Is there a Constitutional right to camp on the streets? The Supreme Court will ponder this question on Monday in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.
Like thousands of cities, Grants Pass, Ore., bans camping on public property. Offenses are punishable by a $295 fine and short jail terms for serial violations. Homeless advocates argued in a class action that prohibiting public vagrancy violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. A divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed.
The majority leaned on the High Court’s fuzzy Robinson (1962) decision, which held that the Eighth Amendment forbids criminalizing the “status” of being a drug addict, though governments could still punish drug use. This legal distinction bore little practical difference. But the Ninth Circuit’s extension of this logic is causing enormous real-world harm.
According to the Ninth Circuit judges, Grants Pass unfairly punished the supposedly involuntary status of being homeless, even though many vagrants rejected housing. One woman did so because her Rottweiler wasn’t allowed in a shelter. Others may refuse to abide a shelter’s minimal behavioral rules. Some simply prefer to live on the streets.
Under the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, homelessness is considered “involuntary” as long as the number of vagrants exceed the available beds. When calculating the latter, the judges excluded religiously affiliated shelters as well as warming and sobering centers. Is requiring the homeless to stay sober to get shelter a constitutional violation?
@C1v1cLillianPatriot2wks2W
It’s cruel and unusual punishment for sober and productive people to observe, hear and smell other people defiling public places. The rights of decent people should come before people who don’t care about anyone else’s rights.
@V3toElianaUnity2wks2W
Much of the destruction and offshoring damage to the American middle class is a direct result of Democrat judge-made law.
Absolutely ridiculous rulings. I remember going to law school in the 1980s and being so shocked by the arbitrariness of the decisions that I told all my professors the caselaw would absolutely empty the country of our production power. All the direct consequence of Democrat judges enjoying exercising power over others - the same crass human instinct behind the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials. No different than the Democrat judges torturing Trump today.
@OatmealMayaVeteran2wks2W
Any easy solution to this? Move all of the homeless encampments where the judges live.......let's see how this might impact their ruling.
@FreedomRickUnity2wks2W
The Ninth Circuit obviously doesn't have the unwashed masses camping outside their homes or converting their carefully curated flower gardens into not-so-Porta Potties. No, I think the Ninth Circuit judges are safely tucked away where the aftermath of their decisions will never touch them.
@SomberLobbyistDemocrat2wks2W
The Ninth Circuit court is on 7th and Mission in San Francisco. A block away is 6th and Mission, one of two epicenters of homelessness in San Francisco. I'm pretty sure they don't need lectures from you about homelessness.
Rather than insinuating they they are acting insincerely and/or hypocritically is there anything in their reading of the law and the Constitution which you can actually dispute?
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
@ContentYearlyUnity2wks2W
The Ninth Circuit obviously doesn't have the unwashed masses camping outside their homes or converting their carefully curated flower gardens into not-so-Porta Potties. No, I think the Ninth Circuit judges are safely tucked away where the aftermath of their decisions will never touch them.
The Robinson decision laid the groundwork for what the neo-Marxist left hopes to achieve - it is the legal justification for critical theory at the heart of their ideology.
Under the guise of not criminalizing someone for "who they are," they have excused holding them accountable for "what they do." This is a feature, not a bug.
The goal is to eliminate the traditional standards of right and wrong and institute a moral framework based on "oppressed" and "oppressor." Homeless are oppressed, therefore their behavior must be forgiven. One can see how the left plans to apply this to an array of transgressors like those listed in this editorial.
@Lobby1stLunaRepublican2wks2W
When will it be the "turn" for the rights of the law abiding, tax paying, working moms and dads and citizens to be fully recognized? The ones who pay the bills for judges' salaries, pay for the shelters and food and medical care for the homeless, pay for the salaries of police officers, social workers, medical workers that see to the needs and care of those homeless and others in need....
Make our streets safe, at least that, so our children can go to school and play afterwords safely. At least that? Because "woke" law apparently only goes so far for this particular category of citizens...
@MuesliChuckMountain2wks2W
That's why the court insisted on the solution as being a "bed", not a place to land out of the law-abiding ordinary public's view.
Under the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, homelessness is considered “involuntary” as long as the number of vagrants exceed the available beds.
The historical activity of users engaging with this general discussion.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
