SCOTUS to Hear Oregon Homeless Case

[ll74]

This is an interesting case.

Supreme Court to weigh whether bans targeting homeless encampments run afoul of the Constitution​

A few points:
1. This is an appeal to the 9th circuit court decision, which rules against the state.
2. A key part of the issue is available beds for homeless people being short of actual numbers of homeless
3. In some cases, restrictions of existing shelters may disqualify a homeless person from staying there.

 

[ll74]

I realize I didn't add much to the topic - what's interesting to me is Eagle's Pass admitting at council that they don't care to fix the homeless issue and instead just want to move it out of their town. I think many cities do things like make things uncomfortable to homeless people so they'll move elsewhere.

 

[desecration]

I think many cities do things like make things uncomfortable to homeless people so they'll move elsewhere.

I agree. I suspect abortion has become a similar thing: legalize/criminalize in your state to drive out people from the other side.

On the other hand, the homeless appear to be mostly insane, criminal, and addicted to drink/drugs, so I kind of understand why these communities want them elsewhere.

 

[ll74]

I agree. I suspect abortion has become a similar thing: legalize/criminalize in your state to drive out people from the other side.

Not comparable.

On the other hand, the homeless appear to be mostly insane, criminal, and addicted to drink/drugs, so I kind of understand why these communities want them elsewhere.

You don't understand the complex issue.

Got it

 

[desecration]

You don't understand the complex issue.

Usually fabricated to hide the obvious facts of the situation.

 

[ll74]

Usually fabricated to hide the obvious facts of the situation.

Feel free to provide statistics that support your statement.

The facts aren't the same as they were in the 80s and 90s. So try to be more current.

 

[Chobham]

Not comparable.


You don't understand the complex issue.

Got it

He's absolutely right about the mental health and/or drug issues.

 

[ll74]

He's absolutely right about the mental health and/or drug issues.

Feel free to back it up with recent data. I think the last decade has changed much of the story there.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The 9th Circuit’s rulings in the Boise and Grants Pass cases sound simple and reasonable but the vagueness has made it difficult for western states to comply. SCOTUS needs to provide constitutional guidelines that give local governments clarity on what they can and cannot do.

This amicus brief filed by the city, county and mayor of San Francisco illustrates the problems the Johnson decision has created. Same problems exist in cities up and down the west coast, from San Diego to Seattle.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...40301131013255_23-175 Brief of Amici CCSF.pdf

The constitutional question centers around the 8th amendment pertaining to cruel and unusual punishment. This article from SCOTUS blog summarizes the main arguments from each side. This is a case that absolutely belongs on the SCOTUS docket. It’s not only urgent and important. It’s very complicated. The justices have their work cut out for them on this one.

Supreme Court to hear case on criminal penalties for homelessness - SCOTUSblog

 

[desecration]

The current prevalence of mental health disorders among people experiencing homelessness was 67% (95% CI, 55-77), and the lifetime prevalence was 77% (95% CI, 61-88). Male individuals exhibited a significantly higher lifetime prevalence of mental health disorders (86%; 95% CI, 74-92) compared to female individuals (69%; 95% CI, 48-84).

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2817602

 

[ll74]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2817602

So a slight majoriry. I'd like to see the timeframe.

I think being poor drives people to do stupid shit which drives people to insanity.

But the oversimplication means you skip out on 40% of the population of homelessness.

 

[desecration]

77% lifetime. That's most.

 

[Chobham]

Feel free to back it up with recent data. I think the last decade has changed much of the story there.

There is no reliable data, and that too is a problem.

Generally speaking the homeless fall into two categories. The temporarily homeless and the chronically homeless. The temporarily homeless are those that are the victims of economic pressures and or problems at what would normally be a permanent residence. This category of homeless will generally avail themselves to temporary shelters if available. They are also amenable to the various programs designed to get them back on their feet again.

The chronically homeless are those that are the problem. They are the ones that contribute to crime and other mischief. They are also highly unlikely to use shelters because shelters have rules about drugs/alcohol use. Then there are the mentally ill, many of whom are also drug/alcohol users. Short of court ordered institutionalization I see little help for this group.

 

[desecration]

The chronically homeless are those that are the problem. They are the ones that contribute to crime and other mischief. They are also highly unlikely to use shelters because shelters have rules about drugs/alcohol use. Then there are the mentally ill, many of whom are also drug/alcohol users. Short of court ordered institutionalization I see little help for this group.

This is consistent with my observation.

 

[ll74]

There is no reliable data, and that too is a problem.

Then why do you believe in the things you do?

Generally speaking the homeless fall into two categories. The temporarily homeless and the chronically homeless. The temporarily homeless are those that are the victims of economic pressures and or problems at what would normally be a permanent residence. This category of homeless will generally avail themselves to temporary shelters if available. They are also amenable to the various programs designed to get them back on their feet again.

And what about lack of shelters?

The chronically homeless are those that are the problem. They are the ones that contribute to crime and other mischief. They are also highly unlikely to use shelters because shelters have rules about drugs/alcohol use. Then there are the mentally ill, many of whom are also drug/alcohol users. Short of court ordered institutionalization I see little help for this group.

