The SCOTUS decision on the CDC's eviction-moratorium extension

 The two glaringly disturbing aspects of this are 

• the further breakdown of America's understanding of the clear Constitutional lines of demarcation between the three branches of the federal government
• the further breakdown of America's understanding of the centrality of property rights to the viability of human freedom.

Regarding the first, consider that

• Nancy Pelosi wouldn't bring it up for a vote in the House because she knew it would go down in defeat
• Joe Biden reversed himself on accepting the sunsetting of the most recent extension
• he explicitly stated that he knew it didn't fly from a constitutional standpoint

Here's an account of how that went down:

In September 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services and the CDC introduced what they insisted was only a temporary orderhalting evictions through the end of that year. The order expanded a congressional initiative protecting tenets from eviction but only those who received federal assistance or who resided in federally financed properties. The CDC’s logic was simple: Not only had the pandemic distorted the economy and put otherwise able providers at artificial financial risk, private residencies also “adhere to best practices” during a pandemic, “such as social distancing and other infection control measures.”

But as the pandemic wore on, Congress extended this temporary measure through January 31 of this year. Then, Joe Biden unilaterally extended it again via an executive order through the end of March, robbing this contingency measure of its support in law. In March, he extended it once again through June. All the while, legal challenges to this extraordinary alteration of the American social contract mounted, and the moratorium’s advocates increasingly found themselves on the wrong end of court judgments. But when the matter made its way before the Supreme Court, the judiciary elected not to strike the moratorium down on the spot. Instead, they allowed the moratorium to sunset on its own, deferring to the Biden administration’s contention that it would not be extended again.

But Joe Biden didn’t keep his word. On August 3, the CDC announced yet another extension of the federal eviction moratorium through the end of September. It represented a display of brazen contempt for the courtesy the Supreme Court had shown the executive branch, and Biden seemed to know it. Taking questions from reporters on August 4, the president was asked if this executive agency’s unilateral extension of a long-expired congressional contingency was “going to pass Supreme Court muster.” Biden replied in no uncertain terms: “The bulk of the constitutional scholarship says that it’s not likely to pass Constitutional muster,” he said. Knowing that he was skirting the bounds of constitutional propriety, he nevertheless noted that it may be “worth the effort” to test the Court—the incidental effect of which would be, at least, the temporary reimplementation of a lawless policy.

Read the sentence I've put in boldface a few times and let it sink in. Biden is saying, "What I want to see happen is more important than the Constitution."

The matter came back before the Supreme Court last week and, in a 6 to 3 vote, the Court said, "That's it. No more extending this thing."

 Justice Breyer's dissent ought to make the hair on anyone's neck stand up:

Breyer’s dissent is troubling in some of its reasoning. For example, he argues that since Congress did not specifically prohibit the CDC from exercising the power of preventing evictions, it is lawful. He wrote, “If Congress had meant to exclude these types of measures from its broad grant of authority, it likely would have said so.” Emphasis is mine. What Breyer wrote turns Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution on its head. The Constitution does not say Congress must tick off a list of what the executive branch cannot do. It says the executive does not have the authority to do A or B unless specifically given the authority to do it.

According to Breyer, if the CDC decided public transit was too much of a threat to public health and commuting by automobile prevents the spread of COVID, the CDC could decree that anyone who wanted to buy a car could do so with no credit check, no money down, 84-month terms, and 0% interest. I know my example is hyperbolic, and I did it purposely to illuminate Breyer’s apocryphal argument more clearly. The majority opinion raised the same point, asking, “Could the CDC, for example, mandate free grocery delivery to the homes of the sick or vulnerable? Require manufacturers to provide free computers to enable people to work from home? Order telecommunications companies to provide free high-speed Internet service to facilitate remote work?”

Regarding the second point, the reaction from the Left perpetuates the longstanding notion on that side of the spectrum that landlords are grubby bastards who don't see their renters as human beings. As with any demonization of a category of people, indisputable examples of some cases of this being true can be easily found. We've all seen the evening-news stories about apartment complexes in unspeakable states of deterioration. But, as is also true of such demonization, it not only obscures the fact that most landlords are not like that, but also a basic economic fact about the renting arrangement:

A landlord by definition owns the property being rented.

Put in its most simple terms, the federal government has no business meddling in the coming to an agreement between the buyer and the seller of a good or service. This is so basic, it's dismaying in the extreme that this needs to be stated emphatically at this late date. 

So we've seen a small win, for the moment at least, for Constitutionality  and basic human freedom. 

Know, however, that those who have no use for either will not be resting.