If your women vote then you’re next. Or even worse, if your women are your judges. Today’s example:
Homeless’ right to sleep on sidewalk remains, Supreme Court won’t hear case
Homeless’ right to sleep on sidewalk remains, Supreme Court won’t hear case
By Marisa Kendall, 16 December 2019
In a move that could impact how Bay Area cities can respond to their homelessness crises, the U.S. Supreme Court is leaving intact a major ruling that found cities cannot punish the homeless for sleeping outdoors if there is no other option available.
Frigging Sodom Francis-Is-A-Sicko.
A Sept. 4, 2018 ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that penalizing homeless residents for sleeping outdoors on public property — if there is no other shelter available to them — violates the Eight Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishments clause. On Monday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case, meaning the Ninth Circuit ruling stands.
Frigging Ninth Circle of Hell.
The development is a win for advocates of the homeless in the Bay Area and beyond, who have used the Ninth Circuit ruling to argue that police cannot force residents out of encampments on sidewalks and in city parks and impose camping bans in the areas. At the same time, it could tie city officials’ hands as they struggle to help the region’s homeless while also addressing residents’ concerns that sprawling encampments have gotten out of control.
Frigging entitled homeless bums crapping on my doorstep.
The ruling stemmed from a case in Boise, Idaho, that challenged city ordinances that banned camping on streets, sidewalks, parks and other public places. In that case, six homeless residents who were cited by police sued the city. The district court ruled in favor of the city — a judgment that was partly overturned by the Ninth Circuit.
Frigging… whoa, Boise? IDAHO? This ain’t the Gay Area we’re talking about?
And how the heck did six guys who couldn’t rent a motel room find the cash to appeal their case all the way to the top of the judicial system? That mutha is pay-to-play at every step.
We must know more!
It’s cruel and unusual for Boise to ban sleeping on the streets, appeals court rules
https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/article217815780.html
By Rebecca Boone, 4 September 2018
Cities can’t prosecute people for sleeping on the streets if they have nowhere else to go because it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, which is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.
Nobody ever talks about how lawbreakers are cruel and unusual to their victims. Boo hoo, I’m a meth head who can’t go camping in the Hamptons! This is an urgent civil rights issue!
Hmm, the way this is worded, it sounds like private enclaves will remain free of urban blighters..?
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with six homeless people from Boise, who sued the city in 2009 over a local ordinance that banned sleeping in public spaces. The ruling could affect several other cities across the U.S. West that have similar laws.
It comes as many places across the West Coast are struggling with homelessness brought on by rising housing costs and income inequality.
Said costs and inequalities brought to you by the champions of homeless bums.
When the Boise lawsuit was filed, attorneys for the homeless residents said as many as 4,500 people didn’t have a place to sleep in Idaho’s capital city and homeless shelters only had about 700 available beds or mats. The case bounced back and forth in the courts for years, and Boise modified its rules in 2014 to say homeless people couldn’t be prosecuted for sleeping outside when shelters were full.
But that’s what the journalists said the 9th Circus ruled??? What’s the real story?
But that didn’t solve the problem, the attorneys said, because Boise’s shelters limit the number of days that homeless residents can stay. Two of the city’s three shelters also require some form of religious participation for some programs, making those shelters unsuitable for people with different beliefs, the homeless residents said.
There it is. Boise is unfriendly to CHRIST-HATING homeless bums who get taught moral conduct in return for a hot meal!
The three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit found that the shelter rules meant homeless people would still be at risk of prosecution even on days when beds were open. The judges also said the religious programming woven into some shelter programs was a problem.
“A city cannot, via the threat of prosecution, coerce an individual to attend religion-based treatment programs consistently with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment,” Judge Marsha Berzon wrote.
This picture is taken from her youTube acceptance speech for the 2007 Margaret Brent Award. Per the American Bar Association, “Margaret Brent was the first woman lawyer in America, arriving in the colonies in 1638. The Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award, established by the Commission in 1991, recognizes and celebrates the accomplishments of women lawyers who have excelled in their field and have paved the way to success for other women lawyers.”
This is a direct assault upon Christianity. We do good works in order to honor Christ and teach His morality, not to “perform our social responsibility” or some such dreck. How is it that Christianity cannot be extolled in public but secular humanism can? We get sued all the way to SCOTUS if we tell a fag to take his business elsewhere.
If Boise gov’t doesn’t push back hard on this then they’ll be revealed as naturally, deliberately Godless as every Commiefornia shithole.
The biggest issue was that the city’s rule violated the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment, the court found. The amendment limits what the government can criminalize, it said.
