You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
6 points

I’m more interested in the argument behind these links. You are for the supreme courts decision?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points
*

Most people look at the ruling and go “Hurr durr, Supreme court makes it illegal to be homeless” and that’s not what it’s about.

What Grants Pass wanted to do, and Oregon at large, really, also wants, is the ability to arrest people who are refusing help. The “Chronic Homeless”.

Most homeless people are BEGGING for help and eagerly accept it when offered. What this ruling is seeking to deal with are the inveterate homeless.

You’re homeless and your intent is to drag down the community you’re camped in? Yeah, fuck you. You don’t have the right to do drugs, throw around trash, and make other citizens unsafe.

Oregon is going to start getting better next month when drugs are re-legalized. No more fentanyl folding in public.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

But the law criminalizes sleeping in the streets not arresting people for refusing help.

The law as it’s written must be discussed, and it’s not my opinion that the law criminalizes sleeping, it’s sotomayor’s.

I would like you to come around to understanding the fact that this decision doesn’t do only what you want it to do, what you hope it will do. The power they have, as it is written gives the government the power to scoop all the homeless into the penal system. All that’s left is to trust they’ll use this power for the common good, and the belief that it will never happen to you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

This doesn’t really have anything to do with the Supreme Court. Oregon law now effectively echos the Martin v. Boise 9th circuit decision that the Supreme Court overturned. Martin v. Boise is more narrow than people here seem to think. It only applied to situations where there were not enough shelter beds to accommodate the number of homeless people in a city. It was always the case that if there was room and a person would not accept, an anti-camping ordinance could be enforced.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

You’re homeless and your intent is to drag down the community you’re camped in?

And where is the evidence this is a widespread problem? Wouldn’t it be easier to simply criminalize whatever else these homeless do and not just sleeping outside?

You argument is exactly that of the wife beater beating the wife for making him hurt her… You argue we should not criminalize the beating, but the wife causing it

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Jesus, read any of the links I’ve already put in this thread. There are streets in Portland that are un-navigable thanks to the homeless camps and they are magnets for drugs, arson, and other crimes impacting the city at large.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 14K

    Posts

  • 416K

    Comments