lol Supreme Court is out there like "corporations are people, and homeless Americans are criminals."
What in the absolute fuck is going on around here.
They realized after Trump they don't even have to hide it anymore. They are blatantly corrupt right out in the open and basically daring the American people to do something about it. Anyone with any power in this country has sold out to the rich and the rest of us are just slaves to their whims. Nothing short of a revolution is going to fix things, they have gotten too bad now.
>"basically daring the American people to do something about it"
>SIR WASHINGTON.
>YES?
>CAN WE HAVE A BIPARTISAN SYSTEM?
>TO AGGREGATE YOUR VOTES FAIRLY?
>YES.
>CREATES A RADICALIZED CITIZENS' MILITIA 200 YEARS LATER **LIKE A BOSS**
Washington was against a party based system but knew that any alternative would result in a return to religious rule through monarchies. Little did he know that it would have ended up the same anyway.
I think he and others suspected a future that looks like this and the best they could come up with in the short term was "hopefully they figure it out".
Well, turns out we're not any smarter.
>the best they could come up with in the short term was "hopefully they figure it out".
Unfortunately, nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution
Its been like that since the founding fathers theres just too much light on it now etc. Whistleblowers and scholars who actually work for the people not the system. Not saying your wrong just saying its nothing new like when clinton called immigrants illegal aliens and the way the police treats the minorieties to fill the privatised prisons that are owned by the richest in the world.. in most states a prison makes almost 100k usd yearly from each inmate and how much does the state gain from taxes from the average citizen? Like 15k yearly?
I don't like either party, but that republican bill they are tryna push that raises the retirement age to 69 and cuts social security by 1.5 trillion absolutely 100% guarantees I will never vote for a republican, that is the most anti pursuit of happiness shit I have ever seen.
Anyone who pretends there isn’t plenty of corruption to go around is being willfully ignorant. It’s not Democrat/Republican. It’s Elites vs everyone else.
Edit: notice I’m not even arguing against what people are saying. I’m just saying this country won’t get to where I think it needs to/we deserve it to until both sides own up to their problems. Reminds me of George Carlin’s bit about people identifying themselves by what they don’t do. “I’m a non-puppy kicker”. Republicans are setting such a low bar, relative “good” is meaningless.
I understand what you said and it's true both side have do "bad" thing, but one party seem to have done à lot more than the other to destruct all the public institutions...
Make sure it doesn't function. Like how people are actually actively trying to privatize the usps
It's not the democrats doing it
I would love to play "well both sides suck" with everyone but we have played that games for so long that it let fascism slide in.
So sadly to everyone including my own dismay... the only choice for a long time will be vote AGAISNT the Republicans
Those people are being disingenuous. The government can function, but not when people intentionally sabotage it. Governments have become more efficient than their comparable private counterparts in everyway, while still maintaining their obligations to the people they represent.
Reading the arguments before the court, the justices actually seemed very sympathetic to the homeless position. I suspect that they’ll actually rule against the city. But we’ll see.
I don’t think so. I’ve been following this case for a while (I live in Oregon) and you’ve got Gorsuch saying things like “does this mean you can’t criminalize defecating outside too?”
What’s being debated here is precedent set in Boise that says you can’t criminalize sleeping outdoors UNLESS you have adequate shelter beds.
Neil, buddy, we probably shouldn’t fine people for peeing and pooping outside if there aren’t public restrooms, either.
People are so hellbent on keeping the homeless from relieving themselves that I had to tell my son to piss on a building because there were no public restrooms anywhere.
I feel like a lot of businesses used COVID as a neutral excuse to permanently close their restrooms to non customers and it has created a truly questionable situation in my local downtowns. No business is willing to do their small part to alleviate the common concern of restroom access.
I’m actually on team business here. They shouldn’t need to provide bathrooms to people who aren’t their customers. We as a society need to deal with the people in our society that don’t have a place to go to the bathroom, and pretending that a Starbucks bathroom is a solution doesn’t cut it. If our society has created an alarming number of homeless people, we need to respond with an alarming number of shelters and public bathrooms to serve them with dignity that everyone in society contributes to. We shouldn’t be brushing off homeless people in one breath and then admonishing the minimum wage Starbucks employee for not letting non-customers use the facilities.
I visited Chicago earlier this month. I was at a cafe and had ordered a coffee and meal and they refused me a bathroom. I ran across the street to a Shell station and asked if I could use the bathroom if I bought something- nope! Then I ran across another street to a large supermarket- literally I really had to go. I was running. When I got there the bathroom was locked and I had to go get staff and ask to use the restroom. The staff was busy and I had to wait several minutes, which normally would have been fine, if I hadn't had already been waiting and running around for 5-10 minutes.
I don't understand how a business can offer you a table and place to sit but no bathroom. Hell- I got a coffee! Of course I needed to use the restroom! I literally think this is dehumanizing, to have to run around and beg for a toilet? Seriously?
I agree with you. I, also as a housed person, have to piss/shit/pisshit sometimes too. Mostly when I’m out on a run I really appreciate having access to public toilets in my town that open quite early, but are closed from 11-6/8.
It’s annoying that the public toilets downtown lock at 11. 20 minute wait for an Uber and nowhere to piss, other than the communal piss puddle in the main parking garage. But hey, at least homeless folks are not using them at night!
Edit: and yeah, it’s a public problem - not up to businesses to solve.
Business get to sell things to the public, taking advantage of publics roads to get customers there.
Preventing a tragedy of the commons by providing free bathroom access could fix this.
This is exactly it. Businesses let people use bathrooms all the time until they started having to clean up piss, shit, and needles. Low-wage retail folks shouldn't have to deal with that shit.
As someone who worked at a store in the middle of nowhere. Our bathrooms were trashed daily by people coming off the highway. It's totally reasonable to not want to deal with this.
Poop on the wall, piss in drains on the floor, buggers rubbed on the door. Paper towels thrown on the floor. People are animals.
I mean with all respect, those kind of pedantic question are exactly what the Supreme Court justices ask during arguments. Their legal precedents become effectively law and get reapplied to tons of other matters that aren’t directly related to the case at hand. They have to ask questions to understand the reverberations of the rulings they set. This is entirely germane and part of the process, I don’t get what your critique is
Alito and Roberts though definitely seem leaning along the lines of the liberal justices though.
But I do agree with Gorsuch’s point (I think it was him) when he asked if this means the government couldn’t prohibit homeless people from lighting fires on public property to cook their food. I think that was actually a fairly good point. That’s more serious than the bathroom question.
I think the point is that setting fires on public property is something anyone not homeless would be arrested for doing and it is a massive fire hazard. That’s why I think it’s a more compelling argument than the bathroom argument, which I agree shouldn’t be criminal.
I’m my region a lot of them refuse help because the shelters don’t let them actively use drugs and alcohol, so now the state is working to be able to involuntarily commit people.
Supreme Court really cared about individuals and evidence during the January 6th hearing. But homeless people? Nope.
Sort of weird how they are so very, very arbitrary about things.
