The Supreme Court Should Be Ashamed for Criminalizing Homelessness.(inequality.org)

posted 2 months ago

ModerateImprovement@sh.itjust.works

politics@lemmy.world

108 commentshide report

Sort:

Hot Top Controversial New Old

You are viewing a single thread.

View all comments View context

[ - ]

the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works

4 points

2 months ago

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

[ - ]

pingveno@lemmy.world

1 point

2 months ago

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

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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.
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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
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.
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