Belief is fun. You said that data is hard, yet you're solid in your position.

You should listen to a analysis on the case.

 

[ll74]

This is consistent with my observation.

I'm sure you go to where homeless congregate and study them

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

WSJ Editorial Board 4/22/24

The Supreme Court Considers a Judge-Made Right to Vagrancy
The Justices hear an appeal of a Ninth Circuit ruling that makes it hard for cities to enforce public order or get treatment for addicts and the mentally ill.
———————————-
“According to the Ninth Circuit judges, Grants Pass unfairly punished the supposedly involuntary status of being homeless, even though many vagrants rejected housing. One woman did so because her Rottweiler wasn’t allowed in a shelter. Others may refuse to abide a shelter’s minimal behavioral rules. Some simply prefer to live on the streets.

“Under the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, homelessness is considered “involuntary” as long as the number of vagrants exceed the available beds. When calculating the latter, the judges excluded religiously affiliated shelters as well as warming and sobering centers. Is requiring the homeless to stay sober to get shelter a constitutional violation?”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/grants...7g12z5b99adut26&reflink=article_copyURL_share

 

[JoePepsiCo]

I'm sure someone has already pointed out that the 9th leads all courts in being overturned.

 

[desecration]

“Under the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, homelessness is considered “involuntary” as long as the number of vagrants exceed the available beds.

Translation: everybody behave as badly as you want and we will kick the cost to the taxpayers.

I think these types of rulings are on their way out.

If I have to work, everyone has to work. It's only fair.

 

[butters]

The justices on Monday considered a challenge to rulings from a California-based appeals court that found punishing people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.

The appeals court ruling built on its 2018 decision, known as Martin v Boise, that first barred camping bans when shelter space is lacking, and which the city is also challenging. It also applies to the nine western states in the court’s jurisdiction. The supreme court declined to take up a different challenge to the ruling in 2019, before the solidification of its current 6-3 conservative majority.

During Monday’s arguments, Justice Elena Kagan said the city’s ordinance goes beyond trying to address encampments and public safety and criminalizes unhoused people trying to find a place to sleep.

“Where do we put them if every city, every village, every town lacks compassion and passes a law identical to this? Where are they supposed to sleep? Are they supposed to kill themselves, not sleeping?” Sotomayor asked.

“This is a complicated policy question,” Evangelis responded.

“What’s so complicated about letting someone, somewhere, sleep with a blanket in the outside if they have nowhere to sleep?” Sotomayor said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/w...p&cvid=6614d229ff69402fb2ae60eea0704dc3&ei=83

perhaps it's no surprise that the republican justices seem to be siding with the ban/punishment, but let's be clear: most the people who are homeless are homeless because they cannot afford rents and the towns lack (and aren't prepared to fund) facilities for the homeless to have someplace safe to sleep at night.

build more housing. more housing means more jobs which means more money in the local economy which feeds more jobs. the shame of homelessness is on the towns and cities (and their populations) not prepared to provide enough resources to house people and to look after the problems a proportion of those face i.e mental health issues and drug use (a frequent side-effect of dealing with the traumas of homelessness)

 

[Fuzzy1975]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/w...p&cvid=6614d229ff69402fb2ae60eea0704dc3&ei=83

perhaps it's no surprise that the republican justices seem to be siding with the ban/punishment, but let's be clear: most the people who are homeless are homeless because they cannot afford rents and the towns lack (and aren't prepared to fund) facilities for the homeless to have someplace safe to sleep at night.

build more housing. more housing means more jobs which means more money in the local economy which feeds more jobs. the shame of homelessness is on the towns and cities (and their populations) not prepared to provide enough resources to house people and to look after the problems a proportion of those face i.e mental health issues and drug use (a frequent side-effect of dealing with the traumas of homelessness)

Oh let’s just reopen those debtors prisons of the 1800’s. They really did have it right back then...I’m sure none of the RWCJ crowd will mind footing the bill on their taxes.

 

[ll74]

Good discussion on the case by my fav pod - Advisory Opinions

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It’s being reported that several justices expressed skepticism about the the 9th’s ruling. They are not alone. CA Governor Newsom also has issues with it. Thank him for filling the amicus brief requesting SCOTUS to review the case, and thank SCOTUS for agreeing.

Governor Newsom Statement on Amicus Brief Filed with the United States Supreme Court on Homeless Encampments​

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/03/04/g...states-supreme-court-on-homeless-encampments/

 

[ll74]

It’s being reported that several justices expressed skepticism about the the 9th’s ruling. They are not alone. CA Governor Newsom also has issues with it. Thank him for filling the amicus brief requesting SCOTUS to review the case, and thank SCOTUS for agreeing.

Governor Newsom Statement on Amicus Brief Filed with the United States Supreme Court on Homeless Encampments​

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/03/04/g...states-supreme-court-on-homeless-encampments/

Large cities are having a difficult time dealing with the home availability and homeless problem. One city I've been in actually put spikes on benches.

 

[desecration]

build more housing.

The free shit army continues its witless march.

Reduce cost of living instead.