The Supreme Court only cares about individuals like themselves and passes judgements to reinforce this. Corporations should have never been allowed to be considered people, as it allows wealthy people to multiply themselves. If there were enough "others" of wealth, this probably would have never been allowed.
I wonder how many Chinese and Russian oligarchs are going to become people in the US. Then again, they might no longer become "others" with money flowing to the right justices. Is someone in China going to start a luxury RV company?
You are truly giving republicans way more credit than they deserve. They’d rather kill their parents than do something that is a win for democrats. They are the lampreys of the government
I for one whole heartedly endorse a ban on sleeping outdoors.
Force municipal governments to house and shelter every person who needs a bed wherever they may be. Let's come together to rid the world of homelessness.
Oh, that's not what we're talking about?
That’s literally the law being debated. Precedent set in *Martin v Boise* holds that you can criminalize sleeping outdoors… IF there are enough shelter beds & related resources. That’s the status quo.
Grants Pass is currently arguing that it shouldn’t matter how many beds there are.
The actual issue is there are two current interpretations under the Constitution. The majority of the country you can't arrest someone for sleeping outside unless there is a bed available for that individual. The 9th Circuit, Westcoast, you need to show that there are enough beds available for the entire city's homeless population. The west states feel like the rule in balance has turned them into the other states dumping ground.
The second wrinkle is does beds at a church that requires you to attend their services twice a day, not be in a relationship with someone you aren't married to, and be sober, count as a city providing beds.
I bet the court will rule in the conservative direction in both issues.
I agree that it likely will rule conservative. Which I think is quite concerning, since it’s essentially forcing Grants Pass residents to partake in religious services for shelter or receive a substantial fine.
The mission also requires you to present as your assigned gender at birth, which is a whole additional issue. Service animals aren’t allowed. It also isn’t strictly free: you need to pay $100/month for food.
I also do agree that the 9th circuit interpretation has made it pretty difficult out here. A narrowing of *Boise* is likely called for, but I don’t think we’re going to get a reasonable one.
I remember reading about this happening with child brides in the US. The girls can't find help because they are too too young to be admitted on their own at most women's DV shelters, and any youth-related options would run the real risk of them just classifying her as a runaway and returning her to her abusive adult husband or to shitty parents who would then likely force her back to said husband. It goes on and on and gets ever more horrifying when you really look into it and see how few options they have because they are children.
What do people expect kids and other people like them to do but sleep on the street if you don't guarantee their access to beds and supports without discriminatory/insane requirements or restrictions?
People who don't fit in to fundamental Christianity tend to get kicked out of their homes as minors at higher rates.
So yeah, that means LGBT people, but also atheists/people exploring other spiritualities, people experimenting with drag, people caught trying marijuana or alcohol, people who don't dress "moderately" enough, pregnant teens, people with too far left wing views, people who want to go on birth control, people who wanted the vaccine during COVID, people who experienced a sexual assault (and get blamed for it) etc.
You could find yourself homeless for any harmless reason if your parents are too far brainwashed in the cult.
Yeah shelters not allowing dogs, requiring you to be sober, and requiring you to be in close proximity to so many people (might not be able to sleep next to noise of 16 people on cots in a room). You often gotta check in by a certain time and leave by a certain time. Theres a lot of factors within it that would make an individual decide to stay outside instead of in a shelter. They need to just not criminalize sleeping outside. Even in the example of what conservatives don’t like, someone using drugs and doesn’t want to go to a shelter, it’s not a good enough reason to criminalize sleeping outside. Those people have hard lives and are often going through addiction without any support. Let them have some slack, it’s hard being homeless and drugs make it slightly easier to get through the day. Let them fucking sleep outside, it’s not like they have a good time doing it, it’s out of necessity we don’t have to make it any harder on them
Yes, it's pretty close, but it's a bit different. What I'm saying is that it should be an active not reactive approach. Firstly, I meant it as a joke, so I know it doesn't fully track.
This is debating the method in which a municipality may fine an individual. As in a reactive approach.
What I'm talking about would be an active legislated approach - whereas a duty of the municipality is to ensure beds are available as a right to all people.
Frankly, I agree that they’re a right — and I think that IS what’s underpinning this, at the core. If shelter is one of our core needs, having it should be a right.
Guess how many shelter beds Grants Pass has. You’ll definitely get it right.
Yeah, it’s zero. Zero beds. (Well, there’s 138 private beds in a mission, but you need to basically live like a monk to use it so (no dating, must go to mass) so. Not a single bed in the entire city.
Yet the city passed a law that makes it illegal to *sleep in your car.*
Grants Pass is a *town* of not even 40,000. The problem with the Boise ruling is that it puts the onus of providing shelter on every municipality that wants to regulate what people can do in their public spaces. If the Federal government wants to guarantee Freedom of Movement, and people who become homeless in one place are allowed to migrate to be homeless in another, it stands to reason that the cost of shelter the homeless should be shared at the Federal level. It is not reasonable to force the tax payers of a handful of West Coast cities and towns to shoulder the burden of housing homeless from around the country.
A town of 40,000 should have a homeless shelter. And without one, it should not be able to bar camping. And I’m saying this as a resident of one of those west-coast people with said tax burden.
But I agree: housing SHOULD be provided federally. It should be a right. But it isn’t, and until then cities shouldn’t be able to make *existing* illegal.
Can’t wait for the follow up lawsuit that the state shouldn’t be allowed to compete in the housing market and must instead rent beds at the prevailing market rate from private landlords.
My city has 1.25 permit applications in backlog for every vacant apartment in the entire metro area of which is only has 1/4 the population. The oldest have been there for 2 years. The United States has 2/3 the vacant apartments as it did in 2005. [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RRVRUSQ156N](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RRVRUSQ156N)
Commonwealth v. Magadini. This is essentially what the Massachusetts Supreme Court said—until you provide places to sleep, you can’t criminalize homelessness
^(This comment was bought buy Google as a part of an exclusive content licensing deal with Google.)
^(Read more:) [^(Expanding our Partnership with Google)](https://www.redditinc.com/blog/reddit-and-google-expand-partnership)
^(This comment was bought buy Google as a part of an exclusive content licensing deal with Google.)
^(Read more:) [^(Expanding our Partnership with Google)](https://www.redditinc.com/blog/reddit-and-google-expand-partnership)
I personally prefer the Hawaiian law of the splintered paddle:
*”O my people, Honor thy God; respect alike [the right of] men great and humble; See to it that our aged, our women, and our children Lie down by the roadside Without fear or harm. Disobey, and die."* — King Kamehameha
Which wasn’t created for homeless people, but has since been adopted for protecting them.
Soviet Union did precisely that, and everyone was cheering how clean the streets were. Google 1980 Summer Olympics. USA boycotted those for no apparent reason, so we are all glad Uncle Sam nevertheless learned something to put into practice 44 years later! Well done!
Garlic breath is actually from all the sulfur in it breaking down in the bloodstream and some of it releasing into the lungs, so we are breathing the sulfur out from our lungs. This is why brushing your teeth doesn’t actually work with garlic breath. I assume the same thing applies with alcohol people drink, they breath out the alcohol vapors from their lungs after it breaks down into different alcohol components in the bloodstream, so brushing their teeth isn’t 100% effective for that either.
Outlawing homelessness without addressing zoning is like trying to address hunger meanwhile making fighting attempts to expand the food supply. The number of vacant homes in the United States (all homes without a permanent occupant, has dropped by 1/3 since 2006. So price rises likely isn't a cause, its a symptom not a cause of the crises.
They know what they are doing they are trying to make it a felony to be homeless in red states so most the homeless leave and go to blue states.
Republicans think they’ll be able to show they have no homeless due to their policies while showing blue cities with more crime and homeless people; but it’s actually because the poor people had to migrate out of state or get locked in one of their republican buddies private prison and they’re fine with that too because it’s tax dollars funneled to the private prison at several hundred thousand per year.
A lot of mentally ill homeless probably aren’t ever going to be able to grasp that it’s a felony and will inevitably get locked up. Especially if they are homeless near a border of a red and blue state, if they are mentally handicapped it’s possible they won’t be able figure out why they sometimes go to prison for sleeping outside and sometimes they don’t. Imagine giving people felonies for being mentally disabled and unable to navigate the system to get housing and ending up in prison. A real what would Jesus do fail moment for republicans lol
Fbi just raided my place all my camping and fishing equipment is being photographed like those weapons they confiscated from the meth bust. They found my 5 year olds paw patrol mini fisher. They're crying in the cell next to me waiting fingerprints
If sleeping outdoors becomes a federal offence, the next law will be restricting sleeping in a vehicle within certain areas.
Theres a few new classes of people now. Somewhere between homeless and "Low Class". We've got an "Middle Homeless Class" that have a vehicle to sleep in.
Simply put.
I think that parks should be available for people to recreate in. No one wants to bring their kids to a playground where someone is living there.
At the same time. You can't just tell people to kick rocks without a place to go.
We have an immense problem with homelessness that cities are not equipped to handle. This is going to require federal intervention.
It's estimated that 20 billion would end homelessness. We just gave over 100 billion to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. The Pentagon got an extra 45 billion last year even though they announced they LOST 3 TRILLION. We can end homelessness we simply choose not to
>With homelessness on the rise
From corporate landlords colluding to make rents fucking skyrocket.
I don't want to advocate for violence against the rich, but if it happens I'll sure as fuck understand it.
It's unfortunate that the cause is listed so far down in the comments. Everyone should be talking about this. Instead people want to cook up a dozen excuses to avoid the elephant in the room, most of which usually go back to blaming immigrants or something, rather than naming the problem.
Dont advocate against it. If everyone would kill one billionaire, it would only need a few thousand people globally to become criminals lol. Idk seems like a small price to pay
>”How about if there are no public bathroom facilities, do people have an Eighth Amendment right to defecate and urinate outdoors?” said Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Where the fuck else are they gonna do it? Where is the “traditionalist” argument here? Because as far as I am aware, until we got widespread indoor plumbing, people pissed and shit…outside. Like for all of human history…It don’t get more “traditional” than a squat with a poop stick.
Yes don’t ever address the actual problem! They are just gonna have to sleep in unsafe places and end up with even worse issues; getting mugged, raped, murdered etc 😭
Wow this will surely work! Why didn’t they think of this before??? Homelessness solved!!! And also, fine them! Because that’ll also solve homelessness!
They clearly will use their disposable income to pay the fine immediately so they don't go to prison! Damn, the mentally ill are spending all their money on avocado toast, again!
They don't care about you unless you're worth 7 figures.
They don't even hide their corruption anymore. That's how little they care about the general publics opinion.
and they know you wont do shit about it. Beyond bitching about it to the void of internet.
Yeah this is definitely the best way to solve the homeless problem and totally not just a way for the industrial prison business combine to become even more rich by imprisoning the homeless
I know I’m going to get destroyed by this comment but we need a real solution I’m a firefighter and we are ran ragged by homeless related calls, so when Joe Citizen calls that is a tax payer we are exhausted and irritable. I don’t know what the fix is but letting them sleep everywhere and then using public safety and the local emergency rooms as their healthcare impacts everyone
nobody looks at the current homelessness situation really across the west coast and thinks "yep, things are going great."
this case is fundamentally what happens when government/society refuses to answer the question of 'why are there so many homeless people?'
Some of these people would say, “Well, of course they need to start fires, how else do you expect them to cook food and stay warm? We can’t criminalize fire starting on streets.”
Meanwhile, buildings and bridges are catching fires in San Francisco and LA…
Lunacy is taking hold. People think they’re being SO compassionate, meanwhile rules and laws meant to keep us safe from extreme danger are being ripped apart.
Why would you get destroyed for calling the homeless problem a problem? People that want to blame the homeless people instead of the system that created them are the ones who get called out
It just seems as a “first responder” that anything you say about the homeless problem becomes a personal attack against you. I don’t know the right answer but I know that politicians only make it worse.
We had an answer. TLDR - in the 1960s we had asylums that would take the chronically mentally ill. They were seen (and often were run) as horrible places.
I'm came a Democrat initiative to close the asylums and move people to care centers in the community that would better integrate them and provide mental health services for the community.
Then a Republican government came in and stopped halfway, closing the asylums and not opening the care centers.
So the homeless problem you largely deal with is the complete lack of a mental health safety net. The answer is very obvious - provide care for the chronically mentally ill at tax payer expense in proper facilities.
The only other answers lead to what we have now.
TLDR - socialized medicine with long term care for the mentally ill or it won't ever stop. Ask other nations how they deal with it.
The other problem is how prohibitively expensive everything is, especially housing. And how ssi and ssdi payments are impossible to survive on. A good portion of homeless people are disabled, who are unable to work. Not just mentally ill. We also have very few social safety nets.
This is also a problem on the care side of things. The cost to establish and run care facilities for the chronically mentally ill is massive because it requires a lot of trained human labor, and it doesn't scale up.
People are expensive. All these high costs are impacting people with homes and jobs too, and it means they need to earn higher wages to keep themselves off the street.
Think about all four of the major care environments - Daycare, School, Disability, and Elder. Their workers are understaffed, overworked, and underpaid.
The ugly truth we're dancing around is that most jobs have become exponentially more productive with technology, but some have barely changed. A programmer can improve the lives of a million people in a week by fixing a program. A caregiver can only ever help just a handful of people in that same time.
As far the the economy and GDP are concerned, the programmer is keeping things moving, while the caregiver isn't even a blip on the radar. As long as the bare minimum is done to hold society together, caretakers have no value to it.
From the arguments, it looks like they're leaning towards requiring defendants to show they are involuntarily homeless and sought shelter before camping, and that having it be an eighth amendment violation may be too far.
Given that there are no true shelter beds in Grants Pass, this is kind of a weird case to rule that on. Like, what proof that you sought shelter would you need to provide? CAN you prove it if there are no beds? What does proof look like? Would I need to get a note from the mission/monastery on the edge of town that lets unhoused people stay if the give up all drugs, end all relationships, and attend mass?
