The liberal justices pounced aggressively in oral arguments Monday over a city ban on sleeping outside with a blanket, less indicative of a full-court press to sway their right-wing colleagues to their side and more an attempt to put their stamp on a case they know cannot be won.
Brava to the liberal justices, even they can’t prevail. The utter lack of empathy for people experiencing homelessness completely disgusts me. Even other liberals in my fairly liberal town seem to have no compassion for folks in this predicament. There have to be better policy solutions than criminalizing homelessness.
Grants Pass, Oregon
State of Jefferson hotbed.
–
it maintained that it was wrongly decided
Where have I heard that before?
–
There are plenty of reasons for homelessness, and yes, “life choices” sometimes enters into it. But it would be really interesting if, instead of right wingers bloviating about a problem they really don’t want to solve (the border) paid some attention to a growing problem among our own citizens.
The total lack of humanity & empathy continues to stun me.
a person without housing’s “life choices”
Clearly has no comprehension of the concept of “luck”.
Would the cities rather the homeless to just live in jail? It would cost a lot less to just provide housing and assistance.
“Where do we put them if every city, every village, every town, lacks compassion and passes a law identical to this?” Sotomayor asked. “Where are they supposed to sleep? Are they supposed to kill themselves not sleeping?”
EXACTLY!!! There would also be no societal incentive to try to solve this issue.
Perhaps they could all just be bussed out to some wilderness area somewhere and left to fend for themselves?!? NIMBY indeed *&^%$#@!
There are obviously permissible applications of the city’s ordinance that would not depend on the defendant’s homeless status, e.g., a housed person using a city park as the site of a weekend camping trip. So rather than invalidating the entire law, the courts can just sustain a due process/equal protection defense for people who don’t have any reasonable options to sleeping in public. That would be my guess where this is going – no constitutional right to sleep in public, but homeless status still works as a defense.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the abject cruelty of an imaginary “Christian” nation, in all its glorious and fascist selfishness.
I realize that his case came out of OR, but what would happen if a city within a state that all but banned abortion runs into this problem? A problem that they created for themselves? I mean could the city bus the homeless to the state capitol? Let the legislators deal with the problem they created?
“Is being a bank robber a status?”
That is a choice. Status, as in static, is not easily changed by choice.
I sometimes cannot believe the ideas that fall out of SCOTUS conservatives mouths.
I listened. I think Justice Brown’s question about this being the current law was probably a bridge too far. Yes, the Ninth Circuit has Martin and it’s been, to put it kindly, a mess. When even San Francisco is submitting an amicus brief asking for interpretive help, that tells me that this standard has some problems in the real world. Any Justice who cares to visit the Ninth Circuit, particularly after dark, could attest to this.
At the end of the day, clarity is needed even if Robinson is extended. That’s all cities want to know - where can they draw lines and where can’t they. I heard the Justices struggling with this today and I take no comfort from Justice Brown trying to assure us that it’s already OK.
When I was 23 I had two degrees and was living out of my Ford F-150 pick up (1970 vintage). I had not committed any crime. It was just luck of the draw. A year later I had a good job, a place to live and that same truck.
The sheer cruelty! What kind of nation are we to even ask this question?
Red states solve their homeless problem by giving out bus tickets to cities in blue states.
You’re entirely ignoring the obvious fact that God, in his infinite wisdom, had decided at that point that you were a flawed person, unworthy of sympathy or love, and therefore should be doomed to live in your truck. Who are we to argue with God’s judgement?
(To be clear: I’m being entirely sarcastic; I yield to no one in my respect for Darrtown.)
Uhm no. If they could get away with it the CON-servatives would prefer the law use by Nazi Germany in the 30’s and 40’s. Much more efficient.
November 24, 1933 - Nazis pass a Law against Habitual and Dangerous Criminals, which allows beggars, the homeless, alcoholics and the unemployed to be sent to concentration camps.
Oh, wait. They already have plans set in motion if the Orange criminal, rapist POS is re-elected.
But don’t worry. It’s not like they would arrest real Americans (Do I need a snark tag for this?)
If the conservatives get their way Trump could be charged for sleeping in a courtroom.
I live in Oregon. I am liberal. I want homeless folks to have options. With that said, not being able to have options when dealing with these folks and what they do (or don’t do) is really impacting cities, states, and our country. The last several years it feels as if homeless & drug addicts get to call the policy shots, especially in a state like Oregon that really wants to help them and kindly asks that they not trash and crime all of society, pretty please? Where we are is not working. We have to continue to have a functioning society. There has to be rules. The Boise / Grants Pass verdicts were never going to work. Cities need options to keep things livable.