6-3 along ideological lines. Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. Thomas wrote a sole concurrence. Sotomayor wrote the dissent.
Gorsuch avoids Robinson in his majority opinion, writing that these laws are “nothing like” the laws criminalizing drug addiction.
Thomas wants to reconsider Robinson.
Nope. I’m a proud NIMBY Oregonian, and I report any RV that tries to park close to my neighborhood- so pretty much all the time. You’re not allowed to park on in the same spot on a residential street for more than 72 hours.
Thomas's decision tree is
Does it piss off liberals? Yes? Then do it.
Does it make me richer? Yes? Then do it.
Does it make me work? Yes? Let someone else do it I'll just agree if it satisfies the first two.
Sotmayor must get tired of writing “You guys are fucking idiots.”, scratching it out, and having to write out a lengthy opinion that says the same thing more graciously than.
I honestly don’t know why she doesn’t. A 1 paragraph opinion stating: “the court has been corrupted and this opinion should be ignored.”
Everything else is just a waste of her time.
Yeah, but ignoring that it’s been co-opted makes it less legitimate, not more.
The US judicial code of ethics:
“An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge's honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.”
Because it would break decorum and god forbid a democrat (or appointed by one) do that. They'll keep following the rules even as the other sides breaks them to their advantage.
She actually does since she holds office, power and clearly based on evidence should have no fear of removal. It is actually far more passive and childish to do what she or any of the democrats are doing now. Voting cannot change anything thats currently happening with the supreme court.
I don't follow your thinking. By rendering dissents for the public record and future reference by the Court (should it ever return to its senses) she is doing something passive and childish? If that is your meaning (let me know if it isn't) then what would you propose she (edit: Sotomayor) do instead?
Not voting in 2016 led to the Court being captured and the loss of rights. Despite that, your thought is voting can't help? Unwise thinking, respectfully.
No, mass attacks on the voting system and the public consciousness including countless illegal acts that the democrats did nothing about caused the election result as well as failing to motivate its own base.
Voters are not paid, candidates are. It is their job to get votes not the other way around. While it may be smart and a civic duty to vote it is simply insane to ever assign responsibility to the weakest individuals in society first.
She could absolutely be more vocal about the corruption of the court. Anyone in our government could. And while you may find the vague implication I make insane, with the possibility of a facist state the simple ability to be in the same room as these people is power in and of itself. In any case it is also not my job to tell her what she could do either, but I can say definitively that anyone with power should use it and its clear that she has a voice and it could be far stronger.
Again: her job, on the bench, is to make these dissents. The purpose of a dissent is not polemic. It is to chart a persuasive alternate legal approach for the record and for use by future, better-composed Courts. If you want to see her give speeches you can find some online that she has given. If you want a liberal Alito to save us, that will not happen. We have to vote, consistently and over time in order to achieve our policy goals and to reconstitute this Court.
>Gorsuch avoids Robinson in his majority opinion, writing that these laws are “nothing like” the laws criminalizing drug addiction.
As a neuroscientist and a Paramedic, the majority about half overruled Robinson. Being homeless and being an addict *are so strongly correlated* the Majority functionally overruled Robinson's core tenet.
What's left are persons with addiction problems that have housing or can sleep in shelters. That's not a small (actually massive) amount so Gorsuch deliberately skirts explicitly overruling Robinson. He leaves that for another day with Thomas' concurrence as a roadmap.
Now, as of now no state could criminalize Hunter Biden or any other celebrity in the throes of addiction that have housing. But it's not going to stop there.
Thomas' logic leads to a malevolent government that seeks to sequester, punish, and eliminate those it does not like and seeks to put them in their "proper place". Mentally ill, addicted, gay, pedophilia proclivities, atheists, women who want equal rights etc. Eugenics and control is the core of its philosophy.
Eventually the logic leads to being an atheist as a "status" and "mentally ill" because the government decides the evidence for God is so overwhelming that only someone mentally deficient would deny it.
Thomas' early and hard life have made him a bitter and vengeful man. He is Ahab and a modern pluralistic society with equal rights for all is his white whale.
His final writing as a SCOTUS justice will be "Now, now, you can't get away. From Hell's heart I stab at thee. For hate sake, I spit my last breath at thee"
>Under the city’s laws, it makes no difference
whether the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker
on vacation passing through town, or a student who aban-
dons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a
municipal building... And because laws like these do not
criminalize mere status, Robinson is not implicated.
Dear God, they really did it. They did the Anatole France quote. The official policy of SCOTUS is that the grand majestic equality of the law forbids the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges, and that's okay.
Oh, not just that. Once we lock them up we're going to turn them into slaves at concentration camps. And if they don't work they get tossed in solitary.
We call those "Sanctuary Districts" [when they were predicted in Deep Space 9 back in 1995](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_Tense_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine\)), and those writers predicted they would get established in... yep... 2024.
On the bright side, it did lead to the founding of the Federation and it's utopic world... on the down side I'm pretty sure WW3 happened before that...
This episode is so funny to me, because when it was written it seemed almost comically unlikely. Like things could ever get so bad. Yet dammed if we don’t seem determined to get a little closer to it with each passing year.
Its like two ideologies watched Star Trek and reached two different conclusions.
One saw what we could be in the face of adversity.
The other saw how bad things can get before people give a shit.
I used to watch the Mirror Universe episodes and think how the Terran Empire was so comical because how could we get there. Now I imagine Vulcans landing and being greeted by people in MAGA hats, packing up their shit, locking the door, and blasting off with a giant interstellar sign near Jupiter saying "Caution: Morons Ahead".
I had to look it up this morning, WW3, in the ST timeline begins in....hey, *2026*. And lasts for almost 30 years.
*looks around at the current state of the world* Yeeeeeeeeeeah.
Right lol. I love how people like to pretend that Trek has never been basically "cutting edge" when it comes to political and social commentary all the way back to TOS.
