Montana to Supreme Court: FU

[Ideologue]

Yeah.  I understand the CoA's holding--you can't quarter troops in an civilian's apartment without his consent, even though the possessory interest is only that of a leaseholder's and the actual owner may be fine with it--but this doesn't really seem to be the same thing.  This is government property, provided solely to government employees, in order to support a government function.

By the same logic, you couldn't move one soldier out of a military dormitory if you planned on replacing him with another.

That said, the documents governing the housing program do refer to "tenants" and "rent."  So there you go.  That's bad drafting.  A court that desired to find a tenancy relationship analogous to that of a normal leaseholder is going to find one anyway, but they were certainly doing themselves no favors to use language like that.

[dps]

Yeah.  I understand the CoA's holding--you can't quarter troops in an civilian's apartment without his consent, even though the possessory interest is only that of a leaseholder's and the actual owner may be fine with it--but this doesn't really seem to be the same thing.  This is government property, provided solely to government employees, in order to support a government function.

By the same logic, you couldn't move one soldier out of a military dormitory if you planned on replacing him with another.

Yeah, especially since the had apparantly had already been evicted anyway, and therefore weren't even "tenants" anymore.  And while I do agree with the part of the ruling that says that National Guardsmen do count as soldiers, I wonder what the court would have said if the guards had just been replaced by civilian scabs?

I have a feeling that the ruling might well have been overturned by the Supreme Court on appeal, but I'm guessing that New York didn't appeal because the strike was settled before they could.