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.
In true American fashion dating all the way back to its founding, you only matter if you own property.
you only matter if you own property.
While technically true… There is a difference between a guy owning a factory and a guy owning a home.
They are not the same lol
This is pedantic and totally irrelevant to the topic of homeless having no place to simply exist.
Unless of course you are trying to highlight the billions of unhoused factory owners?
unhoused factory owners
Are you counting the fact that Elon lives in a trailer down by the river launchpad?
Class warfare scorecard.
Having more homes than you need even ones you never sleep in, legal.
Having zero homes and having to sleep on the streets, illegal.
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.
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.
What was their reason for this decision?
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.
“That includes California, which is home to one-third of the country’s homeless population.”
Why do these statements never follow immediately stating that California is also 10% of the ENTIRE country’s population and it’s where all of the livable weather is if you have no option but to sleep outside. Of course a lot of them are in California. We need a new deal.
Eh, it’s not just the weather. It’s cities in general. Look at Philly. Winter sucks there but still tons of homeless.
It’'s not just the big cities with homeless problems, it’s basically everywhere that’s not RURAL, and even then you still see them
When other places send them here, it’s gonna be a problem
Weathers only part of it, a large part is cost of living and especially housing costs. People have this idea that people become mentally unwell drug addicts then lose housing then move to California for the better weather/ more compassionate state. In reality a lot of it is the reverse, people live in California, lose they’re housing due to astronomical rents, then they become mentally unwell drug addicts due to the pain and trauma they suffer on the streets.
Last point still stands though, we do need a green new deal to give these people housing and employ them in meaningful jobs to help the green transition.
I see people living homeless outside in New England daily, even in the winter. That discrepancy has to be fed by more than just weather.
What discrepancy?
Are you implying that the presence of any homeless people in New England invalidates the idea that consistently favorable weather leads to a higher ratio of homeless people living in an area?
Probably also matters long term vs short term. When someone first becomes homeless, it usually happens where they were already living regardless of the weather. Over time, people may move to where it is more comfortable to sleep outside.
So, all cities have new homeless people plus some that just never leave. And then warm areas have new homeless people plus the long term homeless people who risked traveling to get to warmer temperatures.
I could have been more clear on that. If 1/3 of homeless live in CA and CA makes up 1/10 the population, then CA has disproportionately high homeless population as compared the other states.
I was get at the point that there isn’t one cause for CA having this disparity, another commenter pointed out housing prices for one example. And that other parts of the country, even ones with harsh seasons, are still livable albeit not as hospitable.
Isn’t the average home price in California more than double the average of New England?
True, but also the consequences of living homeless in New England would force you to either come up with some kind of way to afford shelter or move south. Whereas more homeless people die on the streets in California than you might expect, but the perception is that you can live outdoors safely all year. So there’s less incentive to scrape together enough money for a home.
Add to that, very few people move to New England with a crazy idealistic view of their opportunities to make it big. If they move there at all, it’s because they have a job lined up. Dreamers crash and burn in California every day.
In case you ever need led hardproof that America is not a Christian Nation.
Trying to decide if the war is on homelessness or on the homeless. 🤔
We have more empty homes than we do the homeless. If this country wanted a war on homelessness, it’d be over in a year. And that’s just the time it’d take to organize the moves. It isn’t even entirely correct to say this is a war on the homeless, either. It’s much broader than that and this conflict has been going on since time immemorial.
This is the class war and we’re losing.
Well, no, they aren’t fighting homelessness at all, that would mean trying to reduce, not to mention eliminate it.
Capitalists want homelessness, so that they have a whole under class of people to lock up and exploit, and that also serve as a warning to the rest of the working class.
The war is definitely against the homeless, not homelessness.