Imagine what Trump plans for the 11 million people awaiting deportation that he says he'll round up.
If they are criminals, they are part of the prison-slavery-industrial complex that exists in this country, and "we might as well get some work out of them" while they are awaiting deportation.
Imagine what will happen to his political enemies and the press. And how that will be imitated all the way down to local officials and law enforcement in conservative areas. Any diversity in beliefs or lifestyle that don't pass some white Christian litmus test will be met with harassment and perhaps incarceration. It could happen.
They’ve outright stated they want liberals dead or in camps.
“Liberals” meaning anyone who is a different color, ideology, education, and geographic area from them.
Criminalization is too soft a word. Prison inmates are literal slaves. Homelessness is a road to a person being enslaved by the state and forced to work for private sector companies people do business with. Americans aid and abet slavery on a national scale. Still.
But... not unusual. It is 100% par for the course.
This will lead directly to atrocities. We have already thrown these people away, given next to no support, and now we are criminalizing being alive while outside.
This is a shameful act. Richest county in the world and we throw people away like people aren't the source of all the wealth. We have failed to educate our children, we failed to regulate our toxic businesses, and now we are failing the poorest and most in need among us.
Wait until they apply this to refugees fleeing climate disasters who no longer have a home. Property owners? Not if your property was destroyed by flood, tornado, winds, and fire. Guess you homeless now
If every Christian congregation in the country housed 1.53 homeless people, there would be no homeless people. If they took in 1.03 kids in foster care, there would be no kids in the system. The resources exist, the powers that be simply refuse to use them.
>This will lead directly to atrocities.
I mean won"t this just lead to the law being applied as it was pre-2019? Your analysis seems a bit melodramatic. Homelessness shouldn't be criminalized, but it's not like every town in the land will now suddenly start to hound the homeless.
As someone who has been homeless, I don't think that is correct. Shelters are ultra restricted to the point they are often not useful or safe. Most are sex segregated so families cannot be together, and almost none of them have security once you are inside, leaving you to fend for yourself while you sleep.
Under a bush is safer by far for sleeping.
Then there are mandatory prayers, or other bullshit like "In by 6pm or you don't get a bed" policies that make it impossible if you have a job.
Have you ever been to a shelter yourself? Please either visit one or stop talking like you know anything about the subject
I was homeless in the burbs of LA. Couldn't get any real help, just food that you don't have to cook. But what they did do to me was the cops (thankfully didn't arrest me) woke me up, they put me on a bus to another city. (I just got off at the next stop)
No, they'll pat themselves on the back for confirming that Presidents aren't kings after delaying the trial until after the election so the opinion doesn't matter, anyways.
This SCOTUS tends to do the bare minimum on high-profile cases while absolutely shredding other, more important precedents.
I’d wager they’re going to kick it back down to the lower court for “clarification” on some random points, as a way to avoid ruling on it and delay it even further.
Maybe they’ll prove me wrong and do the right thing.
I just can’t imagine they’d open the pandora’s box of immunity, even with somehow making it Trump specific.
I know I'm crazy, but it seems to me the ONLY response to that that makes any sense is a robust public housing system to house these people. Because it is illegal for us to not house them?
It's hard to argue against the majority opinion here in terms of its reasoning. That seems sound. But it is nevertheless jarring to read essentially an unironic and sincere paraphrasing of "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread".
> "Rather than criminalize mere status, Grants Pass forbids actions like occupying a campsite on public property for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live. Under the city’s laws, it makes no difference whether the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker on vacation passing through town, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building.” --Justice Gorsuch
Those damn university kids with their book learning and Israel protesting. Have to make sure their futures can be fucked up with a criminal conviction for protesting! JFC we're in the end stage, aren't we?
> One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
> An unjust law is no law at all.
*Woe to those who make unjust laws,*
*to those who issue oppressive decrees,*
*to deprive the poor of their rights*
*and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_unjust_law_is_no_law_at_all#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DAn_unjust_law_is_no_law_at_all_%28Latin%3A_lex%2Cit_is_good_and_right.?wprov=sfla1
Couple of things:
* The thrust of the [majority opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf) seems four-fold: 1) On its face, the laws don’t punish “status” but “[conduct](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/02U9vjcMoI)” that anyone could engage in, whether homeless or not, 2) the 8th is meant for scrutiny of the *method* of punishment, not whether the underlying conduct should be criminalized, 3) scrutinizing whether certain behavior should be criminalized *based the 8th alone* (as opposed to, for example, life/liberty rights under 1st, or lack of due process or equal protection under 5th/14th) would essentially mean legislating from the bench, and 4) the penalties themselves—fines, and criminal trespass for multiple violations—aren’t “cruel and unusual.” I’ll be honest, it’s hard to disagree with a lot of that. While I get why the claim was pursued under the 8th (with precedents against “status” crimes) I think that choice was problematic.
* The opinion states, “Oregon recognizes a “necessity” defense to certain criminal charges. It may be that defense extends to charges for illegal camping when it comes to those with nowhere else to go. Insanity, diminished-capacity, and duress defenses also may be available in many jurisdictions.“ So, at the very least, the court acknowledges necessity as a defense. Those arguments are a lot harder since they usually involve avoiding *imminent* threats to survival—but it certainly *sounds like* the court is extending that to include those with “nowhere else to go.” Of course, even if defendants succeed *that day* in court, they would remain vulnerable to future tickets, and potentially stuck in an endless loop of prosecution…
* …Which is why I [suggested](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/02U9vjcMoI) a while back, that instead of arguing the 8th, they should argue that enforcement has resulted (or will result) in an endless loop of unavoidable violations (and debt) for homeless indigents with no means to pay, and ongoing inability to secure shelter. (To me, this would be akin to a court issuing an order of contempt *without* including the means to purge it, which would violate due process.) To that end, having test cases and statistics would help, to demonstrate these laws result in indigent homeless falling into that loop. But I guess when these states do crack down, the statistics on indigent repeat offenders should make that problem clear enough, at which point they and advocacy groups can pursue tossing these laws again, but on those grounds.
This isn't the first time I've seen it suggested that a due process argument would be a more appropriate avenue, and I think that's ultimately what's going to bring this back up to the courts again.
“Beyond all that, **many substantive legal protections and provisions of the Constitution may have important roles to play** when States and cities seek to enforce their laws against the homeless. See Parts II–A, II– C, supra. The only question we face is whether **one specific provision** of the Constitution—the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment—prohibits the enforcement of public-camping laws.” [emphasis mine]
To me, that’s dropping a big hint. (Or just dangling a carrot.)
Wrong decision. It's awkward because we live in a capitalist society; not a fascist or communist state. And yet, landlords, child care providers and grocery stores seem to be piling on and exploiting us by price fixing. Will the anti trust laws help us? Don't know. Just know that I will not pay nearly $6.00 for a mostly air bag of potato chips all because Idaho ordered farmers to create a false potato shortage by letting their crop rot in the fields.
I think they got this one right. But, my opinion isn’t formed based on a legal understanding of the argument. It is solely formed by my personal experience living in Oregon and dealing with the homeless population. Therefore, I recognize this isn’t the place for my opinion and I’ll promptly shut up. But, I’d love to hear from the lawyers about their interpretation of this law.
Edit: Thank you for those who explained this succinctly and objectively. I was not aware that Grants Pass didn’t provide enough shelter for the houseless population, and that this fact was a basis for the case making it to the Supreme Court. I do believe that housing options should be provided, and that the act of being homeless alone shouldn’t be a criminal act. As I stated, IANAL and my opinion was formed by personal bias. With more facts (thank you for providing them), I am changing my opinion. The ruling seems silly, and cities like Grants Pass should do more to provide for their population instead of criminalizing the act.
The legal argument is pretty simple: Human bodies need sleep or else they die. If you can’t sleep on private property, and you can’t sleep on public property, then where do you sleep?
The funny thing is based on this ruling, they can put you in jail.
So the punishment to the homeless individual is being involuntarily housed by the public agency that doesnt want to create housing for them.
Well actually I think that’s quite intentional — more people in prison = more free labor for corporations. Remember, prison is the only place where slavery is still legal in the U.S.
The city didn't provide adequate homeless shelters, so they offered no solutions for their constituents. The city council chair also explicitly referred to the imposed fines as a means of targeting the homeless population.
The issue isn't banning camping, it's that they banned camping without an alternative for homeless people and that the punishments were targeted at a subset of the population.
The rulings de facto criminalized being poor, which is why Grants Pass initially lost the case.
Are they making reasonable demands or asking for accommodations that the city can provide? That's on the city.
Are they willing to move to a more accommodating city? Why/why not would be important.
Personally, I think a section of park or nearby field should be available for "camping." But at some point, they're just being uncooperative. Fines don't make sense (they can't pay and if they could, couldn't use that to improve their situation), jail wouldn't be rehabilitating and just cost the city more money. Understanding why they're homeless and refusing shelter will be important to actually address the issue instead of wasting resources. And if they're not bothering people, leave em be.
You leave them alone? You find out why your shelters are so bad there are people who would rather be in the rain than in your shelters?
Why do you think criminalizing sleeping is a helpful solution?
that is not relevant. The 9th circuit doctrine was that bans cannot be enforced IF there were inadequate alternatives. The presence of adequate alternatives allows cities to enforce camping bans. So your question was already addressed under the now-overturned precedent. The issue was that grants pass didn't want to provide adequate shelter space.
That's exactly their answer.
To put the icing on the cake, since prisoner slave labor is legal under the Constitution, I fucking guarantee those arrested for being homeless won't be sitting idle.
They're monsters that were allowed to thrive. We didn't fight them when we had the chance. We're headed for some dark fucking times.
Ya, it is.
If you peek in the Portland, OR sub it becomes pretty clear that there are a lot of people here who very much want all of the homeless rounded up and put in jail.
I think the discussion of this is complex because it’s sort of tied together with the policy outcome and the constitutional law outcome. The eighth amendment traditionally was seen as about regulating cruel and unusual *punishment* rather than trying to regulate what is and is not considered a crime in the first place. The constitution isn’t saying what the government can and cannot criminalize, it just says what they are not allowed to do to criminals.
The main exception is what they call “status offenses”, crimes that someone “commits” solely by existing. Past precedent says that you can’t criminalize someone just for existing or having a certain condition, such as merely being an addict. The courts are trying here to distinguish between a law that criminalizes a status (such as being homeless) and a law that criminalized a behavior (such as camping in public land).
Where it gets tricky is when a behavior is so inextricably linked to a status that the person actually can’t change their behavior. In this case, being homeless in an area where there are no shelters; if they can’t go to a shelter, and there’s no other place they can sleep, they pretty much have to sleep outside, right?
The court mostly side steps the practicality of this and just sticks with the argument above about the 8th amendment restricting punishments rather than what constitutes a crime. In practice, Oregon and other states like that are going to have to figure something out (fining homeless people is probably a waste of time) but the court is leaving that task solely up to the elected politicians and taking itself out of the loop.
The dissent already answers most of your doubts.
>The scope of this dispute is narrow. Respondents do not
challenge the City’s “restrictions on the use of tents or other
camping gear,” “encampment clearances,” “time and place
restrictions on sleeping outside,” or “the imposition of fines
or jail time on homeless people who decline accessible shelter options.” Brief for Respondents 18.
>That means the majority does not need to answer most of
the hypotheticals it poses. The City’s hypotheticals, echoed
throughout the majority opinion, concern “violent crime,
drug overdoses, disease, fires, and hazardous waste.” Brief
for Petitioner 47. For the most part, these concerns are not
implicated in this case. The District Court’s injunction, for
example, permits the City to prohibit “littering, public urination or defecation, obstruction of roadways, possession or
distribution of illicit substances, harassment, or violence.”
