.I'm all for a public referendum on firing the lot of them. Rules can be changed if we want. And the only people allowed a say on the referendum should be from places that don't have a large terrorist population. IE: no more votes for red states and the trash that live in them. I'm tired of this game we play where we pretend they're not a bunch of cracked-out trash people. Even the wealthy red staters. Even the Repubs that live in blue states. If you ever supported Trump or the insurrection, you should have no further say in the public forum of the United States, ever.
 
2021-02-28 4:08:05 PM  

red230: mrmopar5287: If these landlords have done the smart thing they would have set the electricity, gas, and water as part of the rent and then turned it off for nonpayment. That's the easiest way to evict people.

And also blatantly illegal.


It's not. If utilities are included with the rent of the property and broken out as a separate expense, it's perfectly legal to disconnect for non-payment.

As an example, you can structure a lease as follows:
Rent - $950 per month
Electricity - $50 per month

By doing this, the total due each month is $1,000, but the rent of $950 is deducted first and only then does the last dollars paid each month go toward the $50 monthly electric charge. If your tenant is short $1, you can turn off their electricity due to non-payment.
 
2021-02-28 4:08:28 PM  

red230: And also blatantly illegal.


I should say that YMMV, depending on the state laws.
 
2021-02-28 4:08:29 PM  

mrmopar5287: powhound: Without forgiving back rent

One problem: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


Just compensation is allowing landlords to keep one house and not be skinned alive by the people they have taken advantage of.
 
2021-02-28 4:13:00 PM  

Bandito King: Just compensation is allowing landlords to keep one house and not be skinned alive by the people they have taken advantage of.


We're beyond the point where the problem is just predatory landlords.
 
2021-02-28 4:14:15 PM  
She a-howlin' about the front rent, she'll be lucky to get any back rent
 
2021-02-28 4:16:34 PM  

BlippityBleep: She a-howlin' about the front rent, she'll be lucky to get any back rent


Thanks for the ear worm!
 
2021-02-28 4:26:24 PM  

KingKauff: BlippityBleep: She a-howlin' about the front rent, she'll be lucky to get any back rent

Thanks for the ear worm!


She ain't gonna get none of it

/just put it on my playlist lol
 
2021-02-28 4:31:34 PM  
A surprisingly small number of, "Fark you, I got mine," posts in this thread... Funny how most of the fascist crow crowd has ignored this topic...
 
2021-02-28 4:34:17 PM  

Murkanen: vudukungfu: Confused here.
Did they reverse the overturn on the ban on the restriction preventing the opposite of something or what?

Judge essentially argued that the CDC doing its job was unconstitutional because gold fringe flags and pocket constitutions.  It was a hot mess of derp that would have allowed evictions to restart.


My understanding was it was such a hot mess of a statement no one was even sure if it did that.

However I am not a lawyer and my above understanding is based on fark comments, so load up on salt.
 
2021-02-28 4:43:03 PM  
If I have enough money to buy a second home and rent it out, and the CDC says I can't evict people...

I can't cover the mortgage now, and you eventually get a foreclosure, and where do the renters live now?
 
2021-02-28 4:44:07 PM  

recondite cetacean: If I have enough money to buy a second home and rent it out, and the CDC says I can't evict people...

I can't cover the mortgage now, and you eventually get a foreclosure, and where do the renters live now?


If it gets foreclosed on because you didn't pay the mortgage, YOU DO NOT have enough money to buy a second home.
 
2021-02-28 4:46:30 PM  

recondite cetacean: If I have enough money to buy a second home and rent it out, and the CDC says I can't evict people...

I can't cover the mortgage now, and you eventually get a foreclosure, and where do the renters live now?


Depending on the state exactly where they do now. I know when we sold our old property we had to wait out the rental contract because the new owners would have had to honor it regardless of why/how they came to be in possession of the property.

However the bigger issue is the fact we do not have a plan (nevermind a good plan) in place to stop the bottom falling out when this whole mess starts to calm down. Frankly as it is now this could be an economic armageddon ticking away.
 
2021-02-28 4:49:24 PM  

recondite cetacean: If I have enough money to buy a second home and rent it out, and the CDC says I can't evict people...

I can't cover the mortgage now, and you eventually get a foreclosure, and where do the renters live now?


