the lunacy of the 9th Circuit, again

[poptart]

From the same Court that ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.



Moving Sale, your thoughts? :P

Yeah, wave the plunger in the air and along cummeth Moving Stale.

[OCmike]

How does this violate "cruel and unusual punishment" in any way? They could argue that it's an illegal municipal code and violates their civil rights to arrest them for being homeless and I could even get with that on a certain level. But where's the cruel punishment? It's not like they're getting Iraqi volleyball team-type treatment from Uday and Qusay...they're getting three hots and a cot.

[smackaholic]

I hope somebody decides to camp out in front of those assholes' houses.

[The Seer]

We would never consider such nonsense. Many of our citizens would be displaced, and they could perhaps vote in the future.....


Sincerely,



San Francisco

[silvurna]

The Eighth Amendment was written in response to punishments such as 'drawing and quartering'. In short, it isn't objectionable that punishment is carried out, but the METHOD of administering the punishment shall not be cruel...i.e. drawing and quartering is over the line, hang the scoundrel, don't slice him up.

[Risa]

How does this violate "cruel and unusual punishment" in any way?

"Los Angeles' policy of arresting homeless people for sitting, lying or sleeping on public sidewalks as "an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless without shelter" violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and punishment, a federal appeals court ruled today.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, decided in favor of six homeless persons, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. The suit challenged the city's practice of arresting persons for violating a municipal ordinance, which states that "no person shall sit, lie or sleep in or upon any street, sidewalk or public way."

perhaps by not providing them with a place to sit, lie or sleep? or a means to sit, lie or sleep that helps them become productive citizens who are self-sufficient?

instead of merely warehoused (unless they belong in an institution in the first place, except there's no money for institutions if they're just gonna be filled up with illegals right? ;) )

[The Seer]

Risa! Where's your piggyback posts??!!

[ChargerMike]

Risa! Where's your piggyback posts??!!

...Risa was one of the homeless arrested, but should be back on the streets momentarily...


sin. ACLU

[Risa]

Risa! Where's your piggyback posts??!!

...Risa was one of the homeless arrested, but should be back on the streets momentarily...


sin. ACLU

i'm black, and a citizen.

why would they give a fuck about me?

[XXXL]

The beauty of federal judicial appointments is on display. You call it as you see it, take the flak, go back to the bench tommorrow and your seat will be waiting for you...

[Moorese]

Rack the 9th Circuit for not giving a fuck about the rest of American jurisprudence.

[Dinsdale]

Don't they have park benches and overpasses in LA?

As long as they don't crash in the middle of the sidewalk, where's the problem?

[Terry in Crapchester]

The Eighth Amendment was written in response to punishments such as 'drawing and quartering'. In short, it isn't objectionable that punishment is carried out, but the METHOD of administering the punishment shall not be cruel...i.e. drawing and quartering is over the line, hang the scoundrel, don't slice him up.

Respectfully (if that's allowed in here) disagree. The Eighth Amendment has been used to strike down certain punishments (e.g., banishment) as well as certain penalties as applied to some defendants but not others (e.g., capital punishment for rape, or for murder where the perpetrator was a youth or mentally retarded). And the standard for examining Eighth Amendment cases, as ratified by the U.S. Supreme Court, is "evolving standards of decency."

Having said that, I think here the Ninth Circuit probably reached the right result, but for the wrong reasons. Seems to me that the municipal ordinance might very well be overbroad.

[Moving Sale]

Having said that, I think here the Ninth Circuit probably reached the right result, but for the wrong reasons. Seems to me that the municipal ordinance might very well be overbroad.

That or it doesn't even met the Rational Basis test. If it is cheaper to bed them in a homeless shelter, which it is, what could be the Rational Basis for locking them up just to get them off the street?

This is not an 8th Am. case...


... IMHO. :wink:

[Mikey]

A little perspective...

FINDING A WAY HOME
Right result, wrong reason

April 18, 2006

AT FIRST GLANCE, NEWS THAT a federal appeals court has blocked Los Angeles police from arresting people for sleeping on the sidewalks may seem like a big deal. But the ruling and worries that it will make it difficult for the police department to clean up skid row are much ado about almost nothing.

The case began in 2003, when the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging a city ordinance allowing police to fine and jail people for lying or sleeping on public sidewalks. Civil libertarians argued that the law was unnecessarily punitive, especially considering that those living on the sidewalks had little choice; the city did not have enough space for them in shelters. With a novel reading of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution, which bars cruel and unusual punishment, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and on Friday placed an injunction on the city's practice.

Now the city is weighing an appeal, saying police officers need all the tools they can get to wrest back control of downtown Los Angeles. That sounds reasonable — and considering the decision's shaky constitutional reasoning, the case could very well be overturned. Such an appeal, however, would do little to help the city, the police or the homeless.

That's because the police have largely stopped fining or arresting people for sleeping or lounging on public spaces, making this fuss more philosophical than practical. The city would be better off spending its time getting behind a single, well-thought out approach to reducing crime on skid row.

Police Chief William J. Bratton is weighing a plan (which the ACLU supports) based on Rutgers University criminologist George Kelling's "broken windows" approach, which calls for cracking down on lawlessness by flooding downtown with police officers and surveillance cameras and establishing a zero-tolerance mind-set. If the plan is carried out intelligently — and it would require more police officers — it would help reduce crime and homelessness more than simply rounding up everyone asleep on the sidewalk.

Still, even if this plan takes effect, it is important to understand that reducing crime won't solve the region's homelessness problem. If there is something the court got right, it's that Los Angeles has not adequately addressed this issue. There are too few beds in local emergency shelters, and there is a lack of the kind of long-term supportive housing in which other cities have invested heavily in recent years.

That said, there are hopeful signs that the city and county are beginning to change their policies. This momentum, however, could easily fade — especially if the city becomes involved in a lengthy appeals process. True, the court decision includes some fanciful flights of reasoning, which may need to be grounded if they prevent the city from proceeding with its plan. But the decision's core message is one the city has already taken to heart: add more housing for the homeless.

[KatMode]

"no person shall sit, lie or sleep in or upon any street, sidewalk or public way."

That should take care of all those pesky kids playing outside.

[Moving Sale]

Hmmmmmm, I wonder what court gets reversed the most by the USSC?

Thank you for your input Captain Obvious.

[XXXL]

Man I just dropped a general denial answer against an unverified unlimited civil PI action. A 45 yr atty left the door open and I just drove my semi through the hole.

I'm gonna mix my skills with the old fart...l....

[Terry in Crapchester]

Needless to say, this ruling will be overturned quicker than a wino can drop trou and shit in your yard.

Only if the U.S. Supreme Court grants cert. on this case. That's far from a given.

These weirdos need to be put into labor camps and mulched into fertilizer when they croak. It's the least they could do to make themselves useful.

Is that what they mean by "compassionate conservative?"

[Terry in Crapchester]

Needless to say, this ruling will be overturned quicker than a wino can drop trou and shit in your yard.

Only if the U.S. Supreme Court grants cert. on this case.

Or a petition for an en banc rehearing is granted.

True, forgot about that. I stand corrected.

Is that what they mean by "compassionate conservative?"

Not a compassionate conservative.

Is anybody?