The Supreme Court

[Mickey]

The goal of that book was to sell books.

That's the goal of all books.

Allow me to introduce you to academic publishing.

[Green Habit]

The goal of that book was to sell books.

That's the goal of all books.

Allow me to introduce you to academic publishing.

Oh, there's a different type of selling that goes on with that.

[Mickey]

The goal of that book was to sell books.

That's the goal of all books.

Allow me to introduce you to academic publishing.

Oh, there's a different type of selling that goes on with that.

I wouldn't disagree with that at all.

[Green Habit]

[simple schoolboy]

Eugenicists were morally abhorrent, but at least they valued the sanctity of life, and greatly preferred sterilization to abortion.

No mention of the demographics of abortion as practiced since Roe. Seems like that might be informative.

[Mickey]

Eugenicists were morally abhorrent, but at least they valued the sanctity of life, and greatly preferred sterilization to abortion.

No mention of the demographics of abortion as practiced since Roe. Seems like that might be informative.

[Green Habit]

Curious as to what some of you think about this case that's been a huge battle here for a decade and is now going to petition for cert:

I have a really hard time buying into the idea that you have to allow people to sleep on any public property, or else it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. I hope SCOTUS grants cert and at the very least narrows this ruling to allow for some sort of reasonable regulation on this. I also think a Due Process or Equal Protection Clause challenge makes way more sense than an Eighth Amendment challenge.

[Alex]

The goal of that book was to sell books.

That's the goal of all books.

Allow me to introduce you to academic publishing.

can you introduce that concept to thodoks? i want to see that quote pyramid. just in case i ever need to de-escalate a boner.

[Green Habit]

[simple schoolboy]

Curious as to what some of you think about this case that's been a huge battle here for a decade and is now going to petition for cert:

I have a really hard time buying into the idea that you have to allow people to sleep on any public property, or else it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. I hope SCOTUS grants cert and at the very least narrows this ruling to allow for some sort of reasonable regulation on this. I also think a Due Process or Equal Protection Clause challenge makes way more sense than an Eighth Amendment challenge.

This kind of thing is how you get San Francisco or Los Angeles. Those living on the street are not the people with "housing insecurity" or those that just lost a job.

Almost all of those living in tents on the street are mentally ill or are IV drug users or both.

In LA, the police cannot impound their belongings without a court order, because the typhus spreading rat filled piles of garbage must be treated with the utmost respect.

Even San Francisco seems to be waking up to the idea that this segment of population might require forcing people into treatment:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washi ... utType=amp

[McParadigm]

Almost all of those living in tents on the street are mentally ill or are IV drug users or both.

This is a bit broad but has a truth to it. I think the point that we will eventually have to concede as a society is that addressing homelessness often involves caring for mental illnesses that cannot be resolved.

If it wasn’t for the care network of friends and family that we set up, and have had to work endlessly to maintain, my stepson would be homeless. The head trauma he suffered in his car accident is irreparable, and the intellectual and behavioral consequences of it can’t be trained or medicated out of him. He has a family that wants to and can protect him from a lot of the danger in that, and he has us to fit the bill. Many people don’t have anything like that network, or their supporters face hard limits to how they can help.

Until society is ready to pay for that level of care, society is really just looking for ways to get the homeless out of their line of sight.

[simple schoolboy]

Almost all of those living in tents on the street are mentally ill or are IV drug users or both.

This is a bit broad but has a truth to it. I think the point that we will eventually have to concede as a society is that addressing homelessness often involves caring for mental illnesses that cannot be resolved.

If it wasn’t for the care network of friends and family that we set up, and have had to work endlessly to maintain, my stepson would be homeless. The head trauma he suffered in his car accident is irreparable, and the intellectual and behavioral consequences of it can’t be trained or medicated out of him. He has a family that wants to and can protect him from a lot of the danger in that, and he has us to fit the bill. Many people don’t have anything like that network, or their supporters face hard limits to how they can help.

Until society is ready to pay for that level of care, society is really just looking for ways to get the homeless out of their line of sight.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

A family network is probably the most important aspect of this, but is still sometimes not sufficient.

Tales like that of your stepson are those of support systems working. Does anyone have a conservator-ship for your stepson? My understanding is that its very difficult to get someone judged unable to care for themselves and get a family member or the state declared their conservator (or whatever the proper term is).

We went completely against institutionalizing those who cannot care for themselves, and this is where we are now. It seems that some number of untreated schizophrenics refuse to sleep indoors. These are a significant portion that need the state to either step in to make psychiatric/ substance abuse care decisions for them, or to enable family members to make these decisions for them.

I'm not convinced that payment for care is in the top three issues for this. Erring on the side of liberty for those who are not functional adults in any sense seems to be the biggest issue. Per an endless parade of activist city and regional lawsuit settlements, they have a right to live in their filth on the street no matter how incapable they are of caring for themselves. The ACLU's excess in sympathy has not helped matters, but it hasn't really touched on the core issues. There's no shortage of outreach workers and volunteer homeless census takers. Not to mention the cost savings of not having these individuals ending up in the ER every 8 weeks or so.

Opening this up to the wider concept of homelessness not specific to mental illness/ injury/ IV drug usage- those with legit, visible housing insecurity in this area tend to live in RVs. In the past few years, a huge number of RVs started becoming semi-permanent fixtures. I'm not sure the breakdown between RV residents actively employed and those receiving Social Security/ SSDI, but I certainly hope these folks trend towards the latter.

[Green Habit]

There should be at least a 20 year moratorium on SCOTUS hiring clerks from Ivy League schools.

[B]

There should be a 20 year moratorium on Ivy League schools.

[Mickey]

There should be a 20 year moratorium on Ivy League schools.

Wait until I graduate but then yeah okay

[McParadigm]

Interesting voting spread

[Chris_H_2]

i'm not really surprised by the spread, considering the decision was really about standing and not the substance of the voting districts.

[Green Habit]

i'm not really surprised by the spread, considering the decision was really about standing and not the substance of the voting districts.

Yeah, this reminded me of the unusual spread in Hollingsworth v. Perry. Roberts/Scalia/Ginsburg/Breyer/Kagan denied standing, while Kennedy/Thomas/Alito/Sotomayor dissented.

In other SCOTUS news, the dual sovereignty doctrine remains.

[Bi_3]

i'm not really surprised by the spread, considering the decision was really about standing and not the substance of the voting districts.

Yeah, this reminded me of the unusual spread in Hollingsworth v. Perry. Roberts/Scalia/Ginsburg/Breyer/Kagan denied standing, while Kennedy/Thomas/Alito/Sotomayor dissented.

In other SCOTUS news, the dual sovereignty doctrine remains.

I was unfamiliar with dual sovereignty until now. That’s an uncomfortable precedent

[Green Habit]

SCOTUS continues to create a huge clusterfuck with what to do with monuments on public property with religious elements.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 7_4f14.pdf