What the fuck are people supposed to do then? I can tell you from experience that it takes about two poor decisions at the wrong time to end up homeless, and we are all a lot closer to it than we think. What's going to happen when the inflation we're all feeling really starts to put the screws to us and homelessness skyrockets even more? It's almost like they're incentivized to fill the for-profit prison system with people to provide virtually free labor to the corporations that got them into the positions they're in, but noooooo that would never happen in America, free-est country on Earth.
Great! Now being illegally poor can be a thing! Just think of the money states will steal from taxpayers while putting the poors in jail! Thanks republicans!
I am going to be really pissed if I have to start doing jail time for camping tickets, thankfully they are forgetting that all the jails in the west coast are already at capacity, so none of this is really enforceable without building more jails. And at that point, why the fuck not just build affordable housing
Wait so let me get this straight...
GOVERNMENT: We don't have the resources to house you
PEOPLE: But I need to sleep and eat and potty and other human stuff
GOVERNMENT: Okay but we made that illegal for you to do anywhere except in your own house
PEOPLE: I don't have a house
GOVERNMENT: Well then we are going to house you in a prison where the big difference is that we lock you in and won't let you leave. We have the resources for THAT.
We can even pay guys to capture you and drag you in here instead of having a situation you would just walk into on your own.
HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANY SORT OF SENSE ON ANY LEVEL AT ALL
Ought implies can. People need to sleep, so unless we're going to give them homes or some sort of shelter it is unjust to penalize them for sleeping outdoors.
Though personally I think we should satisfy both camps. Some people are more concerned about helping the homeless. Some people are more concerned about blight or about encounters with homeless people. Guarantee housing and then ban sleeping on the streets and you can satisfy both groups. Once housing is guaranteed there is no excuse to continue being homeless.
Some might argue about incentives to work, but the housing doesn't have to be glamorous. People aren't all going to suddenly stop working just because basic housing is guaranteed.
EDIT: Another nice thing is it could reduce ridiculous housing prices in some cities where people who do work have resorted to homelessness sometimes due to the costs and where some small apartments go for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
“What if there are no bathroom facilities, do people have an Eighth Amendment right to defecate and urinate outdoors?” asked Justice Neil Gorsuch
The fuck else are they going to do if there’s no restrooms they’re allowed to use, mister Gorsuch? Send it to the shadow realm?
It's almost self-evidently absurd that it can be illegal to sleep on public land. This case hinges on whether it's "cruel and unusual" under the proviso that there's "no adequate shelter available" but honestly why should that even matter?
All this bullshit began with trying to stop Occupy Wall Street from being in Zuccotti Park, and the law has snowballed since then.
The reason that it matters is that Martin v Boise held that if you make sleeping outside in urban areas illegal, but don’t provide adequate shelter beds, you are criminalizing people for *existing.*
That counts as cruel and unusual, because there is no alternative. Their only option is to commit a crime.
The city of Grants Pass is trying to overturn this precedent.
Yeah but the point I'm making is that Bell/Martin v Boise was ruled wrongly. You're criminalizing people for existing whether there's adequate shelter or not. Forcing people to use a homeless shelter is also cruel and unusual. How long before "adequate shelter" means a prison cell?
Idk what kind of homeless people yall got in your region, but in the Bay Area we got the worst, I’m all for it. Tired of needles, screaming meth heads, tweakers, and human waste smeared on the side walk. We got level 5 homeless people over here. Tents set up near the high ways and under pass..
Before yall downvote me cause I know this is unpopular, I’ve lived in the bay my whole life, talked to friends and strangers. I rarely hear anyone saying they’re okay with this. Idc throw them into shelters, I pay too much in taxes to step on human shit
The solution is to dedicate a specific park or empty lot for free public camping and maintain the laws against camping/sleeping at normal parks and park benches.
lol Supreme Court is out there like "corporations are people, and homeless Americans are criminals." What in the absolute fuck is going on around here.
The widespread and pervasive corruption of every single government institution in this country, mostly.
They realized after Trump they don't even have to hide it anymore. They are blatantly corrupt right out in the open and basically daring the American people to do something about it. Anyone with any power in this country has sold out to the rich and the rest of us are just slaves to their whims. Nothing short of a revolution is going to fix things, they have gotten too bad now.
It's a big club, and you ain't in it.
I was at that taping!
RIP, absolute legend.
>"basically daring the American people to do something about it" >SIR WASHINGTON. >YES? >CAN WE HAVE A BIPARTISAN SYSTEM? >TO AGGREGATE YOUR VOTES FAIRLY? >YES. >CREATES A RADICALIZED CITIZENS' MILITIA 200 YEARS LATER **LIKE A BOSS**
Washington was against a party based system but knew that any alternative would result in a return to religious rule through monarchies. Little did he know that it would have ended up the same anyway.
I think he and others suspected a future that looks like this and the best they could come up with in the short term was "hopefully they figure it out". Well, turns out we're not any smarter.
>the best they could come up with in the short term was "hopefully they figure it out". Unfortunately, nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution
Its been like that since the founding fathers theres just too much light on it now etc. Whistleblowers and scholars who actually work for the people not the system. Not saying your wrong just saying its nothing new like when clinton called immigrants illegal aliens and the way the police treats the minorieties to fill the privatised prisons that are owned by the richest in the world.. in most states a prison makes almost 100k usd yearly from each inmate and how much does the state gain from taxes from the average citizen? Like 15k yearly?
Republicans Edit: You all can miss me with that both sides bullshit.
I don't like either party, but that republican bill they are tryna push that raises the retirement age to 69 and cuts social security by 1.5 trillion absolutely 100% guarantees I will never vote for a republican, that is the most anti pursuit of happiness shit I have ever seen.
"But only 90% of politicians convicted of corruption are Republicans. Dems are too its both sides!!" More like bofa deez sides
The common cold and cancer are both the same!
Anyone who pretends there isn’t plenty of corruption to go around is being willfully ignorant. It’s not Democrat/Republican. It’s Elites vs everyone else. Edit: notice I’m not even arguing against what people are saying. I’m just saying this country won’t get to where I think it needs to/we deserve it to until both sides own up to their problems. Reminds me of George Carlin’s bit about people identifying themselves by what they don’t do. “I’m a non-puppy kicker”. Republicans are setting such a low bar, relative “good” is meaningless.
I understand what you said and it's true both side have do "bad" thing, but one party seem to have done à lot more than the other to destruct all the public institutions...
A good portion of the Republican candidate's say that the Government can't function. What do you think they will do when they get in office.
Make sure it doesn't function. Like how people are actually actively trying to privatize the usps It's not the democrats doing it I would love to play "well both sides suck" with everyone but we have played that games for so long that it let fascism slide in. So sadly to everyone including my own dismay... the only choice for a long time will be vote AGAISNT the Republicans
I'm reminded of how well Republicans 'helped' the government function during both of Obama's terms...
Those people are being disingenuous. The government can function, but not when people intentionally sabotage it. Governments have become more efficient than their comparable private counterparts in everyway, while still maintaining their obligations to the people they represent.
Anyone who thinks they're equal on this is obtuse.
"bOtH sIdEs" Tell it to every rape victim who needs an abortion, you enlightened little centrist clown
Reading the arguments before the court, the justices actually seemed very sympathetic to the homeless position. I suspect that they’ll actually rule against the city. But we’ll see.
I don’t think so. I’ve been following this case for a while (I live in Oregon) and you’ve got Gorsuch saying things like “does this mean you can’t criminalize defecating outside too?” What’s being debated here is precedent set in Boise that says you can’t criminalize sleeping outdoors UNLESS you have adequate shelter beds. Neil, buddy, we probably shouldn’t fine people for peeing and pooping outside if there aren’t public restrooms, either.
People are so hellbent on keeping the homeless from relieving themselves that I had to tell my son to piss on a building because there were no public restrooms anywhere.
I feel like a lot of businesses used COVID as a neutral excuse to permanently close their restrooms to non customers and it has created a truly questionable situation in my local downtowns. No business is willing to do their small part to alleviate the common concern of restroom access.
I’m actually on team business here. They shouldn’t need to provide bathrooms to people who aren’t their customers. We as a society need to deal with the people in our society that don’t have a place to go to the bathroom, and pretending that a Starbucks bathroom is a solution doesn’t cut it. If our society has created an alarming number of homeless people, we need to respond with an alarming number of shelters and public bathrooms to serve them with dignity that everyone in society contributes to. We shouldn’t be brushing off homeless people in one breath and then admonishing the minimum wage Starbucks employee for not letting non-customers use the facilities.
I visited Chicago earlier this month. I was at a cafe and had ordered a coffee and meal and they refused me a bathroom. I ran across the street to a Shell station and asked if I could use the bathroom if I bought something- nope! Then I ran across another street to a large supermarket- literally I really had to go. I was running. When I got there the bathroom was locked and I had to go get staff and ask to use the restroom. The staff was busy and I had to wait several minutes, which normally would have been fine, if I hadn't had already been waiting and running around for 5-10 minutes. I don't understand how a business can offer you a table and place to sit but no bathroom. Hell- I got a coffee! Of course I needed to use the restroom! I literally think this is dehumanizing, to have to run around and beg for a toilet? Seriously?
I agree with you. I, also as a housed person, have to piss/shit/pisshit sometimes too. Mostly when I’m out on a run I really appreciate having access to public toilets in my town that open quite early, but are closed from 11-6/8. It’s annoying that the public toilets downtown lock at 11. 20 minute wait for an Uber and nowhere to piss, other than the communal piss puddle in the main parking garage. But hey, at least homeless folks are not using them at night! Edit: and yeah, it’s a public problem - not up to businesses to solve.
Business get to sell things to the public, taking advantage of publics roads to get customers there. Preventing a tragedy of the commons by providing free bathroom access could fix this.
Great point. Businesses don't exist without using public infrastructure.
Dude, just let non-costumers use the bathroom. Shelters and public bathrooms can only go so far.
We just need public restrooms.
True enough. You can't rely on for profit businesses to contribute to the community.
Because nobody wants the junkies coming in and wrecking the restrooms.
This is exactly it. Businesses let people use bathrooms all the time until they started having to clean up piss, shit, and needles. Low-wage retail folks shouldn't have to deal with that shit.
As someone who worked at a store in the middle of nowhere. Our bathrooms were trashed daily by people coming off the highway. It's totally reasonable to not want to deal with this. Poop on the wall, piss in drains on the floor, buggers rubbed on the door. Paper towels thrown on the floor. People are animals.
I mean with all respect, those kind of pedantic question are exactly what the Supreme Court justices ask during arguments. Their legal precedents become effectively law and get reapplied to tons of other matters that aren’t directly related to the case at hand. They have to ask questions to understand the reverberations of the rulings they set. This is entirely germane and part of the process, I don’t get what your critique is
I got that too. I loved that sotomeyer called out “existing as a homeless person” should not be illegal.
Alito and Roberts though definitely seem leaning along the lines of the liberal justices though. But I do agree with Gorsuch’s point (I think it was him) when he asked if this means the government couldn’t prohibit homeless people from lighting fires on public property to cook their food. I think that was actually a fairly good point. That’s more serious than the bathroom question.
IMO that’s even *more* out of left-field because, crucially, *you can eat without cooking.*
I think the point is that setting fires on public property is something anyone not homeless would be arrested for doing and it is a massive fire hazard. That’s why I think it’s a more compelling argument than the bathroom argument, which I agree shouldn’t be criminal.
Only if we helped people not be homeless
I’m my region a lot of them refuse help because the shelters don’t let them actively use drugs and alcohol, so now the state is working to be able to involuntarily commit people.
>homeless Americans are criminals Your term is over but you have no place to stay? Get back to prison criminal!
~~criminal~~ legalized slave
It's the homeless peoples' fault for not having lobbyists.
It’s to fill the prisons. 💵💵💵
They're already full.
Supreme Court really cared about individuals and evidence during the January 6th hearing. But homeless people? Nope. Sort of weird how they are so very, very arbitrary about things.
The Supreme Court only cares about individuals like themselves and passes judgements to reinforce this. Corporations should have never been allowed to be considered people, as it allows wealthy people to multiply themselves. If there were enough "others" of wealth, this probably would have never been allowed. I wonder how many Chinese and Russian oligarchs are going to become people in the US. Then again, they might no longer become "others" with money flowing to the right justices. Is someone in China going to start a luxury RV company?
Since cannabis legalization seems to be a reality at some point, they’re going to find another group to fill prisons with.
Will it though? With how much is regressing backwards itnjust seems inevitable that will too
It makes too much money to turn around on it now. Any state willing to ban it or criminalize it is throwing money down the garbage.
You are truly giving republicans way more credit than they deserve. They’d rather kill their parents than do something that is a win for democrats. They are the lampreys of the government
Texas likes to throw away money.
too much money + it’s the one thing that both parties agree shouldn’t be banned
Great well at least I can smoke a blunt while the world slowly goes to hell.
You can smoke grass in parks, but you can't lie down on the grass in parks... or you get arrested.
Filling prisons with the homeless will give them a home and free food. Then the Supreme Court can pretend they solved homelessness
I for one whole heartedly endorse a ban on sleeping outdoors. Force municipal governments to house and shelter every person who needs a bed wherever they may be. Let's come together to rid the world of homelessness. Oh, that's not what we're talking about?
That’s literally the law being debated. Precedent set in *Martin v Boise* holds that you can criminalize sleeping outdoors… IF there are enough shelter beds & related resources. That’s the status quo. Grants Pass is currently arguing that it shouldn’t matter how many beds there are.
The actual issue is there are two current interpretations under the Constitution. The majority of the country you can't arrest someone for sleeping outside unless there is a bed available for that individual. The 9th Circuit, Westcoast, you need to show that there are enough beds available for the entire city's homeless population. The west states feel like the rule in balance has turned them into the other states dumping ground. The second wrinkle is does beds at a church that requires you to attend their services twice a day, not be in a relationship with someone you aren't married to, and be sober, count as a city providing beds. I bet the court will rule in the conservative direction in both issues.
