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 ...
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.”
Absolutely illogical take on that amendment. The amendment obviously applies to those charged with criminal or even civil violations of the law. Notice also that it reads cruel and unusual not cruel or unusual. Meaning the punishment to be forbidden must be both cruel and unusual. For example putting a prisoner in solitary might be considered cruel but there is nothing unusual about it.
In any case the amendment should never have been applied to how a city decided to deal with the homeless population.
Vagabonds, drunkards, and bums have existed throughout history even in Philadelphia 250 years ago, and when they drafted the founding documents there is no mention of cleaning up the dregs of society as cruel and unusual. Thus any modern interpretation that claims otherwise is clearly at odds with the framers’ intent on this (non) issue.
Fix should get with the program and binge up on their wokeness. They are no longer the homeless; they are the “unhoused”.
There you go...
-PJ
I got kicked off a local forum for insisting on using the word “Bums”. Boo Hoo
Before the Supreme Court rules they should allow a thousand homeless people to live on the Supreme Court grounds for one year.
At the end of the year I would expect a 9-0 decision with no debate.
;-)
I believe the politically correct term is “street leech.”
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.