Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 378: My name is FD(A), and I Approve this Topic.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Something about Pfizer here.

---

My conservative friends have already moved the goal posts and now its how corrupt big pharma is

---

Is it because it got approval "So fast"?

If so, where do they fall on Operation Warp Speed? Is it a situation where trump deserves credit for the vaccines because of OWS, but the vaccines are not safe?

---

This was apparently the fastest vaccine approval in history(this is false).

Asking for consistency between their screeches is too much you know that.

---

masterplum posted...

My conservative friends have already moved the goal posts and now its how corrupt big pharma is

Another comment on my post about cant wait to see excuses.

This guy is serious, btw.

---

Does he know that it will still cut down his chance at reinfection?

---

You just KNOW without a doubt that the same people saying "The Vaccine was approved too fast" Both:
A. LOVED Trump's Project Warp Speed
and
B. Think that the FDA is too slow approving experimental medications, and that they should be allowed to take them.

---

House came back today and approved the $3.5t budget resolution (again this vote is just agreeing on the number, not the actual law which is still being written.)

I didn't post about it because I didn't feel like retreading old ground, but a group of 9 conservative House Democrats had threatened to kill the budget resolution and demanded a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill immediately instead of having the two end up as a package deal. Pelosi and Biden basically went "fuck outta here" on that so there was some drama over getting this vote done. In the end Pelosi got them to back down and the $3.5t passed on a party line vote.

---

House also passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act 219-212.

Meanwhile after years of SCOTUS tossing lower court injunctions against Trump's immigration policy so he could implement it, they "suddenly" decide actually courts don't have to defer to the executive on immigration. I wonder what changed... :think:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1430319930629660672

They upheld a lower court ruling ordering the Biden administration to re-implement Trump's "Remain in Mexico" policy. Specifically, they gave them a week to somehow force the Mexican government to agree to keep more asylum seekers in its borders. ...somehow.

---

Pack the court.

---

Can we get some citation on Supreme Court actions in that regard?

Because this is how I'm reading it:

Trump: This is my new immigration policy! No immigrants ever!

Lower Court: No, you can't do that, we need to allow as many as we did before! Injunction!

Supreme Court: Without judging the merits, the lower court is not allowed to injunct in this situation.

.

Biden: This is my new immigration policy! Slightly more immigrants !

Lower Court: No, you can't do that, we need to allow as few as we did before! Injunction!

Supreme: Y'know what i changed my mind. Lower courts are allowed to injunct in this situation.

.

Is it really that clear cut?

---

Seems that clear cut to me, yeah. Partisan hacks on the court does that.

A jail in Arkansas has been treating inmates with COVID with a drug that the FDA has called completely unproven and dangerous. So we've now arrived at the "human medical experimentation on a population of people with no power or recourse" phase of the pandemic.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/like-tuskegee-deep-south-jail-treats-covid-with-drug-fda-says-is-dangerous

The Daily Beast reports...

The head doctor at an Arkansas jail has been treating inmates suffering from COVID-19 with ivermectin, a drug commonly used to treat parasites in animals. A version of the same drug has been approved by the FDA for topical diseases in humans, but warned against by the agency as completely unproven - and downright dangerous - in treating the coronavirus.

Still, the drug has been prematurely and widely hyped by conservatives and far-right types - some of whom oppose vaccines - as a sort of latter-day pandemic miracle drug. As The Daily Beast reported, this recently set off a wave of disturbing prescriptions and even calls to poison-control centers, in some cases over people who apparently took the "horse paste" version of the drug intended for animals.

Story itself is even wilder. A county employee was sent to the jail to get a COVID test, it came back negative, but the doctor prescribed ivermectin. The employee tells his primary care physician about it who promptly tells him to "throw it in the trash." So then someone familiar with the incident approaches the sheriff who proceeds to defend the doctor. So she instead talks to the doctor directly about it and ends up in an internet style citation war where she presents the FDA report that it's unproven and dangerous. He responds with an NIH study, she replies that that NIH report itself concludes there's insufficient evidence to recommend the drug. So then the doctor goes to a web page of a study that was widely shared on social media but was rejected and removed by the journal it had been published in originally because it was found to contain unsubstantiated claims.