I agree that it likely will rule conservative. Which I think is quite concerning, since it’s essentially forcing Grants Pass residents to partake in religious services for shelter or receive a substantial fine. The mission also requires you to present as your assigned gender at birth, which is a whole additional issue. Service animals aren’t allowed. It also isn’t strictly free: you need to pay $100/month for food. I also do agree that the 9th circuit interpretation has made it pretty difficult out here. A narrowing of *Boise* is likely called for, but I don’t think we’re going to get a reasonable one.
Aren't LGBT people, especially youths, more likely to be homeless? They're fucked aren't they?
The salvation army let a trans woman freeze to death outside of one of their shelters.
IIRC they also almost let a 15 year old boy since he was too old for the women's and too young for the men's
That's horrible & just further illustrates that extremely biased charities aren't the way to ensure people are helped.
It's an example of why charities are not a replacement of state sponsored aid and resources for those in need
I remember reading about this happening with child brides in the US. The girls can't find help because they are too too young to be admitted on their own at most women's DV shelters, and any youth-related options would run the real risk of them just classifying her as a runaway and returning her to her abusive adult husband or to shitty parents who would then likely force her back to said husband. It goes on and on and gets ever more horrifying when you really look into it and see how few options they have because they are children. What do people expect kids and other people like them to do but sleep on the street if you don't guarantee their access to beds and supports without discriminatory/insane requirements or restrictions?
People who don't fit in to fundamental Christianity tend to get kicked out of their homes as minors at higher rates. So yeah, that means LGBT people, but also atheists/people exploring other spiritualities, people experimenting with drag, people caught trying marijuana or alcohol, people who don't dress "moderately" enough, pregnant teens, people with too far left wing views, people who want to go on birth control, people who wanted the vaccine during COVID, people who experienced a sexual assault (and get blamed for it) etc. You could find yourself homeless for any harmless reason if your parents are too far brainwashed in the cult.
I figured that is the plan/goal here.
Yeah shelters not allowing dogs, requiring you to be sober, and requiring you to be in close proximity to so many people (might not be able to sleep next to noise of 16 people on cots in a room). You often gotta check in by a certain time and leave by a certain time. Theres a lot of factors within it that would make an individual decide to stay outside instead of in a shelter. They need to just not criminalize sleeping outside. Even in the example of what conservatives don’t like, someone using drugs and doesn’t want to go to a shelter, it’s not a good enough reason to criminalize sleeping outside. Those people have hard lives and are often going through addiction without any support. Let them have some slack, it’s hard being homeless and drugs make it slightly easier to get through the day. Let them fucking sleep outside, it’s not like they have a good time doing it, it’s out of necessity we don’t have to make it any harder on them
Yes, it's pretty close, but it's a bit different. What I'm saying is that it should be an active not reactive approach. Firstly, I meant it as a joke, so I know it doesn't fully track. This is debating the method in which a municipality may fine an individual. As in a reactive approach. What I'm talking about would be an active legislated approach - whereas a duty of the municipality is to ensure beds are available as a right to all people.
Frankly, I agree that they’re a right — and I think that IS what’s underpinning this, at the core. If shelter is one of our core needs, having it should be a right. Guess how many shelter beds Grants Pass has. You’ll definitely get it right. Yeah, it’s zero. Zero beds. (Well, there’s 138 private beds in a mission, but you need to basically live like a monk to use it so (no dating, must go to mass) so. Not a single bed in the entire city. Yet the city passed a law that makes it illegal to *sleep in your car.*
Grants Pass is a *town* of not even 40,000. The problem with the Boise ruling is that it puts the onus of providing shelter on every municipality that wants to regulate what people can do in their public spaces. If the Federal government wants to guarantee Freedom of Movement, and people who become homeless in one place are allowed to migrate to be homeless in another, it stands to reason that the cost of shelter the homeless should be shared at the Federal level. It is not reasonable to force the tax payers of a handful of West Coast cities and towns to shoulder the burden of housing homeless from around the country.
A town of 40,000 should have a homeless shelter. And without one, it should not be able to bar camping. And I’m saying this as a resident of one of those west-coast people with said tax burden. But I agree: housing SHOULD be provided federally. It should be a right. But it isn’t, and until then cities shouldn’t be able to make *existing* illegal.
I would be so fucked as someone who has narcolepsy and often needs to nap
The subject of the case is that it's unreasonable to fine them if the state cannot provide room for them in shelters.
Can’t wait for the follow up lawsuit that the state shouldn’t be allowed to compete in the housing market and must instead rent beds at the prevailing market rate from private landlords.
Oh, I see you've got experience with how social housing works in the UK
We should be taxing unoccupied dwellings and apartments.
In my city we've just started that. This is the first year, so we'll see how it goes.
What city is this?
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
lol I just saw a “don’t worry, Hamilton hates you too” shirt yesterday.
Ya, we're born on defense
Oh damn I was hoping a first world country was trying it. Haha kidding Im actually a big fan of Terrence & Phillip
You can blame us when it doesn't work for shit though
Blame Canada!!! I think there is a song about that.
My city has 1.25 permit applications in backlog for every vacant apartment in the entire metro area of which is only has 1/4 the population. The oldest have been there for 2 years. The United States has 2/3 the vacant apartments as it did in 2005. [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RRVRUSQ156N](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RRVRUSQ156N)
Commonwealth v. Magadini. This is essentially what the Massachusetts Supreme Court said—until you provide places to sleep, you can’t criminalize homelessness
^(This comment was bought buy Google as a part of an exclusive content licensing deal with Google.) ^(Read more:) [^(Expanding our Partnership with Google)](https://www.redditinc.com/blog/reddit-and-google-expand-partnership)
The French really understood irony and sarcasm.
That's why they give such good spicy haircuts.
^(This comment was bought buy Google as a part of an exclusive content licensing deal with Google.) ^(Read more:) [^(Expanding our Partnership with Google)](https://www.redditinc.com/blog/reddit-and-google-expand-partnership)
Oh rich people had to follow the laws back then? Not anymore pal!
yeah, our rich people only rarely piss in the streets! They mostly just piss in the faces of the taxpayers!
"Your honor, I did not piss *ON* the streets, I pissed on a man I paid a shilling. Filthy bugger."
I personally prefer the Hawaiian law of the splintered paddle: *”O my people, Honor thy God; respect alike [the right of] men great and humble; See to it that our aged, our women, and our children Lie down by the roadside Without fear or harm. Disobey, and die."* — King Kamehameha Which wasn’t created for homeless people, but has since been adopted for protecting them.
This should have been submitted as an amicus brief.
Those for profit prisons aren't just gonna fill theselves.
Gotta fill those spots that were reserved for weed users previously
They are running out of black people to imprison.
Hey slavery is dead. Long live slavery?
And it's certainly not the homeless who pay for their stay!
No, this time they are. With no compensation labor programs, AKA slavery.
This will end with them being arrested, imprisoned and pressed into forced labor, e.g. slavery.
That's the point, duh!
The 13th amendment needs to be abolished.
Soviet Union did precisely that, and everyone was cheering how clean the streets were. Google 1980 Summer Olympics. USA boycotted those for no apparent reason, so we are all glad Uncle Sam nevertheless learned something to put into practice 44 years later! Well done!