However my cousin who is a serious property owner and renter would state that if you did not have the income to buy the house without renting it out that was your mistake.

I know when our second property was not renting it was extremely tight but we were keeping it afloat.

Ultimately that is why we sold, it was just barely within our means without renters and the stress was not worth the meager amount it was bringing in when it did rent.
 
2021-02-28 4:50:28 PM  
I can hear the judge now, saying "Respect mah authoritah!"
 
2021-02-28 4:50:30 PM  

recondite cetacean: If I have enough money to buy a second home and rent it out, and the CDC says I can't evict people...

I can't cover the mortgage now, and you eventually get a foreclosure, and where do the renters live now?


The bank takes the property, then sells it to a real estate investor for pennies on the dollar of its real value.
 
2021-02-28 4:52:05 PM  

mrmopar5287: If these landlords have done the smart thing they would have set the electricity, gas, and water as part of the rent and then turned it off for nonpayment. That's the easiest way to evict people.


Trump lost. Q is a pedophile living in the Philippians. And Gavin McInnes stuck a large dildo up his ass.
 
2021-02-28 4:55:49 PM  

fortheloveof: recondite cetacean: If I have enough money to buy a second home and rent it out, and the CDC says I can't evict people...

I can't cover the mortgage now, and you eventually get a foreclosure, and where do the renters live now?

However my cousin who is a serious property owner and renter would state that if you did not have the income to buy the house without renting it out that was your mistake.

I know when our second property was not renting it was extremely tight but we were keeping it afloat.

Ultimately that is why we sold, it was just barely within our means without renters and the stress was not worth the meager amount it was bringing in when it did rent.


And that's how it should be.

It's remarkable to me to see landlords so often complain about how hard it is to be a landlord and how put-upon they are. Gee, I'm so sorry that owning multiple properties is difficult. Try owning zero, because you're too poor for anyone to sell you anything. I guarantee you that's way more stressful. Especially when you're too poor to pay a $1000 mortgage so you're forced to pay $2000 in rent instead.

/not saying this is you
//I'm saying this isn't you, and those other people suck. A lot.
///just finished moving today because my last landlord became a raging asshole during the pandemic and we couldn't take it any more.
 
2021-02-28 5:02:21 PM  

mrmopar5287: red230: mrmopar5287: If these landlords have done the smart thing they would have set the electricity, gas, and water as part of the rent and then turned it off for nonpayment. That's the easiest way to evict people.

And also blatantly illegal.

It's not. If utilities are included with the rent of the property and broken out as a separate expense, it's perfectly legal to disconnect for non-payment.

As an example, you can structure a lease as follows:
Rent - $950 per month
Electricity - $50 per month

By doing this, the total due each month is $1,000, but the rent of $950 is deducted first and only then does the last dollars paid each month go toward the $50 monthly electric charge. If your tenant is short $1, you can turn off their electricity due to non-payment.


No.  https://www.findlaw.com/realestate/la​n​dlord-tenant-law/what-is-the-implied-w​arranty-of-habitability.html

It's even difficult for gas and power to be shut off for non-payment by utilities.  Heat and water are too basic requirements of habitability.
 
2021-02-28 5:03:41 PM  

austerity101: fortheloveof: recondite cetacean: If I have enough money to buy a second home and rent it out, and the CDC says I can't evict people...

I can't cover the mortgage now, and you eventually get a foreclosure, and where do the renters live now?

However my cousin who is a serious property owner and renter would state that if you did not have the income to buy the house without renting it out that was your mistake.

I know when our second property was not renting it was extremely tight but we were keeping it afloat.

Ultimately that is why we sold, it was just barely within our means without renters and the stress was not worth the meager amount it was bringing in when it did rent.

And that's how it should be.

It's remarkable to me to see landlords so often complain about how hard it is to be a landlord and how put-upon they are. Gee, I'm so sorry that owning multiple properties is difficult. Try owning zero, because you're too poor for anyone to sell you anything. I guarantee you that's way more stressful. Especially when you're too poor to pay a $1000 mortgage so you're forced to pay $2000 in rent instead.

/not saying this is you
//I'm saying this isn't you, and those other people suck. A lot.
///just finished moving today because my last landlord became a raging asshole during the pandemic and we couldn't take it any more.


