Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2024/06/28/scotus-denying-homeless-people-a-place-to-sleep-is-not-cruel-or-unusual.html
…
13 Likes
“Homelessness is complex,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the ruling.
Not really, it means you don’t have a fucking home!
Concerns (or not) about causes and cures are a distraction from that, and that people need to be able to sleep.
38 Likes
More terribleness from scotus.
Presidential immunity? Anyone? Bueller?
We knew this was coming, but still:
18 Likes
I think certain members of this court have forgotten that not everyone has their own personal Emotional Support Billionaire who can float them a free RV when they don’t have a place lined up to spend the night.
30 Likes
Yeah, so stuff that was legislated, tested in court, should be … legislated again … until they get it the way our rich BFFs want it?
16 Likes
12 Likes
Complete bullshit. One doesn’t have to assess the causes of homelessness to say people shouldn’t be arrested or fined for not having a home to sleep in
23 Likes
Here’s the fun catch kids!
The logic of the legal system says that something has to be cruel AND unusual.
Not cruel OR unusual.
So, if it’s usual, it can be as cruel as you want!
That’s part of why prison conditions are so shitty.
8 Likes
To say that overturning Chevron will be consequential is a massive understatement. There will now be a flurry of lawsuits over all kinds of agency rules. The federal judiciary is about to be buried under an avalanche of lawsuits. They will regret this decision. Any disagreement of an agency’s interpretation of its rules will now have to be adjudicated in court. This is bad. This is very, very bad.
20 Likes
Pretty much every law applicable to my field will now be up for argument. Fuuuuuuuck!!!
18 Likes
… they will not, however, be harassed while trying to sleep outdoors 
17 Likes
“conservatives” (i now call them radicals) are so cruel. if Jesus could hate on a group, that one would be it.
3 Likes
Damn it! The word is REACTIONARY!
17 Likes
reactionary is fine, but i’m sticking with “radical” as there is no precedent they won’t overturn.
1 Like
Revolutionary = wants rapid change and will go outside established law to achieve it
Radical = wants rapid change but will mostly stay within the law (there are exceptions to this for radicals in dictatorships)
Reformist = wants slow change, will not break the law
Conservative = wants to maintain the status quo, may accept very slow change but only if they think it is absolutely necessary
Reactionary = opposes any changes, wants to go back to an idealised past whether real or imagined
I can’t call the Republicans radical under these definitions.
14 Likes
The linked text says that established cases should not / will not be affected by this ruling:
But, in an important caveat, Roberts noted that the decision does “not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful–including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself–are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology.”
@danimagoo So will it enable hundreds of past decisions to be relitigated if this ruling “does not call into question prior cases”?
4 Likes
I’m not talking about relitigating old decisions. I’m talking about new lawsuits challenging existing rules. Also, I don’t trust anything Roberts says.
13 Likes
@anon73430903 is correct… they are reactionaries…
In order to bring us back to a pre-Enlightenment order, though. They are not interested in actual change, but in turning back the hands of time where NONE of us had rights. Reactionary fits better…
11 Likes
Would you say it is then wrong to speak of the “Radical Right”? I’m asking because appears that this term is used for the mindset we’re discussing here.
1 Like
I think it’s STILL a reactionary stance. The use of “radical” is often an appropriation by the right, in order to give their movement a “counter-cultural” veneer in order to bring in young people into their movements (see far right in Britain trying to use punk/skinhead culture to recruit for the far right movement).
We should ask: Is a “trad wife” a radical, since her entire thing is trying to convince women to subjugate themselves to men? Are people seeking to reinstate Jim Crow type segregation “radical”? Are Christians seeking to impose their “values” on the rest of us “radical” since it’s seeking to roll back progress made by everyone who isn’t a white man? 
Language is often used to hide reality. It can also be used to push back against that.
16 Likes