So then she goes to a county budget meeting where the Sheriff's Office wanted to increase the doctor's budget and she brings it up there and again the Sheriff's Office defends the doctor. So they're continuing to double and triple down on this.

---

Speaking of which

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1431040456364810242?s=21

The people pushing this scam should be in jail

---

Criminal stupidity?

Who is profiting?

---

I legitimately don't understand how people can think we have an pre-existing but somehow perfect treatment for a new disease that we're holding out on for...reasons, but the newly developed vaccine in actual response to the new disease is under no circumstances to be trusted.
---

xp1337 posted...

A jail in Arkansas has been treating inmates with COVID with a drug that the FDA has called completely unproven and dangerous. So we've now arrived at the "human medical experimentation on a population of people with no power or recourse" phase of the pandemic.

Pandemic games/movies were really just documentaries, huh

---

https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1431067443703681025?s=21

Very cool and not at all going to cause some horrendous repercussions.

---

Can we just evict the 5 justices who voted on that?

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Can we just evict the 5 justices who voted on that?

the 6 justices

Well, it's unsigned but the dissent has the 3 liberals so I'm guessing it was 6-3.

---

xp1337 posted...

the 6 justices

Yeah, my finger slipped. Evict them all from the Supreme Court. Evict a bunch of congressmen while we're at it. Like Gaetz, Boebert, and MTG.

---

xp1337 posted...

the 6 justices

Well, it's unsigned but the dissent has the 3 liberals so I'm guessing it was 6-3.

That's the wildest thing to me about this. They really didn't want to attach their names to the deaths of thousands of people, but agreed that those people should all die and experience more hardships.

It's so cowardly.

---

States have 90% of the money left over to help with eviction assistance and havent given it to anyone because of red tape.

The CDC doesnt get to pass rent control laws.

Seriously, you guys complain about autocracy until its autocracy you like. The Supreme court said a month ago it was wildly unconstitutional but because it was going to end anyways it was fine I guess, and Biden brazenly extended it anyways and Congress did nothing even with a Democrat supermajority

There are a lot of rulings from the court to hate on, but this isnt one of them

---

Example

https://www.wesh.com/article/millions-of-dollars-in-covid-19-rent-assistance-going-unclaimed-in-central-florida/36482305#

Democrats are so terrified to be called socialists that they refuse to easily give money to people and try to do it in the worst way possible that only benefits people smart and tenacious enough to navigate the system.

Its the worst middle ground possible.

---

We have a Democratic supermajority now?

---

Of course this is a massive fuck up from congress. I don't think any leftist here would disagree with that!

But you can't seriously say "this is anti autocracy" when the Supreme Court refused to hear oral arguments and the decision makers didn't even sign the goddamn thing. You're committed to know-it-all centrism, dude, we get it.

---

Inviso posted...

We have a Democratic supermajority now?

Misspoke

Peace___Frog posted...

Of course this is a massive fuck up from congress. I don't think any leftist here would disagree with that!

But you can't seriously say "this is anti autocracy" when the Supreme Court refused to hear oral arguments and the decision makers didn't even sign the goddamn thing. You're committed to know-it-all centrism, dude, we get it.

They already heard arguments for it. It's not a new case

And it's not even centrist. If they were actually socialist and got money to renters I would be less upset.

It's putting politics over people

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Pandemic games/movies were really just documentaries, huh

Nah, I dont remember any of then having large chunks of the populace deny the pandemic exists and an even larger number refuse to do anything that will help stop the spread.

---

masterplum posted...

Misspoke

OK, but if the Democrats don't have a supermajority then they can't fix the problem without GOP support anyway. As they aren't going to get that, it kind of goes against your "this is all 100% because of the stupid Democrats" idea.
---

masterplum posted...