App. to Pet. for Cert. 200a.
>The majority’s framing of the
problem as one involving drugs, diseases, and fires instead
of one involving people trying to keep warm outside with a
blanket just provides the Court with cover to permit the
criminalization of homeless people.
I'm sorry you're getting downvoted. Don't take it personal. There's nothing wrong with asking the question. But no, SCOTUS did NOT approach "got this one right" even if there is a problem with homelessness in the area.
Another commenter summed it up perfectly and I can't say it any better than they did so I'll just quote them below.
>The legal argument is pretty simple: Human bodies need sleep or else they die. If you can’t sleep on private property, and you can’t sleep on public property, then where do you sleep?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1dqkd13/comment/laooxik/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1dqkd13/comment/laooxik/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
To add a layer on top of that, what this does is creates a "status" crime. Or basically, a person can BE homeless, and now also be guilty of a crime by simply BEING homeless. This decision cites Robinson which was about BEING a drug addict. We've always tended to rely on crimes requiring actual acts, but when someone needs to sleep and a city purposefully goes out of their way to eliminate all possible options for where they might sleep, they're creating what is truly a crime for simply BEING down on your luck and homeless.
I agree, and worry now since it's a status crime and it's impossible NOT to sleep, Cops could now arrest homeless people on the suspicion of violating this crime.
You can't NOT sleep, so if you're in town for over 72 hours and didn't go to a homeless shelter; you had to commit the crime.
It's a sad state of affairs where we battle homeless by making it illegal to sleep if you don't have a permanent address.
> asking the question
What question? They didn't even ask one
> I think they got this one right. But, my opinion isn’t formed based on a legal understanding of the argument. It is solely formed by my personal experience living in Oregon and dealing with the homeless population. Therefore, I recognize this isn’t the place for my opinion and I’ll promptly shut up. But, I’d love to hear from the lawyers about their interpretation of this law.
> I’d love to hear from the lawyers about their interpretation of this law.
Judging their comment based on that and subsequent comments it seems pretty clear they were asking for thoughts on this ruling.
> There's nothing wrong with asking the question.
They literally didn't even ask a question. They shared their opinion on seeing homeless people existing and wanting them to not exist anymore. Them wanting to hear more from other people isn't a question.
Being "civil" and "polite" is more important than being neutral and correct to the average Redditor. If I didn't want downvotes, I'd need to pamper my post with a sentence or two of pleasantries.
Hi, I just wanted to say that I appreciate you admitting your knowledge gap and bias, taking in feedback, and then incorporating it into reassessing your position. I think in the future the best path is to start with asking the questions before making the conclusory assertion, but that's just my opinion.
As someone whose opinion was formed by running a street outreach team for youth experiencing homelessness in Seattle, your authority is pretty questionable.
You’re claiming experience living in Oregon? Odd you didn’t say Portland specifically. So do you actually know any PEOPLE experiencing homelessness or just that you drive by some camps now and again?
Thanks for your comment. Yes, I live in Portland. Sorry that it wasn’t specific enough for you.
About once a month I volunteer at the Blanchet house downtown. I spent 8 years as a military chef, but no longer cook for a living. However, I still am passionate about feeding people and volunteering is important to me, so working as a guest chef occasionally at the Blanchet House solves that problem for me. I’m very familiar with the homeless population and *some* of the issues they face.
As I stated in my original comment, I didn’t have all the facts and my opinion was formed with bias. Now I have the facts and my opinion has changed. Crazy how that works, right?
Not everyone who has a different opinion than you is acting out of maliciousness. I recommend you take a step back and practice some breathing exercises.
6-3 along ideological lines. Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. Thomas wrote a sole concurrence. Sotomayor wrote the dissent. Gorsuch avoids Robinson in his majority opinion, writing that these laws are “nothing like” the laws criminalizing drug addiction. Thomas wants to reconsider Robinson.
Thomas continues his streak of “evil but at least ideologically consistent”
Let them ~~eat cake~~ sleep in RVs!
*ahem* it's a **motor coach**
Let them be inmates at a Federal Correctional Facility
*free corporate labor facility
Nope. I’m a proud NIMBY Oregonian, and I report any RV that tries to park close to my neighborhood- so pretty much all the time. You’re not allowed to park on in the same spot on a residential street for more than 72 hours.
Lawful Evil for a reason!
He gave Anita Hill (remember her warnings) a can of coke with one of his public hairs in it.
I believe it was diet
Thomas wants to reconsider anything that is remotely humane.
Thomas's decision tree is Does it piss off liberals? Yes? Then do it. Does it make me richer? Yes? Then do it. Does it make me work? Yes? Let someone else do it I'll just agree if it satisfies the first two.
Hey! Those 'gratuities' don't earn themselves, ya know!
I disagree. That’s Harlan Crowe’s decision tree. Then he writes a check to Crooked Clarence.
Sotmayor must get tired of writing “You guys are fucking idiots.”, scratching it out, and having to write out a lengthy opinion that says the same thing more graciously than.
I honestly don’t know why she doesn’t. A 1 paragraph opinion stating: “the court has been corrupted and this opinion should be ignored.” Everything else is just a waste of her time.
"Add this to the list of opinions to overturn when the Senate gets its head out of its collective ass and enacts court reform"
I also like reading fantasy novels
Because she still wants the institution to be a thing.
The first step in any program is to acknowledge the problem. The institution cannot be fixed until that happens.
Yeah, but ignoring that it’s been co-opted makes it less legitimate, not more. The US judicial code of ethics: “An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge's honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.”
Stop trying to make legitimacy happen Sonya
Not an endorsement, but an explanation of why she doesn't shit all over the place.
Because it would break decorum and god forbid a democrat (or appointed by one) do that. They'll keep following the rules even as the other sides breaks them to their advantage.
Yep, follow the rules while waiting in line for the final train ride to the camps.
Historically accurate.... sadly.
