The Oregon case decided Friday is the most significant to come before the high court in decades on the issue and comes as a rising number of people in the U.S. are without a permanent place to live.
The Oregon case decided Friday is the most significant to come before the high court in decades on the issue and comes as a rising number of people in the U.S. are without a permanent place to live.
What was their reason for this decision? Did they even give one. It’s time we remove the Supreme Court from office and put them in the street.
They post all their reasonings for every opinion on supremecourt.gov
In this case the tldr is the 8th amendment is concerned with the method or kind of punishment. And here it’s a limited fine for 1st time offenders, a court order prohibiting camping in parks, then to a max of 30 days in jail for people who violate that order.
Here’s the link to the full text: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
That sounds reasonable until you remember that debtors prison is back, most states make people pay for their incarceration, and semi regular arrests are going to make sure you can’t keep a job to pay that “obligation”.
This is a backdoor into giving more people to the prison industry.
They aren’t trying to find what’s reasonable, they’re trying to find what the law says. There are a lot of stupid things that aren’t unconstitutional, like the death penalty. The majority operates on a ‘garbage in garbage out’ basis. We got a garbage outcome because they have a garbage law, and we haven’t gotten an amendment against it yet.
That said I wholly agree with the sentiment and message regarding the penal institutions we have. The attempts the find different ways to fund that correctional system are consistently producing negative outcomes. The state should bear it’s full weight so that they have incentive to maintain a low prison pop.
SCOTUS has absolutely set realist standards in the past. For example, gun regulations that are de facto bans are treated as such and declared unconstitutional.
They absolutely do not have to sit back and consign homeless people to the prison debt system while bemoaning their inability to enforce the 8th amendment.
The issue is the 8A is understood to have refered to the punishments being cruel or unusual, per the Court, not the offense. The actual punishments here (fine, court order, or 30 days in jail) are fairly normal for laws, the only odd thing about the statute is what the “crime” is.
The court chose that narrow view. They chose to naively interpret the punishment as ending and not transitioning into new forms that can dog people the rest of their lives. It is not something they were required to do. As the dissent points out.
I’m certain someone offered them a gratuity
Officially? Something mundane, I’m sure. Unofficially and actually? The “labor shortage” we have (which is actually people being reasonably unwilling to work abusive body-destroying soul-crushing senselessly-cruel jobs for less than poverty-level wages) is causing economic damage that’s visible in their portfolios, and a new massive infusion of slave labor (because prisoners can legally be used as slaves) that have no legal means to resist abuse and exploitation would fix that situation right up.
Anyone who can’t keep up with the numerous corporate money vacuums in their lives (rent, rent increases, bills, bill increases, taxes, more taxes, more bill increases, grocery cost increases, more utility increases, more more more) will become homeless, and the homeless will serve as our new pool of slave labor for dirt cheap. Keep up, hustle harder, pay more, pay faster, or be put in chains and tortured in solitary confinement with moldy nutriloaf until you agree to work to death for nothing.
This conservative wet dream is coming unless we collectively pull our heads out of our asses.
The real reason is that conservative ideology dictates that society will have winners and losers who end up in the correct spot in the heirarchy if society doesn’t interfere with the natural sorting.
So it follows that homeless people don’t deserve a “handout” or a leg-up just because they squandered their opportunities.
Leftists think that an ideology follows from a moral interrogation of the world as it should be, whereas reactionaries think the highest good is done by ensuring that people are in their correct spot in the heirarchy in relation to others; since some people are inevitably going to be homeless, there isn’t much to be done about it and the leftists complaining about it are just virtue signaling to get votes.
Their justification is irrelevant once you realize the actual ideological reasoning.
Edit: I’m confused by the downvotes. Anyone want to tell me how I’m wrong? This isn’t my ideology, but I think it’s useful to understand your opposition on more than a cartoon-villain level, especially since they are so effective at selling their ideas to low-information voters.
I think you weren’t clear in delineation between leftist and reactionaries.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks!