Though the cloak of tyranny has been thrown over America, there have been some gaps of light peering through the cloth. Weather it’s Rand Paul proud and boisterously saying that “[the government] can’t arrest us all” or Cuban protests that have shown that Biden’s hypocrisy will not be tolerated silently, there have been wonderful pockets of positive emerging out of the general wet blanket of American cynicism. One more piece that can be added to this tapestry is a recent Supreme Court decision concerning the oft-discussed eviction moratorium.
Just this past Thursday, according to Conservative Brief, the U.S. Supreme Court “lifted New York state’s ban on residential evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, handing a victory to a group of small landlords that challenged a moratorium that had been slated to expire on Aug. 31.” Conservative Brief goes on to say that “The justices granted an emergency request by the landlords to lift the ban on eviction proceedings while litigation over the dispute continues. The Court ruled 6 to 3 in the case.”
Do you trust the main stream media?
"*" indicates required fields
As CNBC reports, “The court’s order Thursday focused on the state’s policy of allowing tenants to self-attest that they’ve experienced a Covid-related hardship, rather than documenting the setback with evidence. “This scheme violates the court’s longstanding teaching that ordinarily ‘no man can be a judge in his own case,’” the majority wrote. Five New York landlords and one landlords’ association brought the challenge against the ban.” CNBC continues to report that,”More than 830,000 tenants in New York are behind on their rent, with an average debt of $4,000. The ban was too broad and placed an “enormous burden” on landlords, said Olga Someras, general counsel at the Rent Stabilization Association of New York City. “All you had to do was check a box; in theory, it applied to millionaires,” Someras said. “There were stories where tenants were using the law meant to protect vulnerable New Yorkers as a sword rather than a shield to take advantage of landlords.”
It was undoubtedly a tough decision for the court to make, given the far-reaching lengths of its effect, but it does seem incumbent on the state to protect those who are. let’s say, disenfranchised. In this case, as Someras alluded to, it is, paradoxically, the landlords that suffer under the tyranny of its squatters.