Americans slam 'six wealthy elites' after conservative Supreme Court justices block evictions moratorium
On Thursday, August 26, the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing majority blocked the Biden Administration's moratorium on evictions, ruling that if such a moratorium is to continue, it must be authorized by Congress. And the ruling has been inspiring a great deal of discussion on social media.
In its ruling, the High Court's conservatives equated the eviction moratorium with hypothetical requirements for free grocery delivery or free computers — arguing, "Could the CDC, for example, mandate free grocery delivery to the homes of the sick or vulnerable? Require manufacturers to provide free computers to enable people to work from home? Order telecommunications companies to provide free high-speed internet service to facilitate remote work?"
There are, of course, no CDC requirements for "free computers" or "free grocery delivery." And that analogy is receiving its share of mockery on Twitter.
The ruling came down along partisan lines. The six justices appointed by Republican presidents were all in agreement, and the three dissenters were appointed by Democratic presidents: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Elena Kagan. In their dissent, the Bill Clinton and Barack Obama appointees cited the recent spike in COVID-19 infections in the United States that is being driven largely by the highly infectious Delta variant.
The High Court's conservative majority, in its eight-page opinion, wrote, "Congress was on notice that a further extension would almost surely require new legislation, yet it failed to act in the several weeks leading up to the moratorium's expiration. If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it."
The conservative justices also argued that the moratorium on evictions was unfair to landlords. The Washington Post's Jeff Stein noted:
The justices continue: "Preventing [landlords] from evicting tenants who breach their leases intrudes on one of the most fundamental elements of property ownership\u2014the right to exclude"— Jeff Stein (@Jeff Stein) 1630348428
Attorney Max Kennerly observed:
The conservative Supreme Court Justices: "Whatever interest the Government had in maintaining the moratorium\u2019s original end date to ensure the orderly administration of those programs has since diminished."\n\nThe Supreme Court's website:pic.twitter.com/HSjZnHFo9U— Max Kennerly (@Max Kennerly) 1630349807
According to attorney Donna Milner:
As RBG would famously say\u2026\n\n\u201cThrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.\u201d— Donna Milner (@Donna Milner) 1630355198
The Economist's Steven Mazie noted the dissenting opinions:
Justice Breyer wrote a dissent, which Justices Kagan and Sotomayor joinpic.twitter.com/M2TWz5uswg— Steven Mazie (@Steven Mazie) 1630027733
Central note in Breyer's dissent: the moratorium, compared to other measures the CDC might take (like quarantines), is rather mildpic.twitter.com/M7deXudYbI— Steven Mazie (@Steven Mazie) 1630027853
Here are some more reactions to the High Court's ruling:
Six wealthy elites who've never wanted for any of these things made sure that middle finger to the poor and vulnerable was extra, extra strong and loud. Sounds right.— SarahSydney (@SarahSydney) 1630349468
Private landlords have a near-monopoly on America's housing supply and the Supreme Court is making a great argument that we should reconsider this model. Why shouldn't states and cities create a robust supply of public housing to compete with privately held housing stock?— Blah Blah Blah (@Blah Blah Blah) 1630351435
Ah no wonder they voted to make people homeless. Can\u2019t go helping the vulnerable sustain food, housing and employment.— so fed up (@so fed up) 1630348687
Whaaaat? Giving people the things they need to maintain a decent standard of living? PERISH THE FUCKING THOUGHT.\n\nUBI. Proper support for the sick and homeless. Subsidized internet access for EVERYONE. These are all basically necessities to live and work in this world.— Scott Nolastname (@Scott Nolastname) 1630353169
You mean basic human decency? Government providing services for their people? No way that can happen. Not in America.— San Diego Changer (@San Diego Changer) 1630352587
But, but, but, THEN, if those things happened, the USA would be functioning like one of those Scandinavian countries where people are happy with their lives! Why would we want poor people to be happy? Then, there wouldn\u2019t be any incentive to work 80 hours/week at $7.25/hr!— Kathleen Murphy (@Kathleen Murphy) 1630351210
- Jen Psaki hits back at Peter Doocy question on evictions: 'Happy to ... ›
- Majority of Americans support canceling rent and suspending ... ›
- The key to understanding America's housing crisis - Alternet.org ›
- Minority rule: How the Supreme Court upended the lives of millions - Alternet.org ›
- Supreme Court justices find themselves getting defensive - Alternet.org ›