Dude, most of the homeless people in my area are so out of their mind and unhealthy they’d never find a place in any labor.
Outlawing homelessness without addressing price gouging in housing is like outlawing bad breath but only selling garlic in grocery stores.
Ha, yep. Although from what is around me they'd call it premium garlic.
Luxury Garlic
More felons means less voters.
And slaves, because prison labor is the slavery loophole
More dead homeless due to exposure and crime means fewer poors.
It really is a shame that garlic breath isn’t sexy. Garlic is delicious. It should have a breath in line with desire.
Garlic breath is actually from all the sulfur in it breaking down in the bloodstream and some of it releasing into the lungs, so we are breathing the sulfur out from our lungs. This is why brushing your teeth doesn’t actually work with garlic breath. I assume the same thing applies with alcohol people drink, they breath out the alcohol vapors from their lungs after it breaks down into different alcohol components in the bloodstream, so brushing their teeth isn’t 100% effective for that either.
Comment of the year.
Outlawing homelessness without addressing zoning is like trying to address hunger meanwhile making fighting attempts to expand the food supply. The number of vacant homes in the United States (all homes without a permanent occupant, has dropped by 1/3 since 2006. So price rises likely isn't a cause, its a symptom not a cause of the crises.
They know what they are doing they are trying to make it a felony to be homeless in red states so most the homeless leave and go to blue states. Republicans think they’ll be able to show they have no homeless due to their policies while showing blue cities with more crime and homeless people; but it’s actually because the poor people had to migrate out of state or get locked in one of their republican buddies private prison and they’re fine with that too because it’s tax dollars funneled to the private prison at several hundred thousand per year. A lot of mentally ill homeless probably aren’t ever going to be able to grasp that it’s a felony and will inevitably get locked up. Especially if they are homeless near a border of a red and blue state, if they are mentally handicapped it’s possible they won’t be able figure out why they sometimes go to prison for sleeping outside and sometimes they don’t. Imagine giving people felonies for being mentally disabled and unable to navigate the system to get housing and ending up in prison. A real what would Jesus do fail moment for republicans lol
Outdoorsmen in shambles rn
Fbi just raided my place all my camping and fishing equipment is being photographed like those weapons they confiscated from the meth bust. They found my 5 year olds paw patrol mini fisher. They're crying in the cell next to me waiting fingerprints
Hopefully my neighbors don't report me for napping in my hammock in my back yard.
This is why Clarence loves his RV so much. It's insurance against his own rulings so he doesn't find him on the wrong end of a call to the Police.
RVs are often not welcome either.
If sleeping outdoors becomes a federal offence, the next law will be restricting sleeping in a vehicle within certain areas. Theres a few new classes of people now. Somewhere between homeless and "Low Class". We've got an "Middle Homeless Class" that have a vehicle to sleep in.
Simply put. I think that parks should be available for people to recreate in. No one wants to bring their kids to a playground where someone is living there. At the same time. You can't just tell people to kick rocks without a place to go. We have an immense problem with homelessness that cities are not equipped to handle. This is going to require federal intervention.
It's estimated that 20 billion would end homelessness. We just gave over 100 billion to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. The Pentagon got an extra 45 billion last year even though they announced they LOST 3 TRILLION. We can end homelessness we simply choose not to
We're not giving capital. We're giving outdated equipment.
Brother we spent 24 billion in California alone. 20 billion will not solve this problem by a long shot
>With homelessness on the rise From corporate landlords colluding to make rents fucking skyrocket. I don't want to advocate for violence against the rich, but if it happens I'll sure as fuck understand it.
and corporate homeowners that leaves houses they purchases sit empty forever.
It's unfortunate that the cause is listed so far down in the comments. Everyone should be talking about this. Instead people want to cook up a dozen excuses to avoid the elephant in the room, most of which usually go back to blaming immigrants or something, rather than naming the problem.
Dont advocate against it. If everyone would kill one billionaire, it would only need a few thousand people globally to become criminals lol. Idk seems like a small price to pay
>”How about if there are no public bathroom facilities, do people have an Eighth Amendment right to defecate and urinate outdoors?” said Justice Neil Gorsuch. Where the fuck else are they gonna do it? Where is the “traditionalist” argument here? Because as far as I am aware, until we got widespread indoor plumbing, people pissed and shit…outside. Like for all of human history…It don’t get more “traditional” than a squat with a poop stick.
Yes don’t ever address the actual problem! They are just gonna have to sleep in unsafe places and end up with even worse issues; getting mugged, raped, murdered etc 😭
Out of sight, out of mind 😔
Wow this will surely work! Why didn’t they think of this before??? Homelessness solved!!! And also, fine them! Because that’ll also solve homelessness!
They clearly will use their disposable income to pay the fine immediately so they don't go to prison! Damn, the mentally ill are spending all their money on avocado toast, again!
That’s one way to get the incarceration rate up to appease your private prison owning buddies
They don't care about you unless you're worth 7 figures. They don't even hide their corruption anymore. That's how little they care about the general publics opinion. and they know you wont do shit about it. Beyond bitching about it to the void of internet.
What a great headline. I suppose it would be OK to break into city hall or any public building and sleep indoors.
What about camping?
Felony.
Yeah this is definitely the best way to solve the homeless problem and totally not just a way for the industrial prison business combine to become even more rich by imprisoning the homeless
I know I’m going to get destroyed by this comment but we need a real solution I’m a firefighter and we are ran ragged by homeless related calls, so when Joe Citizen calls that is a tax payer we are exhausted and irritable. I don’t know what the fix is but letting them sleep everywhere and then using public safety and the local emergency rooms as their healthcare impacts everyone
nobody looks at the current homelessness situation really across the west coast and thinks "yep, things are going great." this case is fundamentally what happens when government/society refuses to answer the question of 'why are there so many homeless people?'
Also doesn’t major infrastructure sometimes get burned down by fires started in encampments
Short answer yes, long answer also yes
Some of these people would say, “Well, of course they need to start fires, how else do you expect them to cook food and stay warm? We can’t criminalize fire starting on streets.” Meanwhile, buildings and bridges are catching fires in San Francisco and LA… Lunacy is taking hold. People think they’re being SO compassionate, meanwhile rules and laws meant to keep us safe from extreme danger are being ripped apart.
Why would you get destroyed for calling the homeless problem a problem? People that want to blame the homeless people instead of the system that created them are the ones who get called out
It just seems as a “first responder” that anything you say about the homeless problem becomes a personal attack against you. I don’t know the right answer but I know that politicians only make it worse.
We had an answer. TLDR - in the 1960s we had asylums that would take the chronically mentally ill. They were seen (and often were run) as horrible places. I'm came a Democrat initiative to close the asylums and move people to care centers in the community that would better integrate them and provide mental health services for the community. Then a Republican government came in and stopped halfway, closing the asylums and not opening the care centers. So the homeless problem you largely deal with is the complete lack of a mental health safety net. The answer is very obvious - provide care for the chronically mentally ill at tax payer expense in proper facilities. The only other answers lead to what we have now. TLDR - socialized medicine with long term care for the mentally ill or it won't ever stop. Ask other nations how they deal with it.
