lol. not exactly. here's a more accurate assessment, link should work for everyone https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-su...gbmk9cct3aa&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink The Supreme Court Says Safe Streets Are Constitutional Six Justices reject the progressive idea that laws against homeless encampments are cruel and unusual punishment. By The Editorial Board June 30, 2024 at 5:22 pm ET The conservatives on the Supreme Court rescued progressive cities on the West Coast from themselves on Friday by overruling lower courts that had created a constitutional right to camp on the streets (City of Grants Pass v. Johnson). You’re welcome, San Francisco. Homeless advocates challenged a ban on camping on public property by the city of Grants Pass, Ore. Offenses are punishable by a $295 fine and short stints in jail for repeat violations. Such laws are common across the U.S. But the ever-creative Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2018 that such laws violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Six Justices on Friday repudiated this dubious constitutional interpretation. Quoting San Francisco Mayor London Breed, Justice Neil Gorsuch writes that the Ninth Circuit’s “misapplication of this Court’s Eighth Amendment precedents” has undermined public safety and made it harder for cities to encourage the homeless to accept shelter. Since the 2018 decision, progressives have filed lawsuits across western states covered by the Ninth Circuit to block anti-camping laws. Encampments have proliferated. Vagrants have rejected more than half of San Francisco’s offers of shelter, many citing the Ninth Circuit ruling. A Grants Pass shelter says utilization has fallen by roughly 40%. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling also said that cities can’t clear encampments unless they have more available homeless beds than people on the streets. Judges have added other stipulations. A federal court in Los Angeles ruled that cities must first provide “adequate” shelter, including nursing staff and security. However, as Justice Gorsuch explains, “the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause focuses on the question what ‘method or kind of punishment’ a government may impose after a criminal conviction, not on the question whether a government may criminalize particular behavior in the first place or how it may go about securing a conviction for that offense.” The three liberal Justices pointed in dissent to the Court’s anomalous Robinson (1962) decision, which blocked a state law that criminalized drug addiction. The Court in that case held that states can’t criminalize the “status” of being an addict, but said that they could punish drug use by those suffering from addiction. Anti-camping laws don’t criminalize status. They prohibit certain actions. The plaintiffs in Grants Pass sought to extend the Robinson “rule beyond laws addressing ‘mere status’ to laws addressing actions that, even if undertaken with the requisite mens rea, might ‘in some sense’ qualify as ‘involuntary,’ ” Justice Gorsuch writes. Addressing homelessness is complex, and if people don’t like their leaders’ policies, they can vote them out. Not so federal judges, who Justice Gorsuch writes cannot “begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness.” The Court’s ruling is a boon for constitutional federalism, especially for cities in California struggling to contain the crime, drug use and disorder that come with homelessness. Gov. Gavin Newsom supported the Grants Pass appeal, and he should be grateful. Appeared in the July 1, 2024, print edition as 'Safe Streets Are Constitutional'.
Im so disgusted the Trump Supreme Court decided to take up the immunity question, rather than just letting the appellate court ruling rejecting Trump's immunity claims stand to begin with. That trial should have started in March, and this has been nothing but a blatant stall tactic to keep Trump out of court as long as they can, whether they reject his needs to be above the law or not.
re Corner Post, "Justice Barrett started her announcement with a joke about how this case was not one that we were here to hear." Good to hear the justices are funny
administrative law is the new frontier Justice Jackson in her conclusion: "At the end of a momentous Term, this much is clear: The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court's holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government." Justice Kavanaugh suggests in a concurring opinion that the "Government's position . . . would fundamentally change administrative law, leaving administrative agencies with extraordinary new power to issue rules free from potential suits by unregulated but adversely affected parties--businesses, environmental plaintiffs, workers, the list goes on."
So this means what exactly? I'm assuming that means that the Jan 6 case is dead now unless Jack Smith can carve out acts that are not deemed as "official acts" and then Trump gets to appeal every single thing, and argue that they are official?? Yeah.. Scotus is going to regret this one. This is the official stamp of approval for a dictatorship. Plain and simple. No way around it that a president will not use his official capacity to stay in power using corrupt means or violence. Our democracy simply cannot withstand this.
But only if it is "presumptively" considered an "official" act... I guess nixon could have skated by too.
As if this supreme court even worries about things like this. Six new RVs have already been ordered...
The only reason why MAGA fools on here are going to be rejoicing about this is they think Dems and Biden are too weak to do anything like Trump or a right wing dictator would. I say do it.... Biden should absolutely now use his official power to stay in office, and he should order the DOJ to move heaven and earth to put both Trump and the Right wingers on the Supreme Court in jail. Starting with Clarence Thomas who could easily be prosecuted along with his wife. The question is why wouldn't Biden?? Decency... ahahaha. The Supreme Court just told us the gloves are off. Biden would be stupid to allow the country to become a right wing dictatorship instead of using his new dictatorship powers to at least bring some form of Justice to the world.
So, Trump can’t be held accountable, and Supreme Court justices can’t be held accountable. The King and his court.
A more likely and clear cut outcome... the maga court just told trump he will be able to do anything he wants when he wins in November. Since he already said he will be a dictator on Day 1, that he will use the DOJ to go after "enemies", and that he doesn't necessarily see a need to step down in four years. All now supported by this (and other) maga supreme court ruling.
