Biden’s unconstitutional eviction moratorium


Here comes the dictatorship. When the president openly ignores the rulings of the highest court in the land then he no longer cares about our laws.

Tucker: It’s hard to overstate what a momentous change this is.

Speechless. The CDC no less gives us the final blow.

 

It doesn’t get any worse in the swamp than this.

Thanks Whatfinger News for the link.. for all the news push the button.


35 Responses to “Biden’s unconstitutional eviction moratorium”

  1. Baysider Says:

    Bunk: I just read your land comment to my husband, and he added “you can’t trust government because they’re bigger than you are.” Sadly.

    Liked by 2 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      Yes, everyone said take it to court… sure tens of thousands of dollars, years of litigation that sucks the life out of you with no sure thing… thats how they win it all. Their legal depts are endless…

      Like

  2. Baysider Says:

    There isn’t even a PRETENSE of observing law and the republic’s structure.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Baysider Says:

      And I should add for any who don’t know, I am a rental housing provider in the People’s Republic. We counted on sanity in most of the rest of the country. Nothing shocks after living under 30+ years of the preview of this. “They” simply aren’t interested in good governance. See Bill H below. Yeah!

      Liked by 2 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        Wow…. well, the government claimed half our farm and zoned it “open space” so there went half of what I thought I would own some day. So they take and take and take,,, sorry to hear..

        Like

    • Baysider Says:

      One more thing. This incident from Mao’s bio is instructive here. During collectivization of farms the commies routinely killed landowners. In one episode, the cadre rounded up all “landlords” to be shot for their crimes in repressing the people. One was a woman with 5 tenants, and each of them – owner too – worked 5 acres. One tenant stepped forward. She said “oh please, our landlord is a good woman. She works out in the fields along with us, just as hard as we do, and she shares and is very fair with everyone.” The cadre stepped up and put a bullet through the landowner’s head.

      Why?

      Because they don’t care about the individual situation. They care about creating revolution based on a distinction, a class distinction in China’s case. You deserved to die, not because you were bad, but because you were a member of the WRONG CLASS. Today, that’s translated to race, class and anything that can be criticized for the ills of mankind. I can see where this is going. I’ve seen it here in the People’s Republic. Ooooh, could I tell you stories!

      Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        Thank you for the reminder and so telling -I had not connected the dots on this one. Appreciate your comments. I should add they zoned our business residential which meant as well it could not be expanded and its value tanked.. Ten years later it was re-zoned and lucky buyers were they.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Bill H. Says:

    This is in no way surprising. Did no one see this coming with Obama’s, “If Congress will not act then I will” statement? A statement that was applauded by the media and by a large portion of Congress itself. It was reinforced when SCOTUS denied Trump’s ability to overturn Obama’s executive order merely because Trump, “gave no reason for doing so.”

    Liked by 2 people

  4. markone1blog Says:

    We need to find a way to apply this to the Democrats today. We must not wait for the election where Biden will have implemented mail-in ballots for the mid-term or 2024 when the Democrats will have implemented their “For the People Act.”

    Liked by 2 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      Tell me the way Mark…….

      Liked by 2 people

    • Mustang Says:

      Democrats are “okay” with destroying the integrity of our electoral process; I would hope that the red states would join a massive lawsuit to prevent Biden from doing that.

      Liked by 4 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        Sounds like a plan… time we used the courts as well…

        Like

      • bunkerville Says:

        We were asleep at the wheel during the last election. We all knew what was going to happen yet no one addressed the courts with the issue prior to the voting…. Trump’s fatal error as well as the GOP>

        Like

      • markone1blog Says:

        Problem is that the Supreme Court would find that we don’t have standing, just like the last time a Red state brought a suit in the only court where it could challenge illegal actions that effected it during a national election.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Bill H. Says:

        Bunker – the courts were addressed before the election. Many applications were denied as “not yet ripe,” because no one had yet been harmed. Petitioners were told the issue could not be heard until after the election had been held and harm had occurred.

        Then applications after the election were denied either due due to lack of standing or because the application had “become moot” since the election had already been held and it was too late for any remedy.

        Liked by 2 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        Excellent reminder of facts..

        Like

  5. John Says:

    I have another concern that I wish some of you could answer for me and I am not trying to be funny nor facetious. How many of you have entertained the notion that The Supreme Court is drifting off course from their judicial responsibility and are starting to tamper with decisions ordinarily reserved for the Executive Branch? Is there any possibility that the SCOTUS will someday replace the president and become the highest law making and regulating body in the country — or am I getting a little paranoid?

    Liked by 4 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      I will leave others to opine in a more intelligent way. I for one have zero time for Kavanaugh who by the way managed to screw around with this decision originally. Just for the heck of it

      Supreme candidate Kavanaugh, from the deep state, led murdered Vince Foster coverup. So yes – I trust no one.

      Supreme candidate Kavanaugh, from the deep state, led murdered Vince Foster coverup

      Liked by 4 people

    • Mustang Says:

      You aren’t paranoid when people really are conspiring against you, John. Conservatives oppose judicial activism but there is always an attempt by presidents to stack the deck with judges that subscribe to their own worldview. This is not a problem in an enlightened America; it is only a problem in communist America. Recall, if you will, FDR’s court-packing scheme, which was defeated by and large by conservative democrats in the House. Those days are gone forever. Since January, the Biden administration has re-introduced the notion of a court-packing scheme. This is the problem when know-nothing voters elect a communist majority in the House. But I don’t see a situation in which the high court will “take over” the mantle of the executive branch without Congress and 33 states first completely re-writing the Constitution.

      Liked by 3 people

      • John Says:

        Thanks Mustang .. you words offer enlightenment, comfort and a ray of hope — but what if there was to be a coup .. is that possible and would it change anything? America seems to be really unstable right now.

        Liked by 3 people

  6. Mustang Says:

    Please stay with me while I make this point …

    The Constitution empowers Congress to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” In early treaties negotiated between the federal government and the Indian tribes, the latter typically acknowledged themselves “to be under the protection of the United States of America, and of no other sovereign whosoever.” When Andrew Jackson became president (1829–1837), he decided to build a systematic approach to Indian removal on the basis of these legal precedents.

    To achieve his purpose, Jackson urged Congress to adopt the Removal Act of 1830. The Act established a process whereby the President could grant land west of the Mississippi River to Indian tribes that agreed to give up their homelands. As incentives, the law allowed the Indians financial and material assistance to travel to their new locations and start new lives and guaranteed that the Indians would live on their new property under the protection of the United States Government forever. With the Act in place, Jackson and his followers were free to persuade, bribe, and threaten tribes into signing removal treaties and leaving the Southeast.

    Jackson’s government succeeded. By the end of his presidency, he had signed into law almost seventy removal treaties, the result of which was to move nearly 50,000 eastern Indians to Indian Territory.

    The Cherokee Nation resisted, however, taking the challenge to the federal courts. In his 1831 ruling on Cherokee Nation v. the State of Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that “the Indian territory is admitted to compose a part of the United States,” and affirmed that the tribes were “domestic dependent nations” and “their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian.” However, the following year the Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled that Indian tribes were indeed sovereign and immune from Georgia laws. President Jackson nonetheless refused to heed the Court’s decision, promptly informing the high court, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

    Andrew Jackson — Democrat.

    Our system of checks and balances presumes that everyone involved in government will honorably acknowledge and abide by the shared power of the three branches of government. That is the only way our Republic can work. Democrats have no intention of allowing one branch of government to overpower the other two.

    Elections have consequences.

    Liked by 3 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      I have yet to see a GOPer jumping up and down. In fact I have zip. Interesting comment Mustang…. three more years of this?

      Liked by 1 person

    • markone1blog Says:

      Mustang,
      Of course the caveat to the observation that Democrats will not allow one branch to overpower the other two occurs when it benefits the Democrats (as with this case of the executive branch — through Ms Walensky — overriding both the judicial and legislative branches).

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Always On Watch Says:

    Depressing beyond words. 😡 😥

    Liked by 2 people

  8. hocuspocus13 Says:

    I was talking to this guy who is the property manager of a building in my neighborhood

    He works for the landlord that owns several apartment buildings in town

    He told me he has tenants that have not paid a dime in rent for many months to even a years time

    And apparently the landlord can’t do a thing about it

    Eviction (tenants) vs Foreclosure (landlords)

    Hopefully the landlord has deep pockets

    Liked by 2 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      The corporations will be more than happy to buy up the Mom and Pop operations that have been saving up to use these apartment investments as their retirements.. Someone on Fox this morning said 49 percent of apartments are owned by Mom and Pop operations.

      Like

  9. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    I can only imagine the speed of impeachment filings had a Republican president ignored the SCOTUS.
    I’m not sure how that speed would be measured, but I suspect it would be so instantaneous that it would be effectively immeasurable.

    Liked by 3 people


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: