I never claimed otherwise. If Congress extends the moratorium, (have they even tried?), there will be challenges, and the courts will determine the outcome. The SCOTUS ruling did NOT pre-emptively rule that such a law would be upheld at the end. They simply don’t operate that way.
You’ve gotten this bizarre fixation that because the Courts didn’t explicitly say something, it’s a non-factor in any future case. That’s not how any court works, let alone SCOTUS. They ruled on the issue actually at hand. In theory they could have brought up other concerns, but have no ruled on them at this time.
They pointed the issue towards Congress because, functionally speaking, what the Executive branch tried to do was a lawmaking function, not just policy interpretation. This doesn’t mean that anything whatsoever Congress decides would be lawful, but there’s no point in speculating on what the legislature might do, as they haven’t taken up the issue at all yet.
Except that the way they finally enact to do it may not be quite the right way to do it, and then another challenge comes before the court, along the lines of telling Congress “you had ONE job to do…”
They stated: extending the moratorium beyond where it was now is Congress’ job, not the CDC’s.
They did not state “and any way that they do it will be fine”.
Now sure, some posters here assume that ANY form it takes is an unconstitutional taking “on its face” and thus there’s no way to pass it. And at least 41 members of the Senate will likely support that. But that in turn has not been adjudicated either.
Sure. There are a million ways congress could fiddle with things and screw it up.
I think for argument the default assumption would be that congress basically makes what the CDC did official with no other modification.
That’s fine as a hypothetical. It’s just not how the courts work.
It’s not about how the courts work. It is about how debates on the SDMB work.
If we are debating the legality of the CDC moratorium and the Supreme Court says the CDC cannot do that but congress should then it is reasonable to wonder if congress did the exact same thing the CDC did.
If you want to guess at the infinite ways congress could modify the law then that is impossible to answer since it is anyone’s guess.
I see no reason the supreme court could not be more clear if they thought the CDC moratorium just never works because it is outright unconstitutional. Should they waste more time and effort and cause more mayhem because being cryptic is the way to go? Make it seem like it is ok if congress does it but then say no later?
Haven’t read the whole thread, but yeah, one of the early posts addressed the fact that some people think they don’t have to pay rent any more. I live in a big apartment complex, and have heard a few stories about people who tried that, and not surprisingly got evicted for other reasons.
My locale also does not turn off utilities during the winter (IIRC November through March) and you guessed it - there are a lot of people who don’t understand why they got socked with a big bill come April that needs to be paid.
Not having the money to pay the full bill is one thing; not paying your bills, period, is quite another.
In fact, the owners have instituted a provision where people can pay their rent in stages if necessary. There is a small surcharge, but otherwise, people aren’t penalized if they come up with all the money each month.