Seriously, you guys complain about autocracy until its autocracy you like. The Supreme court said a month ago it was wildly unconstitutional but because it was going to end anyways it was fine I guess, and Biden brazenly extended it anyways and Congress did nothing even with a Democrat majority

There are a lot of rulings from the court to hate on, but this isnt one of them

Few technical points here since you're keeping to that kind of line.

SCOTUS did not say it was "wildly unconstitutional." A lower court had found the CDC had exceeded its authority in issuing the moratorium and the CDC appealed. They also filed for a stay (that the moratorium remain in place while the appeal took place) and were granted that.

The landlords responded with a motion of their own to have that stay overturned and thrown out. The DC Circuit of Appeals rejected this motion and left the stay intact - noting that while they didn't think HHS was likely to win this one, that there's more criteria than that to whether a stay ought to be granted and the public health concerns raised by the CDC along with a legal question raised were sufficient to allow the order be stayed pending appeal.

So having failed to get the stay thrown out in the Court of Appeals, the landlords went to the next and last place they could go to get the stay vacated - SCOTUS. SCOTUS rejected their argument as well. What happened was a 5-4 "decision" (I airquote this because it was SCOTUS deciding on an emergency motion, not hearing an actual case before it) and they similarly denied the landlord's attempts to have the moratorium thrown out even as the case on the merits was under appeal. It was only unique in that Kavanaugh went out of his way to specifically issue a concurrence to the order (because typically these are one sentence orders otherwise. Two if there's a note of which justices disagree. Even with Kavanaugh's paragraph here the order ends up being only one page long in its entirety) saying that while he agreed with the landlords on the merits, the fact that the moratorium was about to end anyway made the matter of vacating the stay irrelevant in his mind.

The actual matter of whether the moratorium was constitutional or not wasn't before the court on its merit at that point, they were issuing an order on procedural motions. Granted, reading into the 4 + Kavanaugh, the existence of 5 votes against the CDC on the merits is pretty clear but as a matter of law that's not what happened there.

What happened here was when the CDC put in place the modified moratorium, the landlords went back to the District Court and tried again to have the stay vacated. Again the lower courts declined their requests, though they noted that they probably would not have granted that original stay at this point in time - pointing to, among other things, Kavanaugh's concurrence from before chilling the idea. Nevertheless, they concluded that the law required them to hold to their position. So once again thwarted they returned to SCOTUS - the only difference is that this time SCOTUS switched sides and decided to vacate the stay.

