The Supreme Court Might Strike Down Biden’s Eviction Ban. It Shouldn’t.

[David Lockmiller]

The Supreme Court Might Strike Down Biden’s Eviction Ban. It Shouldn’t.

I know the problem of this link. So, . . . here is the key point of the Guest Essay:

The justices were wrong about the earlier ban. Congress explicitly gave the C.D.C. and the secretary of health and human services authority to make and enforce regulations that they deem “necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of communicable diseases.”

It is estimated that the earlier moratorium, along with similar state moratoriums, may have prevented the eviction of up to 40 million people who were behind on rent.

Adam Winkler

Mr. Winkler, a professor of law at U.C.L.A., is the author, most recently, of “We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights.” His work has been cited in several landmark Supreme Court decisions.

They (the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court) had an obligation to articulate what was wrong with the regulation so that officials could seek other, more clearly lawful ways of preventing the spread of Covid. Instead, they left the C.D.C., charged by Congress with taking action to limit infectious disease, adrift in a sea of legal uncertainty.

[J. Beckert]

And this has what to do with Lincoln?

[David Lockmiller]

(08-09-2021 09:25 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  And this has what to do with Lincoln?

You ask a legitimate question.

It states in the article that "[Professor Winkler's] work has been cited in several landmark Supreme Court decisions." This statement implies that members of the Supreme Court would consider his opinion on the merits.

In this particular case, Professor Winkler disagreed with the Supreme Court's ruling and the faulty reasoning in the case by the Supreme Court. The professor concisely stated his valid argument with which I agreed.

This story itself reminded me of President Lincoln's constitutional response to Chief Justice Taney on the issue of habeas corpus.

The constitutional issue was whether or not the president had the constitutional right to rescind the basic constitutional protection against arbitrary arrest in time of war.

Team of Rivals, page 354-55:

Receiving word that the mobs intended to destroy the train tracks between Annapolis and Philadelphia in order to prevent the long-awaited troops from reaching the beleaguered capital, Lincoln made the controversial decision. If resistance along the military line between Washington and Philadelphia made it "necessary to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus for the public safety," Lincoln authorized General Scott to do so. In Lincoln's words, General Scott could "arrest, and detain, without resort to the ordinary processes and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous to public safety." Seward later claimed that he had urged a wavering Lincoln to take this step, convincing him that "perdition was the the sure penalty of further hesitation."

Lincoln had not issued a sweeping order but a directive confined to this single route. Still, by rescinding the basic constitutional protection against arbitrary arrest, he aroused the wrath of Chief Justice Taney, who . . . blasted Lincoln and maintained that only Congress could suspend the writ.

Lincoln later defended his decision in his first message to Congress. President Lincoln ably argued that the president constitutionally could suspend the writ in time of war.