Posted on 09/29/2022 12:40:31 PM PDT by aimhigh
Wednesday’s decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals builds on a 2018 ruling involving the city of Boise, which found a person cannot be punished for sleeping in public if there’s nowhere else for them to go.
A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld a ruling that found the city of Grants Pass in southern Oregon violated the constitutional rights of people experiencing homelessness through a series of ordinances designed to prevent sleeping outside on public property.
In a 2-1 decision, judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld a 2020 injunction issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke, which ruled several ordinances designed to prevent people from sleeping on sidewalks and streets, violated the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment.
“We affirm the district court’s ruling that the City of Grants Pass cannot, consistent with the Eighth Amendment, enforce its anti-camping ordinances against homeless persons for the mere act of sleeping outside with rudimentary protection from the elements, or for sleeping in their car at night, when there is no other place in the City for them to go,” Roslyn Silver, a U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Arizona states in the court’s opinion. Circuit Court Judge Ronald Gould signed onto Silver’s opinion. Both judges were appointed by former President Bill Clinton.
Democrats want to turn America into California.
Send these folks to the judge’s houses.
The only “punishment” is self-imposed.
This is so far outside normal reasoning that it’s insane.
Rapin’ Bill’s anarchist black-robed stooges.
Gotta say, this sounds a little like the cops in the city I serve as prosecutor stopping cars for DWI, arresting the driver and then having to arrest the drunk passenger for public intoxication because there’s nobody to come get him/her from the side of the road. I normally end up dismissing those charges.
A democrat Legal operative infesting the Appeals Courts doesn’t need a reason...
If that’s the legal reasoning, then what’s the legal solution.
Is the legal solution to build homeless camps, and forcibly take these homeless to homeless shelters/camps, because then they would have a place to go? Legally speaking?
On the one hand, it would be a major investment of societal resources to build and maintain homeless camps, so that there is enough room for everyone. On the other hand, society is incurring many costs by letting people foul the streets and sidewalks and parks of our cities.
If I recall correctly, there are laws on the books regarding issues such as loitering and vagrancy. But I bet that because of court decisions such as the one discussed here, such laws are probably unenforceable nowadays.
Mark Clarke is also a Clinton creature - appointed by a Clintonoid chief judge [District of Oregon], and re-appointed by a second Clintonoid chief stooge.
Upshot: Squatting anywhere one wants is wide open.
You’re talking about treating the symptoms of a larger problem and flooding our country with illegals with only worsen it all
While I'll agree that for the vast majority of homeless that is the case, however, there are always those few cases where they ended up homeless for other reasons. For example, those who go bankrupt due to the medical expenses that they accumulated as a result of a sick spouse, and they have a limited fixed income.
Send the homeless to the residences of the judges so they have a place to go.
Every major city, and even most minor ones, have resources to help homeless people, if they WANT that help. The problem is that the homeless don't want to abide by the rules of these shelters - no drugs, no alcohol, no cohabitation with a sexual partner, no criminal activity, etc. - and therefore, of their OWN volition, can't stay there. In other words, they make the conscious choice to stay on the streets.
I've been tangentially involved with enough charity shelter organizations to know what the reality is. Drugs is the main problem. And there are loads of programs to help these people get off drugs, IF they want it.
send them with a bus ticket & $500 bucks to Martha’s Vineyard.
It may be that America’s middle class ought to remember this ruling and plan accordingly for the bestest sidewalk locations in the USA.
“when there is no other place in the City for them to go...”
That’s the key point and I have to say I kind of agree with them. Unless we are prepared to build a thousand more prisons to house all the homeless people, then making it de facto illegal to be homeless doesn’t seem like the wisest decision.
“Is the legal solution to build homeless camps, and forcibly take these homeless to homeless shelters/camps, because then they would have a place to go?”
Or, you could, you know, just not arrest people for sleeping outside when they don’t have anywhere else to sleep.
“If I recall correctly, there are laws on the books regarding issues such as loitering and vagrancy.”
Most of those laws have been struck down as unconstitutional. Some newer versions have been passed but they must be very narrowly crafted to pass Supreme Court scrutiny.
You just might be on the wrong forum Boogie.
Another good example are those who had businesses and lost them due to endless lock downs & closure of their business due to government responses with regards to the plandemic.
I'm not arguing with you, I am just saying, you cannot paint the situation with a broad brush. While a vast majority are what you say are the homeless, but not every one.
In many locations, they are trying to force hotel & motel owners make their empty rooms available to house the homeless, for a fair market rate. I seriously doubt that fair market rate, will be either fair or even close to market rates. This will end up causing even more homelessness and inflation keeps making more & more people become homeless.
Sorry, Boogie, there’s been derelics all throughout history.
Your world view will have them having the right to sleep on YOUR lawn or under your outside deck cover - or on your front porch, as there was a recent thread about a lady having just that problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.