In truth this could have been 5-4 (Liberals + Roberts) or 6-3 and it's just impossible to know because, again, SCOTUS decided to do this through an unsigned order in the emergency appeals process instead of the standard docket - where the case could be fully argued by both sides, which Breyer calls for in the dissent and his argument that SCOTUS was wrong to do this through the process they just chose is compelling. It's pretty hard IMO to read his dissent and not think this was just a pretty ideological decision made on the "shadow docket."

~~~

This is a tl;dr shitpost version of that but basically when you say the Supreme Court already heard arguments on this (they didn't, really - again SCOTUS has only interacted with this in the form of emergency motions not the actual merits) and declared it "wildly unconstitutional" you're referring to an order in which SCOTUS rejected the request of the landlords' association. Which uh... don't think that says what you think it says.

---

Xeybozn posted...

OK, but if the Democrats don't have a supermajority then they can't fix the problem without GOP support anyway. As they aren't going to get that, it kind of goes against your "this is all 100% because of the stupid Democrats" idea.

It's the Centrist Go-To. Blame Democrats for everything. Republicans refuse to do anything? OH WELL! Not their fault.

---

masterplum posted...

Seriously, you guys complain about autocracy until its autocracy you like.

Seriously, our government structure is so bizarrely anti-democratic and inconsistent that it makes no coherent sense to blindly support the processes at the expense of outcomes or motivations. The Supreme Court is not seriously committed to anti-authoritarianism, this is a calculated political ploy and we do not in fact gotta hand it to them.

---

Honestly, I've always been a little confused as to why the eviction moratorium is coming out of the CDC. I'm not opposed to it, but why isn't it coming from something like HUD? How is this under the CDC's authority?

---

Yesmar_ posted...

Honestly, I've always been a little confused as to why the eviction moratorium is coming out of the CDC. I'm not opposed to it, but why isn't it coming from something like HUD? How is this under the CDC's authority?

That it is is extremely questionable (which is why it was likely going to be struck down in the first place). It should have been done by Congress.

---

I mean, forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that there were zero republicans in support of this and that it could be killed by filibuster. Which is why the Biden administration tried to do it unilaterally even knowing it could get struck down in the courts.

So while it should have been done by congress there was no hope it could actually be done by congress.

---

The Supreme Court issued an opinion on this like a month or two ago, which stated that Congress would get one last extension before it would either need to pass legislation or the eviction moratorium would end.

Constitutionally, the government is required to compensate landlords for taking their property. Given the ability to print money, which the Fed has been doing to great effect, that can be done if the will to do it is there.

---

Yesmar_ posted...

Honestly, I've always been a little confused as to why the eviction moratorium is coming out of the CDC. I'm not opposed to it, but why isn't it coming from something like HUD? How is this under the CDC's authority?

The Administration's/HHS/CDC's argument is largely rooted in a 1944 law (the Public Health Service Act) which authorizes the CDC to make and enforce regulations to "prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession."

Among the problems the justification runs into is that the examples it cites as actions that can be taken largely deal with infected animals or "articles" and talks about inspection, fumigation, pest extermination, etc. It does have the standard "and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary" (The original law had this under the authority of the Surgeon General, it was later given to the CDC that's why it says "his judgment.")

I agree it is not the best justification to lay the eviction moratorium on but that's because Congress won't do anything more direct on its own (the Senate would kill it if it ever tried) but that's the chief thrust of the argument - that the CDC is granted the power to make and enforce regulations to try and prevent interstate spread of disease.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I mean, forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that there were zero republicans in support of this and that it could be killed by filibuster. Which is why the Biden administration tried to do it unilaterally even knowing it could get struck down in the courts.

So while it should have been done by congress there was no hope it could actually be done by congress.

Correct.

---

I mean the moratorium was started under Trump, so Im guessing it actually could have passed if he had cared at all about doing it the right way

But anyway, we cant do this legally so were forced to do it illegally is an extremely dangerous path to go down.

---

That's if you accept the position that it is illegal. Breyer raises some arguments in the dissent as to why it may not be as part of why he thinks it's wrong for them to kill it this way rather than have it argued.

Obviously given this vacate of stay it would fail before the full Court and it's not impossible even some of the liberals join such a ruling with their primary issue here being how this is being done (again Breyer leads his dissent with a compelling argument for why the process SCOTUS chose here is sus) but that isn't/wasn't a settled matter.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I mean the moratorium was started under Trump, so Im guessing it actually could have passed if he had cared at all about doing it the right way

But anyway, we cant do this legally so were forced to do it illegally is an extremely dangerous path to go down.

That would have required Trump to share credit with Congress. I think that may be why nothing was ever passed regarding infrastructure under Trump as well.

---

masterplum posted...

There are a lot of rulings from the court to hate on, but this isnt one of them

yes let's celebrate a court ruling that's going to condemn millions of people to homelessness

this is totally cool and not sociopath behavior

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

yes let's celebrate a court ruling that's going to condemn millions of people to homelessness

this is totally cool and not sociopath behavior

As opposed to currently where small businesses landlords are going bankrupt because the government won't pay them?

The landlords still have to pay mortgages and property tax.

If you want to stop people from going homeless, actually just give them money instead of this shit

---

masterplum posted...

If you want to stop people from going homeless, actually just give them money instead of this shit

This is of course the correct answer, but considering that in reality the only choices on offer are "poorly managed rent assistance" and "just kick people out on the street lol", I'll take the first choice.

---

I just wish they did a better job weeding out the people that actually need this vs the people just taking advantage of this. Because landlords have to deal with both, and get no public sympathy for the latter. Not that landlords are stereotypical moral pillars themselves, but still.

---

If you are wealthy enough to be a landlord there is no need for you to need public sympathy.

---

Landlords could always get a job