Gorsuch’s conclusion that a truck driver could keep his job only by freezing to death tells you all you really need to know, not just about his fitness to be a judge but about his fitness to be a human being. I guess it’s hard to avoid being a monster when your mother was Grendel. But, still, there is something terribly malformed about Gorsuch as a person. I wouldn’t allow him within 50 feet of children or pets.
It never fails to stymie me that throughout all the talk about Trump and his various lawsuits we all solemnly chant, “No one is above the law!”
Apparently, this is typical lib disingenuousness … for it seems in the MAGA world, the Right White Republican, as embodied by the six SCOTUS justices, *is* above the law.
Thomas and Alito, the eldest and most sclerotic, willingly and unethically accept “gratuities” for their conservatism and to let politics define their actions, not the law; the Chief Justice is happy to oversee the dissolution of Civil Rights laws, federal oversight and is delighted to have the Right White purchase politicians (Citizens United); and now Gorsuch, sclerotic-in-training and Kavanaugh. (I am undecided on Justice Barrett.)
And don’t get me started on the Rs in the House of Representatives …
There he goes again, making up facts. Like "this would apply to backpackers." Would it be a defense to the statute if you moved your car? Since the car is private--it is the street that is public--having the car in a different place would be like the backpacker moving through without claiming a bit of concrete as "home." Same goes for the doorways--a new one each night. Though doorways, come to think of it, aren't really public.
The opinion is a bit curious. The opinion spends seven pages talking about various policies used to fight homelessness. Then, we start to learn about the actual policy. The full discussion of the actual case (after a long footnote that notes the many groups that supports the appeal) starts on page 15.
Then, we get a few pages of what this case is not about. The discussion of Robinson starts on page 18. We have more general stuff. The specific (about how this is a camping law) is page 20. There are about 15 more pages but there is more generalized discussion. SCOTUS opinions are supposed to have a general reach to some extent. But, this one seems to spend a limited amount on the actual dispute.
Gorsuch also (by SCOTUSBlog lights) spent more time with his opinion announcement than usual. Gorsuch by past reports would have been okay with ending opinion announcements altogether.
I'm not proud to admit that I've been homeless several times in my life due to things out of my control. As soon as I tired of that crap, I figured something out. The way you're treated as a homeless person is less than human for certain. I got chased all over the city I lived in because I was parking my car in places that others considered undesirable. Shelters are horrendously awful and people are out there because there might not be any space for them in those damn things. Their rules are enough to make you want to sleep outside.
The 6 SCOTUS are some of the worst I've ever seen in my life. Almost 7 decades of observing their behavior. None too close and I'm glad I have these blogs/articles to read now. Breaks down what I couldn't get beyond with legal jargon. Thanks, Chris.
Chris, thank you for keeping us informed in laymen’s terms so that the rest of us can understand. Gorsech’s thinking is an excellent of the way conservatives think, and that is why I love the reasoning and the writings of the liberals on the court. Liberals are for the People. And so am I.
Kind of reminds me of the good old days back in Medieval times when people were thrown into debtors’ prison.
Yet again the "conservatives" hammer home Rule 1: Cruelty is the point.
Gorsuch’s conclusion that a truck driver could keep his job only by freezing to death tells you all you really need to know, not just about his fitness to be a judge but about his fitness to be a human being. I guess it’s hard to avoid being a monster when your mother was Grendel. But, still, there is something terribly malformed about Gorsuch as a person. I wouldn’t allow him within 50 feet of children or pets.
Another brick in the wall of Republican appointed judges being malignant narcissists like trump.
And over turning Chevron.
That was the icing on their
cake this week. Ugh.
I wonder if Gorsuch even
thought about why there's a
homeless problem in Grants
Pass. Beginning to think that
some of these Supremes
don't think.
That was Friday’s newsletter.
When it rains, their feet don't get wet. They live in a different reality, actually a fantasy land. They should all be put in an insane asylum.
It never fails to stymie me that throughout all the talk about Trump and his various lawsuits we all solemnly chant, “No one is above the law!”
Apparently, this is typical lib disingenuousness … for it seems in the MAGA world, the Right White Republican, as embodied by the six SCOTUS justices, *is* above the law.
Thomas and Alito, the eldest and most sclerotic, willingly and unethically accept “gratuities” for their conservatism and to let politics define their actions, not the law; the Chief Justice is happy to oversee the dissolution of Civil Rights laws, federal oversight and is delighted to have the Right White purchase politicians (Citizens United); and now Gorsuch, sclerotic-in-training and Kavanaugh. (I am undecided on Justice Barrett.)
And don’t get me started on the Rs in the House of Representatives …
What kind of human beings are these Republican justices? Shame on them.
Since these unhoused people are obviously unable to pay fines, Gorsuch seems to be feeding his for-profit prison buddies some more slave labor.😡
There's absolutely zero chance that he's on the take from the CEO from a for-profit prison company. None at all. No reason to look into such things...
You don't know who he's on the take from. Still thuggish behavior.
Agreed on both points. Just wouldn't be surprised, is all.
There he goes again, making up facts. Like "this would apply to backpackers." Would it be a defense to the statute if you moved your car? Since the car is private--it is the street that is public--having the car in a different place would be like the backpacker moving through without claiming a bit of concrete as "home." Same goes for the doorways--a new one each night. Though doorways, come to think of it, aren't really public.
Nice to see you on Strict Scrutiny.
The opinion is a bit curious. The opinion spends seven pages talking about various policies used to fight homelessness. Then, we start to learn about the actual policy. The full discussion of the actual case (after a long footnote that notes the many groups that supports the appeal) starts on page 15.
Then, we get a few pages of what this case is not about. The discussion of Robinson starts on page 18. We have more general stuff. The specific (about how this is a camping law) is page 20. There are about 15 more pages but there is more generalized discussion. SCOTUS opinions are supposed to have a general reach to some extent. But, this one seems to spend a limited amount on the actual dispute.
Gorsuch also (by SCOTUSBlog lights) spent more time with his opinion announcement than usual. Gorsuch by past reports would have been okay with ending opinion announcements altogether.
Chris,
Thank you! SCOTUS adopts fetal heartbeat of Grants Pass ordinance murdering homeless birthright.
I'm not proud to admit that I've been homeless several times in my life due to things out of my control. As soon as I tired of that crap, I figured something out. The way you're treated as a homeless person is less than human for certain. I got chased all over the city I lived in because I was parking my car in places that others considered undesirable. Shelters are horrendously awful and people are out there because there might not be any space for them in those damn things. Their rules are enough to make you want to sleep outside.
The 6 SCOTUS are some of the worst I've ever seen in my life. Almost 7 decades of observing their behavior. None too close and I'm glad I have these blogs/articles to read now. Breaks down what I couldn't get beyond with legal jargon. Thanks, Chris.
Chris, thank you for keeping us informed in laymen’s terms so that the rest of us can understand. Gorsech’s thinking is an excellent of the way conservatives think, and that is why I love the reasoning and the writings of the liberals on the court. Liberals are for the People. And so am I.
So I guess laws against robbing banks criminalizes poverty
There is no excuse for the Supreme Courts behavior. ND apples, they are rotten to the core.
I had that exact thought...
How far away from that are we?