See D.C. Circuit, No. 21-5093 (June 2, 2021)(affirming district court stay order); see also U.S. Supreme Court, No. 20A169 (June 29, 2021)(denying application to vacate stay).
FYI, Kavanaugh's concurrence is not the law. We can make predictions what SCOTUS *might* do, but predictions aren't the law. The law is what the majority did: refuse to vacate the D.C. Circuit's order.
/2
Obviously, Congress could've and should've fixed this legislatively in light of the apparent legal threats. For the moment, however, 42 U.S.C. § 264(a) can be used to extend the eviction moratorium. This may change with future court developments, but that is the law right now.
There it is. Perhaps SCOTUS will strike it down; that's on them, the Biden admin should not do it for them.
Under current law—including the SCOTUS order from June—42 USC §264(a) can be used for this exact purpose, just as it has been used since last year.
We need to clear up something about the Cosby case: the DA, Castor, was not trying to help the women Cosby raped.
The DA was trying to help Cosby defend the civil cases.
/1
Assume the DA did nothing at all. The civil cases proceed, Cosby takes the Fifth to avoid incriminating himself, the jury is instructed to draw an inference against him (see Baxter, 425 US 308), and, having no defense, Cosby likely gets walloped with gigantic verdicts.
/2
Or assume the DA wanted to help the women's civil cases. He then tries get a verdict against or plea from Cosby, creating collateral estoppel, so the plaintiffs could walk into court with liability already decided in their favor and go straight to damages.
/3
Reminder: if you donate to Congressional campaigns, do so before midnight Wednesday (June 30), the end of the FEC quarter.
"Early donor" and "small donor" figures have a big influence on the direction of elections. Look upon these headlines, ye mighty—but don't despair.
🧵👇
I'm not paid or asked to do this, I just have the simple view that every Democrat running for Congress in 2022 is guaranteed to be better than every Republican. Let's start with two first-term Dems in states that the GOP will get to redistrict.
/2
.@Carolyn4GA7, the only Dem to flip a seat in 2020. Republicans want it back. Her opponent last time was a doctor who downplayed COVID-19 and said he'd end the ACA.🤮
Billionaires, big banks, and hedge funds are flooded with cash but don't want to invest in productive businesses or pay taxes, so they're lobbying to have the government pay them to steal public lands so they can impose taxes on everyone else.
Here's $3.75 trillion in cash sitting in commercial banks. It could be lent out to people or businesses; they do not want to do that. They're "waiting for opportunities to invest at higher rates." There's a concern "human beings are getting paid more." "Overheating," they say.
/2
The Senate group has released merely two pages, but embedded in there appears to be a proposal for the wealthiest 0.01% to get a discount (via tax credits) to get paid (via debt interest) to get paid again (via dividends) to own public infrastructure and overcharge us for it.
/3
Remember all the contrarians complaining about the FDA taking too much time with clinical trials? Well, here's what happens when you skip Phase 2 and cut Phase 3 short. This has risks and would cost $50,000 annually, but we can't tell if it sort-of works or doesn't work at all.
It's disconcerting. Typically, a drug is approved on surrogate markers because the condition's rarity or the drug's narrow indication make it difficult to do robust clinical trials.
Here that's no issue. The lack of data is due to the company and the FDA.
.@LeaderMcConnell mostly puts his millions into Vanguard mutual funds—including making money off of underfunded infrastructure that forces municipalities to issue debt—but he's got a special place in his heart for Wells Fargo, which does lots of lobbying. /2
.@LeaderMcConnell and his wife just can't get enough Wells Fargo $WFC stock. Bought some more in March. Wells Fargo announces their earnings Wednesday morning, get your orders in now!
/3
Hardly. As of 1789, several states had personal rights to firearms. The Framers ignored those and instead wrote a limited right for state militias. Right-wing Justices made up the personal "right" 200 years later.