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.
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.
Move um to the burbs
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.
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”.
I got kicked off a local forum for insisting on using the word “Bums”. Boo Hoo