22
I thought this was a pro-conservative community? Mods out here posting excellent reasons to never vote conservative.
At this point the rule that only allows pro-conservative posts is just shooting themselves in the foot and having the exact opposite intended effect. Personally I’m cool with that.
So where is this ‘indoors’ then that is acceptable?
Prison, of course. In this case it'll be debtors prison in everything but name.
This is a great strategy. Let's see how much blood they can squeeze from those stones. Can't afford a place to live? Lets charge rent for that park bench!
But of course the real idea here is to give municipalities the ability to harass people. It's certainly not about the fines. The less annoying homeless will be driven off by the harassment and then all that will be left is the annoying ones which might be a more manageable number to throw in jail.
They should mail the ticket to there house. If the don't pay it just get a warrent to seize there home.
Wow, talk about hate...
That is so fucked up. So a homeless person is forced into the shelter system, regardless of whether it’s of good or terrible quality.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Supreme Court ruled Friday in favor of an Oregon city that ticketed homeless people for sleeping outside, rejecting arguments that such “anti-camping” ordinances violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment.
“The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy,” Gorsuch wrote in his majority opinion.
Nor can a handful of federal judges begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness.”
In a move that underscored her discontent with the court’s ruling, Sotomayor took the rare step of reading her dissent from the bench on Friday.
Grants Pass argued that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual” punishment was aimed at torture or hard labor sentences, not tickets.
“These are low-level fines and very short jail terms for repeat offenders that are in effect in many other jurisdictions,” the attorney, Theane Evangelis, said during the April 22 oral arguments.
The original article contains 695 words, the summary contains 181 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
22 points (70.4% liked)
Conservative
382 readers
14 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS