Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (214289)	10/9/2021 10:29:39 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 355002

" Just ignoring the court's decision is a bigger deal" The court decision was that it was OK, for now. When it came up again, the court said, "Not this time", and the program ended. Supreme Court lets eviction moratorium stand By Chris Holden on June 30th, 2021 In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh said he voted not to end eviction protections because they would expire on July 31st. He noted that those few weeks “will allow for additional and more orderly distribution” of the emergency rental assistance that Congress has provided. affordablehousingonline.com

To: i-node who wrote (214289)	10/10/2021 8:04:59 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 355002

That incident became precedent. Next time a president needs a month or two, he’s got it. Again, I'm not expressing approval, just to be clear. But things are broken. Started with Newt, seems to me, the shift from collegial rivalry to war. I consider the incident in question a case of "easier to ask for forgiveness than permission." That technique is a normal response to emergency situations were permission is unobtainable in real time. As we discussed before, that situation would not have existed had Congress taken proper care of landlords in the first place. I agree that a month or two becomes precedent. Forgiveness over permission is already precedent. The extension of coloring outside the lines continues. It will continue until such time as the GOP decides it wants to be a governing party and stops the war or until it all devolves and collapses. We have a situation where you can't unilaterally disarm without dereliction of duty. There may be dereliction in the failure to act. As for threats to the Constitution, respectful, knowing individual incidents of said coloring aren't, IMO. Not when people know what they are and wink and nod over them in private. It's when some bull in a china shop doesn't know or understand or care or for his own purposes just uses the system to ride roughshod over everything. Or when a party wants power rather than governance. There's the threat to the Constitution.