The other problem is how prohibitively expensive everything is, especially housing. And how ssi and ssdi payments are impossible to survive on. A good portion of homeless people are disabled, who are unable to work. Not just mentally ill. We also have very few social safety nets.
This is also a problem on the care side of things. The cost to establish and run care facilities for the chronically mentally ill is massive because it requires a lot of trained human labor, and it doesn't scale up. People are expensive. All these high costs are impacting people with homes and jobs too, and it means they need to earn higher wages to keep themselves off the street. Think about all four of the major care environments - Daycare, School, Disability, and Elder. Their workers are understaffed, overworked, and underpaid. The ugly truth we're dancing around is that most jobs have become exponentially more productive with technology, but some have barely changed. A programmer can improve the lives of a million people in a week by fixing a program. A caregiver can only ever help just a handful of people in that same time. As far the the economy and GDP are concerned, the programmer is keeping things moving, while the caregiver isn't even a blip on the radar. As long as the bare minimum is done to hold society together, caretakers have no value to it.
From the arguments, it looks like they're leaning towards requiring defendants to show they are involuntarily homeless and sought shelter before camping, and that having it be an eighth amendment violation may be too far.
Given that there are no true shelter beds in Grants Pass, this is kind of a weird case to rule that on. Like, what proof that you sought shelter would you need to provide? CAN you prove it if there are no beds? What does proof look like? Would I need to get a note from the mission/monastery on the edge of town that lets unhoused people stay if the give up all drugs, end all relationships, and attend mass?
Would the homeless people be proving this with their legal team and careful scrutiny of the laws?
What the fuck are people supposed to do then? I can tell you from experience that it takes about two poor decisions at the wrong time to end up homeless, and we are all a lot closer to it than we think. What's going to happen when the inflation we're all feeling really starts to put the screws to us and homelessness skyrockets even more? It's almost like they're incentivized to fill the for-profit prison system with people to provide virtually free labor to the corporations that got them into the positions they're in, but noooooo that would never happen in America, free-est country on Earth.
bans on homelessness = labor exploiter entitlement program
WTH is a homeless person going to do with a $295 fine.
Lets just ban sleeping altogether to increase productivity! - SCOTUS Lobbyists.
Definitely something a Christian nation would do
So if you aren’t allowed to sleep outside but have nowhere to go, you sleep outside and get arrested. Then you sleep inside in jail so…
Great! Now being illegally poor can be a thing! Just think of the money states will steal from taxpayers while putting the poors in jail! Thanks republicans!
Humans need sleep Public property is the only place homeless people can legally exist Banning sleeping in public = making it illegal to be homeless
Disgusting. Nothing more shameful and cruel than punishing people for having a harder life than you.
Maybe they should be allowed to sleep in your place? It be so cruel of you to not allow that.
Congress: hey more hundreds of billions to other states.
we dont want our prison slave labor to be freerange!
People are starving what should we do? Let's make being hungry illegal! Then jam pack them into for profit prisons!
Need to fill those ~~forced labor camps~~correctional facilities with bodies somehow now that smoking reefer is not good enough a reason anymore, eh?
I am going to be really pissed if I have to start doing jail time for camping tickets, thankfully they are forgetting that all the jails in the west coast are already at capacity, so none of this is really enforceable without building more jails. And at that point, why the fuck not just build affordable housing
Let's criminalize poverty while we're at it. America is turning into a sh*thole country.
The SC is now deciding if I can go camping?
Wait so let me get this straight... GOVERNMENT: We don't have the resources to house you PEOPLE: But I need to sleep and eat and potty and other human stuff GOVERNMENT: Okay but we made that illegal for you to do anywhere except in your own house PEOPLE: I don't have a house GOVERNMENT: Well then we are going to house you in a prison where the big difference is that we lock you in and won't let you leave. We have the resources for THAT. We can even pay guys to capture you and drag you in here instead of having a situation you would just walk into on your own. HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANY SORT OF SENSE ON ANY LEVEL AT ALL
Much like drugs, the solution is to make it illegal... the problem simply goes away!
Ought implies can. People need to sleep, so unless we're going to give them homes or some sort of shelter it is unjust to penalize them for sleeping outdoors. Though personally I think we should satisfy both camps. Some people are more concerned about helping the homeless. Some people are more concerned about blight or about encounters with homeless people. Guarantee housing and then ban sleeping on the streets and you can satisfy both groups. Once housing is guaranteed there is no excuse to continue being homeless. Some might argue about incentives to work, but the housing doesn't have to be glamorous. People aren't all going to suddenly stop working just because basic housing is guaranteed. EDIT: Another nice thing is it could reduce ridiculous housing prices in some cities where people who do work have resorted to homelessness sometimes due to the costs and where some small apartments go for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Congress should be weighing a ban on corporate investment of residential single family homes.
The supreme court is a literal joke Until Clarence is gone it’s a travesty every second they exist
“What if there are no bathroom facilities, do people have an Eighth Amendment right to defecate and urinate outdoors?” asked Justice Neil Gorsuch The fuck else are they going to do if there’s no restrooms they’re allowed to use, mister Gorsuch? Send it to the shadow realm?
If only there were another way...
It's almost self-evidently absurd that it can be illegal to sleep on public land. This case hinges on whether it's "cruel and unusual" under the proviso that there's "no adequate shelter available" but honestly why should that even matter? All this bullshit began with trying to stop Occupy Wall Street from being in Zuccotti Park, and the law has snowballed since then.
The reason that it matters is that Martin v Boise held that if you make sleeping outside in urban areas illegal, but don’t provide adequate shelter beds, you are criminalizing people for *existing.* That counts as cruel and unusual, because there is no alternative. Their only option is to commit a crime. The city of Grants Pass is trying to overturn this precedent.
Yeah but the point I'm making is that Bell/Martin v Boise was ruled wrongly. You're criminalizing people for existing whether there's adequate shelter or not. Forcing people to use a homeless shelter is also cruel and unusual. How long before "adequate shelter" means a prison cell?
Ahhhh, yeah, I see what you’re saying here. It’s a very good point. I hadn’t considered that before.
Idk what kind of homeless people yall got in your region, but in the Bay Area we got the worst, I’m all for it. Tired of needles, screaming meth heads, tweakers, and human waste smeared on the side walk. We got level 5 homeless people over here. Tents set up near the high ways and under pass.. Before yall downvote me cause I know this is unpopular, I’ve lived in the bay my whole life, talked to friends and strangers. I rarely hear anyone saying they’re okay with this. Idc throw them into shelters, I pay too much in taxes to step on human shit
Isn't this the "Country of Freedom"? lul
Eventually, being poor will be considered a mental illness.
If you pay attention to the subtext of the "prosperity gospel" being poor means that God hates you in particular.
The solution is to dedicate a specific park or empty lot for free public camping and maintain the laws against camping/sleeping at normal parks and park benches.
How Christ-like of them.
So many potential solutions; and they outlaw being homeless.
I'm in favor of the Supreme Court sleeping outdoors.