We ended up forgiving a good amount of back rent due to understanding the situation some of our renters were in and being in a position where we could. One group we could not because we had a managing company and the follow on couple intentionally damaged the property and were rude to the neighbors that we had worked hard to build good relationships with.

Owning rental property is not an easy thing if you do not have it in bulk and if you have it in bulk either you do not make much (per unit) because you have a company handling the customer interface or you spend a lot of sweat equity into the job yourself.

Otherwise you end up with crap lots that are falling apart that you cannot rent to good clientele.

Once you get out of good clientele it is nothing but headaches for the rest of your days.
 
2021-02-28 5:05:08 PM  

zeroman987: Q is a pedophile living in the Philippians.


That's in Minnesota, right?
 
2021-02-28 5:05:52 PM  

mrmopar5287: recondite cetacean: If I have enough money to buy a second home and rent it out, and the CDC says I can't evict people...

I can't cover the mortgage now, and you eventually get a foreclosure, and where do the renters live now?

If it gets foreclosed on because you didn't pay the mortgage, YOU DO NOT have enough money to buy a second home.


How does knowing that help the renters?
 
2021-02-28 5:05:54 PM  

TomDooley: No.  https://www.findlaw.com/realestate/lan​dlord-tenant-law/what-is-the-implied-w​arranty-of-habitability.html

It's even difficult for gas and power to be shut off for non-payment by utilities.  Heat and water are too basic requirements of habitability.


This does not apply to the example that I've listed because the habitability is determined/decided by the tenant.
 
2021-02-28 5:08:23 PM  

recondite cetacean: mrmopar5287: recondite cetacean: If I have enough money to buy a second home and rent it out, and the CDC says I can't evict people...

I can't cover the mortgage now, and you eventually get a foreclosure, and where do the renters live now?

If it gets foreclosed on because you didn't pay the mortgage, YOU DO NOT have enough money to buy a second home.

How does knowing that help the renters?


In my state, any property that changes hands means the lease by current tenants is carried over to the new owners. For someone who has a 12-month lease and a property is sold after they occupy it for 6 months, the remaining 6 months of the lease is carried by the new owner. The rent and other expenses are paid to the new owner under the terms of the existing lease for the duration of the lease. Only at the end of the lease can the landlord have the existing tenants vacate the property.
 
2021-02-28 5:10:28 PM  

fortheloveof: recondite cetacean: If I have enough money to buy a second home and rent it out, and the CDC says I can't evict people...

I can't cover the mortgage now, and you eventually get a foreclosure, and where do the renters live now?

However my cousin who is a serious property owner and renter would state that if you did not have the income to buy the house without renting it out that was your mistake.

I know when our second property was not renting it was extremely tight but we were keeping it afloat.

Ultimately that is why we sold, it was just barely within our means without renters and the stress was not worth the meager amount it was bringing in when it did rent.


Sure it's my mistake, but this is likely a year-to-year contract, which statistically says 50% chance it ends in 6 months.  I'm seeing a lot of "make the rich landlords suck it up" but real finance doesn't work this way.  Just look at the number of AirBNB speculators who are suffering financially, they didn't have they money or the plan, just dollars in their eyes.

When you advocate for something to help the renters, you have to actually think of what will happen to the renters as a result of your plan.

Unintended consequences is what we call it.
 
2021-02-28 5:18:57 PM  

recondite cetacean: fortheloveof: recondite cetacean: If I have enough money to buy a second home and rent it out, and the CDC says I can't evict people...

I can't cover the mortgage now, and you eventually get a foreclosure, and where do the renters live now?

However my cousin who is a serious property owner and renter would state that if you did not have the income to buy the house without renting it out that was your mistake.

I know when our second property was not renting it was extremely tight but we were keeping it afloat.

Ultimately that is why we sold, it was just barely within our means without renters and the stress was not worth the meager amount it was bringing in when it did rent.

Sure it's my mistake, but this is likely a year-to-year contract, which statistically says 50% chance it ends in 6 months.  I'm seeing a lot of "make the rich landlords suck it up" but real finance doesn't work this way.  Just look at the number of AirBNB speculators who are suffering financially, they didn't have they money or the plan, just dollars in their eyes.

When you advocate for something to help the renters, you have to actually think of what will happen to the renters as a result of your plan.