Women consider “cruel and unusual” to be whatever men consider “public decency”. Heck, they think it’s cruel and unusual to check IDs to prevent vote fraud, which tells you everything you need to know about them.
“As a result, just as the state may not criminalize the state of being ‘homeless in public places,’ the state may not ‘criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless — namely sitting, lying, or sleeping on the streets,’” Berzon wrote.
They didn’t as of five years ago. But Christ stayed on the books so the lawsuit did, too.
The ruling shows it’s time for Boise officials to start proposing “real solutions,” said Maria Foscarinis, executive director of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, whose attorneys were among those representing the homeless residents.
A Greek immigrant to NYC, graduated Columbia Law, a boilerplate feminist who thinks poverty exists because government hasn’t redistributed enough wealth yet.
“Criminally punishing homeless people for sleeping on the street when they have nowhere else to go is inhumane, and we applaud the court for holding that it is also unconstitutional,” Foscarinis said in a statement.
They could, maybe, sleep somewhere besides the streets of downtown? Perhaps on Foscarinis’ front lawn?
Boise spokesman Mike Journee said city attorneys were considering their next steps, which could include asking the full 9th Circuit to reconsider the ruling or appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Better idea, send them to Columbia Law School en masse. They can be as homeless there as anywhere else. Alinskyites aren’t the only people who can Crash the System. I’m sure the law students there will appreciate early exposure to the Brave New World they’re being taught to build.
I almost said “send ’em to San Francisco” but that really would be cruel.
But city officials also believe the ruling validates the approach Boise officers have taken since 2014 — not ticketing homeless people when shelters are full, he said.
“If there are, as a result of the ruling, adjustments that need to be made, we’ll consider those when the time comes,” Journee said.
Other cities have faced similar lawsuits, with varying results.
In 2007, the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of homeless residents of Los Angeles, finding that as long as there are more homeless residents than there are shelter beds, a law outlawing sleeping outside was unconstitutional. Both sides later reached an agreement and the entire case was eventually thrown out.
In 2009, a federal judge said a Portland, Oregon, policy designed to prevent people from sitting or lying on public sidewalks was unconstitutional. Portland officials now must also give campers at least 24 hours’ notice before cleaning up or moving unsanctioned camps.
A state judge rejected a similar anti-camping law in Everett, Washington.
The usual suspects. The problem here is obvious, of course. No matter how much free, permanent shelter the government builds, demand will always exceed supply. It’s impossible to accommodate the Gimmiedats to the point of having no unsatisfied Gimmiedats left on the planet.
Sara Rankin, a professor at the Seattle University School of Law and director of its Homeless Rights Advocacy Project, said the ruling will serve as a wake-up call to local governments, forcing them to invest in adequate supportive housing for the chronically homeless.
“I think it’s finally common sense,” Rankin said of the ruling. “There are certain life-sustaining activities that people can’t survive without doing. It’s a really important recognition that people have to be able to legally exist and survive somewhere.”
What a battleaxe. Angled eyebrows for conflict, raised cheeks for dominance and manjaw. Middle third of the face is the largest, signaling ambition/status orientation. Also, notice her lips. The lower is considerably thicker than the upper. Men usually have a thicker lower lip, women a thicker upper. Top it off with slight hooding of the eyes and I bet her personality is toxic even by feminist standards.
The earrings are a hopelessly inadequate effort to appear feminine.
I found an article profiling the six “plaintiffs” while looking for who actually prosecuted the lawsuit. Appears to be Boise-local trial lawyers rather than a national outfit such as the ACLU, although funding remains unknown. This is a shameless piece of journalistic drama but not devoid of interest:
[Pamela] Hawkes had moved with a boyfriend to Boise, Idaho, from Spokane, Wash., looking for a fresh start after becoming homeless in 2005. Instead of finding a city where they could get their lives back on track, Ms. Hawkes said, she faced repeated jailings that caused her emotional and mental health to deteriorate.
Where’s the boyfriend? Did he kick her out and why? Most people don’t change cities (although Spokane to Boise isn’t far) without having something or someone waiting for them on the other end.
Officers would go on to cite her on 11 more occasions in 2006 and 2007, including times when Ms. Hawkes said there was no available shelter space, forcing her onto the streets.
Including, but not always? Were there times she refused to go to the shelter?
“Even though we did our best to stay hidden and out of view, we were still being found,” Ms. Hawkes said from Spokane, where she recently secured housing and learned this week that she would have a part-time job at a laundromat.
Most people working part-time at menial labor in middle age are either drug addicts or crazies. Spokane is not a poverty-stricken region.
Robert Martin could not stay in any of the shelters in Boise in 2009, his lawyers said, so he slept in the bushes near Interstate 84, near a shelter where his wife and son were sleeping. He was cited for camping. Mr. Martin is now living out of a vehicle in northern Idaho and working dishwashing jobs, according to Howard Belodoff, a lawyer who has worked on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Not with his wife & son? What’s that story? Did the shelter discriminate against men? I already know one church-sponsored shelter in Los Angeles that rejects men. It’s probably not unique.
Lawrence Lee Smith had become chronically homeless after a career in construction, at times living in a camper van or in shelters. Mr. Belodoff said that on one occasion, Mr. Smith lost the vehicle he had been sleeping in, along with his belongings. Mr. Belodoff said the last time the two spoke, Mr. Smith had qualified for Social Security benefits and found a place to live outside Boise.
Sounds like a typical bum. Why did that construction career end?
Robert Anderson had been staying at the Boise Rescue Mission, but his lawyers said in court filings that he was forced to leave because of a rule at the shelter limiting how long he could remain without enrolling in religious programming. Mr. Belodoff said Mr. Anderson is still in Boise and still mostly homeless, but is currently staying with someone.
Fuck him. He’d rather be homeless than learn about Christ? Done deal, parasite!
Basil E. Humphrey’s difficulties staying sober resulted in him being kicked out of a program at the Boise Rescue Mission, according to his lawyers. With no place to go, he began sleeping outside. Mr. Belodoff said the lawyers lost contact with Mr. Humphrey in recent years.
Presumably not a happy kind of drunk.
Janet F. Bell received repeated citations or threats from Boise police that prompted her to go outside the city limits and sleep in the bed of a pickup truck, according to filings by her lawyers. She has disability and mental health issues that have made it impossible for her to work, Mr. Belodoff said, but she now receives Social Security support and has qualified for city-supported housing in Boise.
So out of these six, two are already on the dole, three are unstable (drugs/psycho) and not safe to allow on the streets, one “just quit” his career, one chose homelessness over Christ and one guy reads like a VAWA victim. The latter has my sympathy. The others can go to Hell Mexico. Much warmer there than Boise and all the murders and vacated homes make housing cheap!
Had there been any working homeless, I would have had sympathy for them also. Will probably be there myself in a few years. Heck, Sacramento is making the RV life look like the easy way out.
Make insane asylums, not homeless shelters. And learn to tell feminists “No”. It is completely unacceptable for a judge to overrule a city’s ordinances in support of a political agenda.
They see everything through their little girl ‘it hurts my little fee fee’ filter. There’s just no reasoning in in them. You dumb fucking white knights better start thinking with your big heads are they are going to completely finish off what’s left of the west. Damn cunts are so unbearably stupid and some of these weak piss boy men should never have been given a dick.
If the weak soy boys had learned to say NO in the first place we wouldn’t have inherited the fucking disaster known as “women’s lib”. The funny thing is that in the end more and more of them just end up becoming dried up old cat ladies. Too bad they manage to kill the west while doing it.
Put the cunts back in their place you weak-willed morons or you’ll just be conquered by thugs who will. Oh, it totally destroys your gynocentric utopian vision? Well tough dumb ass. It doesn’t match reality. DUH! Why is this so fucking hard at this point for these idiots to understand? It’s not rocket science.
This is why women need to have children and get out of the lawyer business. If they don’t they turn their maternal instincts into destructive behavior like welcoming refugees or making sure the homeless have a concrete bed to sleep and defecate on.
They’re going to have to be forced to. They won’t do it willingly.
Yes. They play mommy at the political level instead of at the family level. There’s many reasons women were kept at home and it wasn’t because men were just being pigs or some shit like they accuse us of. BTW, they’re BS accusations are almost always massive projection on their part.
Thank you Ronald Reagan for ending state institutions that housed these people
I have yet to meet a sane woman in the practice of law
You all know, of course, that the courts will very soon be told to go autofornicate once epidemics of typhus and plague start breaking out. The few civilized people remaining in California will have two choices, and only two choices:
1. Leave for one of the saner states, or
2. Adopt the Ernst Roehm model and declare open season –literally– on the human refuse turning their state into a toilet.
There will be no third option.
“1. Leave for one of the saner states”
Wasn’t Idaho supposed to be one of those?
Wasn’t Idaho supposed to be one of those [saner states]?
Apparently it was, until they discovered, entirely too late, that not having a selective immigration policy is a surefire way erase sanity. We here in Arizona discovered that too late as well.