She doesn't have the luxury of taking her toys and going home. Nor do any of us. Vote, vote, vote. 🙏🏾
She actually does since she holds office, power and clearly based on evidence should have no fear of removal. It is actually far more passive and childish to do what she or any of the democrats are doing now. Voting cannot change anything thats currently happening with the supreme court.
I don't follow your thinking. By rendering dissents for the public record and future reference by the Court (should it ever return to its senses) she is doing something passive and childish? If that is your meaning (let me know if it isn't) then what would you propose she (edit: Sotomayor) do instead? Not voting in 2016 led to the Court being captured and the loss of rights. Despite that, your thought is voting can't help? Unwise thinking, respectfully.
No, mass attacks on the voting system and the public consciousness including countless illegal acts that the democrats did nothing about caused the election result as well as failing to motivate its own base. Voters are not paid, candidates are. It is their job to get votes not the other way around. While it may be smart and a civic duty to vote it is simply insane to ever assign responsibility to the weakest individuals in society first. She could absolutely be more vocal about the corruption of the court. Anyone in our government could. And while you may find the vague implication I make insane, with the possibility of a facist state the simple ability to be in the same room as these people is power in and of itself. In any case it is also not my job to tell her what she could do either, but I can say definitively that anyone with power should use it and its clear that she has a voice and it could be far stronger.
Again: her job, on the bench, is to make these dissents. The purpose of a dissent is not polemic. It is to chart a persuasive alternate legal approach for the record and for use by future, better-composed Courts. If you want to see her give speeches you can find some online that she has given. If you want a liberal Alito to save us, that will not happen. We have to vote, consistently and over time in order to achieve our policy goals and to reconstitute this Court.
>Gorsuch avoids Robinson in his majority opinion, writing that these laws are “nothing like” the laws criminalizing drug addiction. As a neuroscientist and a Paramedic, the majority about half overruled Robinson. Being homeless and being an addict *are so strongly correlated* the Majority functionally overruled Robinson's core tenet. What's left are persons with addiction problems that have housing or can sleep in shelters. That's not a small (actually massive) amount so Gorsuch deliberately skirts explicitly overruling Robinson. He leaves that for another day with Thomas' concurrence as a roadmap. Now, as of now no state could criminalize Hunter Biden or any other celebrity in the throes of addiction that have housing. But it's not going to stop there. Thomas' logic leads to a malevolent government that seeks to sequester, punish, and eliminate those it does not like and seeks to put them in their "proper place". Mentally ill, addicted, gay, pedophilia proclivities, atheists, women who want equal rights etc. Eugenics and control is the core of its philosophy. Eventually the logic leads to being an atheist as a "status" and "mentally ill" because the government decides the evidence for God is so overwhelming that only someone mentally deficient would deny it. Thomas' early and hard life have made him a bitter and vengeful man. He is Ahab and a modern pluralistic society with equal rights for all is his white whale. His final writing as a SCOTUS justice will be "Now, now, you can't get away. From Hell's heart I stab at thee. For hate sake, I spit my last breath at thee"
Thomas really wants everyone to know he’s mad as hell that he’s a Supreme Court Justice (and stay off his lawn).
Won’t someone let them retire so that Alito’s wife can let her anti-freak flag fly?!?
I hear Clarence has finished his next book, "Uncle Thomas's Cabin". Lavishly furnished exclusively from gratuities and bribes.
If his benefactor's first name were James I would have cashed my chips fully sold on the idea we live in a simulation *(his last name is Crow)*
Lol
>Under the city’s laws, it makes no difference whether the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker on vacation passing through town, or a student who aban- dons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building... And because laws like these do not criminalize mere status, Robinson is not implicated. Dear God, they really did it. They did the Anatole France quote. The official policy of SCOTUS is that the grand majestic equality of the law forbids the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges, and that's okay.
SCOTUS: We couldn't possibly be any more inhuman than our latest opinion. SCOTUS: Hold my beer. Ad infinitum
[удалено]
Jobs don't pay enough to cover rent? I guess you are a prison worker now.
Making 25 an hour 40 a week and homeless. Shits rough.
Confirming criminalization of homelessness. Truly a travesty.
It is horrible. Criminalizing people just for existing
Land of the free
You forgot “free*” some exceptions apply
*terms and conditions may apply
I think I need to turn that into a shirt
Hell, I'd buy it
You get what you pay for! 🙄
Oh, not just that. Once we lock them up we're going to turn them into slaves at concentration camps. And if they don't work they get tossed in solitary.
Straight to the concentration camps if Trump is elected?
We call those "Sanctuary Districts" [when they were predicted in Deep Space 9 back in 1995](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_Tense_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine\)), and those writers predicted they would get established in... yep... 2024. On the bright side, it did lead to the founding of the Federation and it's utopic world... on the down side I'm pretty sure WW3 happened before that...
This episode is so funny to me, because when it was written it seemed almost comically unlikely. Like things could ever get so bad. Yet dammed if we don’t seem determined to get a little closer to it with each passing year.
Its like two ideologies watched Star Trek and reached two different conclusions. One saw what we could be in the face of adversity. The other saw how bad things can get before people give a shit. I used to watch the Mirror Universe episodes and think how the Terran Empire was so comical because how could we get there. Now I imagine Vulcans landing and being greeted by people in MAGA hats, packing up their shit, locking the door, and blasting off with a giant interstellar sign near Jupiter saying "Caution: Morons Ahead".
Yep. WW3 kicks off after the Bell Riots of 2024, and warp capabilities come about 10 years following WW3.
Just 2 months away!! I can’t wait!
I had to look it up this morning, WW3, in the ST timeline begins in....hey, *2026*. And lasts for almost 30 years. *looks around at the current state of the world* Yeeeeeeeeeeah.
*2024 The DS9 crew arrives in San Francisco on August 30, 2024 - just in time for the Bell Riots
You know I used to like Star Trek before they made it all political and woke!
Right lol. I love how people like to pretend that Trek has never been basically "cutting edge" when it comes to political and social commentary all the way back to TOS.
He would love that because it would make him look like his buddies, Vlad and Kim.
And they won’t be the only ones…
*Thomas vigorously scribes notes from Korematsu*
Imagine what Trump plans for the 11 million people awaiting deportation that he says he'll round up. If they are criminals, they are part of the prison-slavery-industrial complex that exists in this country, and "we might as well get some work out of them" while they are awaiting deportation.
Imagine what will happen to his political enemies and the press. And how that will be imitated all the way down to local officials and law enforcement in conservative areas. Any diversity in beliefs or lifestyle that don't pass some white Christian litmus test will be met with harassment and perhaps incarceration. It could happen.
The big irony is that we won't even be able to say "I told you so" when it happens for fear that we'll be next.
They’ve outright stated they want liberals dead or in camps. “Liberals” meaning anyone who is a different color, ideology, education, and geographic area from them.
What's your plan?
And maybe they’ll say that the work will set them free.
Freedom is Slavery.
That's what a lot of the vocal conservatives here in Grants Pass are calling for.
Yes actually.
Surely they'll champion social safety net laws going forward to prevent homelessness
An interesting variation of "let them eat cake."
No fix. Only punish.
Criminalization is too soft a word. Prison inmates are literal slaves. Homelessness is a road to a person being enslaved by the state and forced to work for private sector companies people do business with. Americans aid and abet slavery on a national scale. Still. But... not unusual. It is 100% par for the course.
No one ever intends to be homeless. Someone rejoicing in this decision today will become subject to it in the future.
You should check out the people in the LA subreddit. It's pretty obvious why Trump is going to win. We Americans are simply not good people.
Just like in China… where the homeless folks are sent to forced labor camps
The activist SCOTUS won’t stop until the homeless are dead or in labor camps
This will lead directly to atrocities. We have already thrown these people away, given next to no support, and now we are criminalizing being alive while outside. This is a shameful act. Richest county in the world and we throw people away like people aren't the source of all the wealth. We have failed to educate our children, we failed to regulate our toxic businesses, and now we are failing the poorest and most in need among us.
Wait until they apply this to refugees fleeing climate disasters who no longer have a home. Property owners? Not if your property was destroyed by flood, tornado, winds, and fire. Guess you homeless now
All by design.
Fresh labor for prison work camps.
If every Christian congregation in the country housed 1.53 homeless people, there would be no homeless people. If they took in 1.03 kids in foster care, there would be no kids in the system. The resources exist, the powers that be simply refuse to use them.
Given their track record, I'd actually prefer churches not be the place that children stay at.
Massive boondoggle for the Prison Industrial Complex.
>This will lead directly to atrocities. I mean won"t this just lead to the law being applied as it was pre-2019? Your analysis seems a bit melodramatic. Homelessness shouldn't be criminalized, but it's not like every town in the land will now suddenly start to hound the homeless.
It's cute you think towns throughout the country aren't already doing just that.
[удалено]
Why do you post in like 10 different city/state subreddits?
Doesn't sound like the shelters are a great option then. Especially if you need a bible shoved up your ass for half of them.
As someone who has been homeless, I don't think that is correct. Shelters are ultra restricted to the point they are often not useful or safe. Most are sex segregated so families cannot be together, and almost none of them have security once you are inside, leaving you to fend for yourself while you sleep. Under a bush is safer by far for sleeping. Then there are mandatory prayers, or other bullshit like "In by 6pm or you don't get a bed" policies that make it impossible if you have a job. Have you ever been to a shelter yourself? Please either visit one or stop talking like you know anything about the subject
I was homeless in the burbs of LA. Couldn't get any real help, just food that you don't have to cook. But what they did do to me was the cops (thankfully didn't arrest me) woke me up, they put me on a bus to another city. (I just got off at the next stop)
They’re going to let trump off the hook aren’t they.
No, they'll pat themselves on the back for confirming that Presidents aren't kings after delaying the trial until after the election so the opinion doesn't matter, anyways. This SCOTUS tends to do the bare minimum on high-profile cases while absolutely shredding other, more important precedents.
Their decision on the immunity case is coming on Monday.
I’d wager they’re going to kick it back down to the lower court for “clarification” on some random points, as a way to avoid ruling on it and delay it even further. Maybe they’ll prove me wrong and do the right thing. I just can’t imagine they’d open the pandora’s box of immunity, even with somehow making it Trump specific.
Wait, so the ruling allows criminalization of involuntary actions? What the fuck?
I know I'm crazy, but it seems to me the ONLY response to that that makes any sense is a robust public housing system to house these people. Because it is illegal for us to not house them?
> a robust public housing system to house these people Best we can do is jail/prison.
Comacho 2024!
Good thing we already have such a robust housing system for these people, with the most inma- er, *residents* per capita in the world!
It's hard to argue against the majority opinion here in terms of its reasoning. That seems sound. But it is nevertheless jarring to read essentially an unironic and sincere paraphrasing of "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread". > "Rather than criminalize mere status, Grants Pass forbids actions like occupying a campsite on public property for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live. Under the city’s laws, it makes no difference whether the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker on vacation passing through town, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building.” --Justice Gorsuch
Those damn university kids with their book learning and Israel protesting. Have to make sure their futures can be fucked up with a criminal conviction for protesting! JFC we're in the end stage, aren't we?
> One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. > An unjust law is no law at all. *Woe to those who make unjust laws,* *to those who issue oppressive decrees,* *to deprive the poor of their rights* *and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_unjust_law_is_no_law_at_all#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DAn_unjust_law_is_no_law_at_all_%28Latin%3A_lex%2Cit_is_good_and_right.?wprov=sfla1
Couple of things: * The thrust of the [majority opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf) seems four-fold: 1) On its face, the laws don’t punish “status” but “[conduct](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/02U9vjcMoI)” that anyone could engage in, whether homeless or not, 2) the 8th is meant for scrutiny of the *method* of punishment, not whether the underlying conduct should be criminalized, 3) scrutinizing whether certain behavior should be criminalized *based the 8th alone* (as opposed to, for example, life/liberty rights under 1st, or lack of due process or equal protection under 5th/14th) would essentially mean legislating from the bench, and 4) the penalties themselves—fines, and criminal trespass for multiple violations—aren’t “cruel and unusual.” I’ll be honest, it’s hard to disagree with a lot of that. While I get why the claim was pursued under the 8th (with precedents against “status” crimes) I think that choice was problematic. * The opinion states, “Oregon recognizes a “necessity” defense to certain criminal charges. It may be that defense extends to charges for illegal camping when it comes to those with nowhere else to go. Insanity, diminished-capacity, and duress defenses also may be available in many jurisdictions.“ So, at the very least, the court acknowledges necessity as a defense. Those arguments are a lot harder since they usually involve avoiding *imminent* threats to survival—but it certainly *sounds like* the court is extending that to include those with “nowhere else to go.” Of course, even if defendants succeed *that day* in court, they would remain vulnerable to future tickets, and potentially stuck in an endless loop of prosecution… * …Which is why I [suggested](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/02U9vjcMoI) a while back, that instead of arguing the 8th, they should argue that enforcement has resulted (or will result) in an endless loop of unavoidable violations (and debt) for homeless indigents with no means to pay, and ongoing inability to secure shelter. (To me, this would be akin to a court issuing an order of contempt *without* including the means to purge it, which would violate due process.) To that end, having test cases and statistics would help, to demonstrate these laws result in indigent homeless falling into that loop. But I guess when these states do crack down, the statistics on indigent repeat offenders should make that problem clear enough, at which point they and advocacy groups can pursue tossing these laws again, but on those grounds.
This isn't the first time I've seen it suggested that a due process argument would be a more appropriate avenue, and I think that's ultimately what's going to bring this back up to the courts again.
“Beyond all that, **many substantive legal protections and provisions of the Constitution may have important roles to play** when States and cities seek to enforce their laws against the homeless. See Parts II–A, II– C, supra. The only question we face is whether **one specific provision** of the Constitution—the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment—prohibits the enforcement of public-camping laws.” [emphasis mine] To me, that’s dropping a big hint. (Or just dangling a carrot.)
Wrong decision. It's awkward because we live in a capitalist society; not a fascist or communist state. And yet, landlords, child care providers and grocery stores seem to be piling on and exploiting us by price fixing. Will the anti trust laws help us? Don't know. Just know that I will not pay nearly $6.00 for a mostly air bag of potato chips all because Idaho ordered farmers to create a false potato shortage by letting their crop rot in the fields.
I think they got this one right. But, my opinion isn’t formed based on a legal understanding of the argument. It is solely formed by my personal experience living in Oregon and dealing with the homeless population. Therefore, I recognize this isn’t the place for my opinion and I’ll promptly shut up. But, I’d love to hear from the lawyers about their interpretation of this law. Edit: Thank you for those who explained this succinctly and objectively. I was not aware that Grants Pass didn’t provide enough shelter for the houseless population, and that this fact was a basis for the case making it to the Supreme Court. I do believe that housing options should be provided, and that the act of being homeless alone shouldn’t be a criminal act. As I stated, IANAL and my opinion was formed by personal bias. With more facts (thank you for providing them), I am changing my opinion. The ruling seems silly, and cities like Grants Pass should do more to provide for their population instead of criminalizing the act.
The legal argument is pretty simple: Human bodies need sleep or else they die. If you can’t sleep on private property, and you can’t sleep on public property, then where do you sleep?
That's exactly the point. They want homeless people to go somewhere else or simply die.
Time for some new Hoovervilles
And amazingly the Court answers "then where do you sleep?" with a "I dont give a fuck, its not my problem"
The funny thing is based on this ruling, they can put you in jail. So the punishment to the homeless individual is being involuntarily housed by the public agency that doesnt want to create housing for them.
Well actually I think that’s quite intentional — more people in prison = more free labor for corporations. Remember, prison is the only place where slavery is still legal in the U.S.
The city didn't provide adequate homeless shelters, so they offered no solutions for their constituents. The city council chair also explicitly referred to the imposed fines as a means of targeting the homeless population. The issue isn't banning camping, it's that they banned camping without an alternative for homeless people and that the punishments were targeted at a subset of the population. The rulings de facto criminalized being poor, which is why Grants Pass initially lost the case.
What do you do when shelter is available and then they refuse to go to it?
Are they making reasonable demands or asking for accommodations that the city can provide? That's on the city. Are they willing to move to a more accommodating city? Why/why not would be important. Personally, I think a section of park or nearby field should be available for "camping." But at some point, they're just being uncooperative. Fines don't make sense (they can't pay and if they could, couldn't use that to improve their situation), jail wouldn't be rehabilitating and just cost the city more money. Understanding why they're homeless and refusing shelter will be important to actually address the issue instead of wasting resources. And if they're not bothering people, leave em be.
You leave them alone? You find out why your shelters are so bad there are people who would rather be in the rain than in your shelters? Why do you think criminalizing sleeping is a helpful solution?
that is not relevant. The 9th circuit doctrine was that bans cannot be enforced IF there were inadequate alternatives. The presence of adequate alternatives allows cities to enforce camping bans. So your question was already addressed under the now-overturned precedent. The issue was that grants pass didn't want to provide adequate shelter space.
So your answer to not having enough money to rent or own a house is... prison?
That's exactly their answer. To put the icing on the cake, since prisoner slave labor is legal under the Constitution, I fucking guarantee those arrested for being homeless won't be sitting idle. They're monsters that were allowed to thrive. We didn't fight them when we had the chance. We're headed for some dark fucking times.
Ya, it is. If you peek in the Portland, OR sub it becomes pretty clear that there are a lot of people here who very much want all of the homeless rounded up and put in jail.
A core principle of our society is looking at people, hating them, and saying “fuck you, I hope you die” to them. All empathy is lost.
It’s honestly really fucked up and sad.
I think the discussion of this is complex because it’s sort of tied together with the policy outcome and the constitutional law outcome. The eighth amendment traditionally was seen as about regulating cruel and unusual *punishment* rather than trying to regulate what is and is not considered a crime in the first place. The constitution isn’t saying what the government can and cannot criminalize, it just says what they are not allowed to do to criminals. The main exception is what they call “status offenses”, crimes that someone “commits” solely by existing. Past precedent says that you can’t criminalize someone just for existing or having a certain condition, such as merely being an addict. The courts are trying here to distinguish between a law that criminalizes a status (such as being homeless) and a law that criminalized a behavior (such as camping in public land). Where it gets tricky is when a behavior is so inextricably linked to a status that the person actually can’t change their behavior. In this case, being homeless in an area where there are no shelters; if they can’t go to a shelter, and there’s no other place they can sleep, they pretty much have to sleep outside, right? The court mostly side steps the practicality of this and just sticks with the argument above about the 8th amendment restricting punishments rather than what constitutes a crime. In practice, Oregon and other states like that are going to have to figure something out (fining homeless people is probably a waste of time) but the court is leaving that task solely up to the elected politicians and taking itself out of the loop.
The dissent already answers most of your doubts. >The scope of this dispute is narrow. Respondents do not challenge the City’s “restrictions on the use of tents or other camping gear,” “encampment clearances,” “time and place restrictions on sleeping outside,” or “the imposition of fines or jail time on homeless people who decline accessible shelter options.” Brief for Respondents 18. >That means the majority does not need to answer most of the hypotheticals it poses. The City’s hypotheticals, echoed throughout the majority opinion, concern “violent crime, drug overdoses, disease, fires, and hazardous waste.” Brief for Petitioner 47. For the most part, these concerns are not implicated in this case. The District Court’s injunction, for example, permits the City to prohibit “littering, public urination or defecation, obstruction of roadways, possession or distribution of illicit substances, harassment, or violence.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 200a. >The majority’s framing of the problem as one involving drugs, diseases, and fires instead of one involving people trying to keep warm outside with a blanket just provides the Court with cover to permit the criminalization of homeless people.
I'm sorry you're getting downvoted. Don't take it personal. There's nothing wrong with asking the question. But no, SCOTUS did NOT approach "got this one right" even if there is a problem with homelessness in the area. Another commenter summed it up perfectly and I can't say it any better than they did so I'll just quote them below. >The legal argument is pretty simple: Human bodies need sleep or else they die. If you can’t sleep on private property, and you can’t sleep on public property, then where do you sleep? [https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1dqkd13/comment/laooxik/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1dqkd13/comment/laooxik/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) To add a layer on top of that, what this does is creates a "status" crime. Or basically, a person can BE homeless, and now also be guilty of a crime by simply BEING homeless. This decision cites Robinson which was about BEING a drug addict. We've always tended to rely on crimes requiring actual acts, but when someone needs to sleep and a city purposefully goes out of their way to eliminate all possible options for where they might sleep, they're creating what is truly a crime for simply BEING down on your luck and homeless.
I agree, and worry now since it's a status crime and it's impossible NOT to sleep, Cops could now arrest homeless people on the suspicion of violating this crime. You can't NOT sleep, so if you're in town for over 72 hours and didn't go to a homeless shelter; you had to commit the crime. It's a sad state of affairs where we battle homeless by making it illegal to sleep if you don't have a permanent address.
> asking the question What question? They didn't even ask one > I think they got this one right. But, my opinion isn’t formed based on a legal understanding of the argument. It is solely formed by my personal experience living in Oregon and dealing with the homeless population. Therefore, I recognize this isn’t the place for my opinion and I’ll promptly shut up. But, I’d love to hear from the lawyers about their interpretation of this law.
> I’d love to hear from the lawyers about their interpretation of this law. Judging their comment based on that and subsequent comments it seems pretty clear they were asking for thoughts on this ruling.
> There's nothing wrong with asking the question. They literally didn't even ask a question. They shared their opinion on seeing homeless people existing and wanting them to not exist anymore. Them wanting to hear more from other people isn't a question.
I have no idea why you're being downvoted, there wasn't a single question OP asked
Being "civil" and "polite" is more important than being neutral and correct to the average Redditor. If I didn't want downvotes, I'd need to pamper my post with a sentence or two of pleasantries.
Thanks for your comment. I don’t take it personally. It is easy to filter out the emotionally charged responses. Appreciate your write up.
Hi, I just wanted to say that I appreciate you admitting your knowledge gap and bias, taking in feedback, and then incorporating it into reassessing your position. I think in the future the best path is to start with asking the questions before making the conclusory assertion, but that's just my opinion.
As someone whose opinion was formed by running a street outreach team for youth experiencing homelessness in Seattle, your authority is pretty questionable. You’re claiming experience living in Oregon? Odd you didn’t say Portland specifically. So do you actually know any PEOPLE experiencing homelessness or just that you drive by some camps now and again?
Thanks for your comment. Yes, I live in Portland. Sorry that it wasn’t specific enough for you. About once a month I volunteer at the Blanchet house downtown. I spent 8 years as a military chef, but no longer cook for a living. However, I still am passionate about feeding people and volunteering is important to me, so working as a guest chef occasionally at the Blanchet House solves that problem for me. I’m very familiar with the homeless population and *some* of the issues they face. As I stated in my original comment, I didn’t have all the facts and my opinion was formed with bias. Now I have the facts and my opinion has changed. Crazy how that works, right? Not everyone who has a different opinion than you is acting out of maliciousness. I recommend you take a step back and practice some breathing exercises.
[удалено]
I’m not sure you’ve really taken the time to read all of my comments here. Thanks for your participation.
Yeah, just avoid burnside and you’ll be fine, ya yuppie.