Unintended consequences is what we call it.


Frankly kicking the tenets out is unlikely to save the property for the owner either.

The unemployment/under utilized labor is just so bad right now that even if you get the house empty there is little to no guarantee it will rent again soon, or for as much as it was.

As such it is much more likely to sit empty and then empty under the bank when people need shelter now.

Also of the two groups (the owners and the renters) I am less concerned with the owners. This is due to the fact that the owners still have this basic needs of shelter/safety/food met while the renters will not if removed from the property.

Recovering from homelessness is a hell of a lot harder than recovering from losing a second/third property.

Now this is not to say I am unsympathetic to the property owners entirely, but they are a lot further from the bottom than the renters are.

Also I am aware there is bound to be one or two situations where the renters are better off than the property owners, it is not going to be the norm however.
 
2021-02-28 5:19:22 PM  

mrmopar5287: red230: mrmopar5287: If these landlords have done the smart thing they would have set the electricity, gas, and water as part of the rent and then turned it off for nonpayment. That's the easiest way to evict people.

And also blatantly illegal.

It's not. If utilities are included with the rent of the property and broken out as a separate expense, it's perfectly legal to disconnect for non-payment.

As an example, you can structure a lease as follows:
Rent - $950 per month
Electricity - $50 per month

By doing this, the total due each month is $1,000, but the rent of $950 is deducted first and only then does the last dollars paid each month go toward the $50 monthly electric charge. If your tenant is short $1, you can turn off their electricity due to non-payment.


Yeah, that wouldn't be legal. Turning off the utilities is constructive eviction.  Legally, it wouldn't be much different than showing up at the door with a bunch of goons to throw the tenant out for nonpayment.
 
2021-02-28 5:28:18 PM  

gilgigamesh: Turning off the utilities is constructive eviction.


Turning off utilities for non-payment of rent is constructive eviction.

HOWEVER, turning off utilities for non-payment of utilities is not, and it's legal.
 
2021-02-28 5:47:40 PM  

recondite cetacean: If I have enough money to buy a second home and rent it out, and the CDC says I can't evict people...

I can't cover the mortgage now, and you eventually get a foreclosure, and where do the renters live now?


easy, someone else buys your foreclosed house and rents it.
If you close your eyes to people no longer exist?
 
2021-02-28 5:48:36 PM  

mrmopar5287: HOWEVER, turning off utilities for non-payment of utilities is not, and it's legal.


And it can only be done legally as a direct interaction between the utility company and the renter.  If the landlord requests that utilities to a unit be cut off, they're in violation of the contract for sure (to the point that they will now never, ever see even a penny of back rent and even in states with incredibly harsh renter-victimization laws the courts will back that up to the hilt, apply criminal penalties if you try to ding the tenant's rental history or credit rating, etc).  That's just with contract law, which is pretty universal, before considering state laws that may impose additional penalties... potentially even criminal charges, since that can very easily be construed as assault or even aggravated assault or any number of property crimes.

Basically, no, it's not even slightly legal.  If utilities are in the contract, and the contract hasn't been dissolved (which in the context of what we're talking about requires successfully evicting first) then you as the landlord are obligated to continue to pay the utility bill under the contract.  Utility clauses very literally cannot be severable, by soooooo farking many laws.

I cannot stress enough if anyone in the thread is a small-time landlord that doesn't already know this (which, if you didn't already know this, divest.  You have no business being a landlord or property manager and are actively a danger to your own interests) that you should.  Not.  Do.  This.

Pursuing this road is likely to be unsuccessful in general in a very expensive way, and pursuing this road successfully is a fast road to having your property seized and your ass locked up in prison.  If you want a tenant gone, you have one and only one legitimate avenue to do that: eviction, as defined, limited, and executed in your state.  Doing almost literally anything else other than that (or, y'know, talking to them and asking them to leave voluntarily) is a Very.  Very.  Bad.  Idea.

... I mean, also evil, but you don't give a shiat about moral degeneracy, you're a landlord and therefore already voluntarily basically the shiattiest type of human being in existence.  I'm talking purely in self-interest terms, and this is very much actual professional advice from someone who has managed properties with renters in several different public and private context for a living in the past.  Just.  farking.  Don't.  Try it.
 
2021-02-28 5:53:22 PM  

Murkanen: vudukungfu: Confused here.
Did they reverse the overturn on the ban on the restriction preventing the opposite of something or what?

Judge essentially argued that the CDC doing its job was unconstitutional because gold fringe flags and pocket constitutions.  It was a hot mess of derp that would have allowed evictions to restart.


This is the stupidest thing I've read all month. It's not constitutional because eviction doesn't affect interstate commerce. Your wheat crop can be regulated even if you grow it for yourself because wheat products are sold out of state and you keeping your wheat for yourself affects the price in other states because you didn't sell it there. Real estate is the farthest you can get from that. Apartments are not movable from one state to another. The lower price of an apartment in Boise doesn't affect the price of one in Malibu. Apartments don't move in interstate commerce. And even if you waive away that argument and claim that the Feds can regulate any economic activity, that argument is negated by the fact that during the eviction moratorium the rent is not waived and is still owed, so that the economic impact of even that is null. There is no nexus under which this falls under powers delegated to the federal government. Notice that it leaves in place any eviction moratorium put in place by an individual state who retain that power.
 
2021-02-28 6:03:31 PM  
If I'm being charitable, landlords are pointless middlemen. If I'm being less so, they're parasites that should have no place in modern society. Same goes for health insurance companies.

If workers were compensated properly for their labor, instead of having the bulk of what they deserve stolen by executive bloodsuckers, and basic housing was considered a human right as it should be, landlords couldn't exist.
 
2021-02-28 6:07:29 PM  

Jim_Callahan: And it can only be done legally as a direct interaction between the utility company and the renter.


No, you are not following.

In my state, there are three possible arrangements for utilities:
1. The tenant pays for service directly to the utility company, I.E., the utility bill is in the tenant's name.
2. The landlord pays for service directly to the utility company and the tenant pays the full amount, E.G., the electric bill on one given month is variable due to how much is used and that amount is due to the landlord the following month with an invoice for actual use provided.
3. The landlord pays for service directly to the utility company and the tenant pays a flat amount agreed upon in the lease, E.G., the electricity use averages $50 a month so the landlord bills $50 a month that is specified in the lease and itemized separate from rent. In this instance, the tenant can use more or less electricity, but the landlord can only collect what is agreed upon if the utility consumption is higher (and the tenant will not receive any refunds for utility consumption less than the agreed-upon charge).

For options 2 and 3, the landlord can shut off the utility for non-payment of utility charges as specified in the lease. The landlord can include a lease provision that utility charges are separate, due within a certain period of time (first 3 or first 5 days of a month) and that non-payment can result in shutoff of the utilities in question.

The landlord cannot shut off utilities by having the utility company do it, and they cannot "tamper with equipment or lines." HOWEVER, it is perfectly legal for a landlord to have a master switch (such as an electrical switch box) that they can turn off, because operating a switch is not "tampering with equipment or lines." The landlord can turn off electricity for non-payment, lock the switch they use to turn off electricity, and that's perfectly legal.
 
2021-02-28 6:08:03 PM  

Alien Robot: There is no nexus under which this falls under powers delegated to the federal government.


So you're... what, a biology flat-earther?  A germ theory denialist?

Or did you somehow miss which federal agency issued the order, which in itself explains why the feds have this authority and on what grounds they're exercising it?  I mean, technically it's indirectly about the interstate commerce clause since evicting people boosts the plague massively and the plague wrecks interstate commerce if it comes down to playing that angle out in court, but you're basically straw-manning a completely unrelated thing and claiming that because the stupid rationale that only exists in your head doesn't hold up, then no other rationale must hold up either.

Like, by your logic the legislature is illegal, because senate and house elections occur entirely within a state and don't inherently involve interstate commerce.  The constitution is slightly longer than half of one sentence in one article, man, you can't just pick three words and ignore the entire rest of the document.
 
2021-02-28 6:09:18 PM  

Alien Robot: Murkanen: vudukungfu: Confused here.
Did they reverse the overturn on the ban on the restriction preventing the opposite of something or what?

Judge essentially argued that the CDC doing its job was unconstitutional because gold fringe flags and pocket constitutions.  It was a hot mess of derp that would have allowed evictions to restart.

