Posted on 01/13/2024 12:57:58 PM PST by thegagline
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a case involving whether cities in Western states can ban homeless people from sleeping in public areas.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled against anti-camping ordinances in Grants Pass, Oregon, saying it’s unconstitutional because it violates the Eighth Amendment of no "cruel and unusual punishment."
Grants Pass appealed the ruling, with the backing of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose own state faces a homelessness crisis. The ruling applies to nine western states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
***
Former MLB great and 10-time All-Star Steve Garvey, a California Republican running for U.S. Senate, told Fox News Digital Friday that combating homelessness must be "grounded in compassion and practical solutions."
*** Newsom issued a statement on Friday that said, "California has invested billions to address homelessness, but rulings from the bench have tied the hands of state and local governments to address this issue."
His office said he had filed an amicus brief in September that urged the Supreme Court "to clarify that state and local governments can take reasonable actions to address the homelessness crisis creating health and safety dangers for individuals living in encampments and our communities." Newsom added, "The Supreme Court can now correct course and end the costly delays from lawsuits that have plagued our efforts to clear encampments and deliver services to those in need." ***
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Why don’t the azhoes let the American people decide that.
But would not hear any case about election fraud in a presidential election. Which one's more of a Federal/National concern?
Camping on public property should only be legal within 100 yards of the personal residence of any public servant or officer of the court.
Because that is not the way the Constitution works. That said, I don’t think the 8th amendment is applicable in this case.
I like the way you think.
If it’s a Public Health and Safety issue I believe they can.................
Forget it.
-PJ
Punishments are for convictions in a trial; legislated bans, curfews, or other restrictions on use of public property are not punishments.
Next they will argue that requiring permits to protest on public property are violations of the 8th amendment, too.
-PJ
There, fixed it.
This is going to be fun.
“Supreme Court to decide whether cities can ban homeless vagrants from public areas
There, fixed it.”
Supreme Court to decide whether cities can ban bums from public areas
There, fixed it.
Move um to the burbs
https://archive.vn/mWh6q
perfect play by those lefty states - throw it to the SC, if the SC says they can’t move them, it is the SC’s fault - and if they say they can, it is those far-right justices on the SC that made them do it.
Heads they win, tails we lose.
Will end up having the homeless ban the Supreme Court.
So loitering is going to be edjudicated?
If I was to pitch a tent and live on Supreme Court grounds I would not be there for long.
If states would stop giving homeless money, ssdi and stop funding non profits that “support” homeless in addition to o making it illegal to give to panhandlers it would resolve itself. As well building more krisons and prosecuting crimes. We are a lawless nation.
We need to cut off the money to the feral government.
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.