This is the stupidest thing I've read all month. It's not constitutional because eviction doesn't affect interstate commerce. Your wheat crop can be regulated even if you grow it for yourself because wheat products are sold out of state and you keeping your wheat for yourself affects the price in other states because you didn't sell it there. Real estate is the farthest you can get from that. Apartments are not movable from one state to another. The lower price of an apartment in Boise doesn't affect the price of one in Malibu. Apartments don't move in interstate commerce. And even if you waive away that argument and claim that the Feds can regulate any economic activity, that argument is negated by the fact that during the eviction moratorium the rent is not waived and is still owed, so that the economic impact of even that is null. There is no nexus under which this falls under powers delegated to the federal government. Notice that it leaves in place any eviction moratorium put in place by an individual state who retain that power.


When the ruling is overturned on appeal and the eviction moratorium power exercised by the CDC is very much found to be within the federal government's constitutional powers, are you doing to rethink your position on the applicability of the interstate commerce clause and other constitutional provisions, or are you going to assert that the constitutional lawyers and judges in that case (and any subsequent SCOTUS appeals that also uphold the constitutionality of the CDC's actions) just don't know constitutional law as well as you do?  Are you one of those experts that knows better than all the other experts (including the ones who do this stuff day in and day out for decades) and finds anything contrary to your learned judgment "the stupidest thing you read all month"?  Will being wrong about this issue (which you are and will soon be shown to be) open your eyes even a bit to the possibility that at least some of your strongly held beliefs are also wrong?  Or will you just insist that "those constitutional lawyers and judges don't know what they're talking about" and only you and those who think like you are the true arbiters of the Constitution?
 
2021-02-28 6:12:33 PM  

Alien Robot: It's not constitutional because eviction doesn't affect interstate commerce. Your wheat crop can be regulated even if you grow it for yourself because wheat products are sold out of state and you keeping your wheat for yourself affects the price in other states because you didn't sell it there. Real estate is the farthest you can get from that. Apartments are not movable from one state to another. The lower price of an apartment in Boise doesn't affect the price of one in Malibu.


By the logic of the court in Gonzales v. Raich, literally everything affects interstate commerce. It's an almost intangible effect, but lower prices of apartment rent in Boise does affect apartment rent in Malibu because someone could theoretically, possibly choose to move from Malibu to Boise to have lower housing costs.

Participation in any rental market inside the borders of the USA means you are affected by other rental markets, because you are free to move about the country to participate in this interstate commerce.

Once we let the court step in to say, effectively, that a butterfly flapping it's wings in Africa affects WTI crude futures, it's opened the floodgates to anything and everything affecting interstate commerce, however intangible and unmeasurable the effect might be.
 
2021-02-28 6:13:52 PM  

LordJiro: If I'm being charitable, landlords are pointless middlemen.


'Bout 50% of the human race is middlemen...
 
2021-02-28 6:38:36 PM  

powhound: Good. But it's only a delaying tactic. Without forgiving back rent the evictions will happen eventually. Which is why every household (at a minimum) should have been receiving an indexed monthly payment ... or if that's too complicated $1000 or whatever.


Except with the moratorium it'll be both the tenant and the landlord evicted.
 
2021-02-28 6:41:44 PM  

brokenbiscuits: A surprisingly small number of, "Fark you, I got mine," posts in this thread... Funny how most of the fascist crow crowd has ignored this topic...


No, the fascist have been well represented:

Bandito King: And the only people allowed a say on the referendum should be from places that don't have a large terrorist population. IE: no more votes for red states and the trash that live in them. I'm tired of this game we play where we pretend they're not a bunch of cracked-out trash people. Even the wealthy red staters. Even the Repubs that live in blue states. If you ever supported Trump or the insurrection, you should have no further say in the public forum of the United States, ever.

 
2021-02-28 6:53:57 PM  

mrmopar5287: If these landlords have done the smart thing they would have set the electricity, gas, and water as part of the rent and then turned it off for nonpayment. That's the easiest way to evict people.


I have been a landlord for 20 years.  45 units now.  Evictions are rare. Tenants with cancer i dont charge.  Tenants with a new baby, i dont charge.  Medical emergency, yeah i dont charge.  Inconvenience kind of in your control, i will defer your rent.

Try not to be assholes or greedy and your business will run super smoothe.
 
Displayed 50 of 92 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.