Supreme Court To Decide If Being Homeless Can Be A Crime
Added 2024-06-03 06:53:36 +0000 UTCOA1038
Today we're joined by Vox Senior Correspondent, Ian Millhiser! In his reporting, Ian focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. Ian gives us an excellent and comprehensive breakdown of Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case that could be decided any day now. As usual with this Court, the question is: How scared should we be?
Check out Ian's excellent article and other reporting here.
Comments
I am a legal assistant and I've never identified with a judge more than the font rant.
Bunnywithaswitchblade
2024-06-07 12:52:23 +0000 UTCNot the next episode post yet but listener Todd T. Odd asks, as always "what the hell is judge Canon doing?"
ToddTheOdd
2024-06-04 23:55:32 +0000 UTCI hope not, a militia of homeless people taking over a fancy hotel would be fuckin sweet.
Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping
2024-06-04 14:25:59 +0000 UTCHey, I also thought law school was fun! There are dozens of us!
Vehicular Man's Laughter ... Oh I just realized it's 'car' from WTW ... he's so good at Codenames he can play it blind
2024-06-03 23:06:31 +0000 UTCThis question is a bit provocative, I’ll admit. Does being homeless strip individual 2nd amendment rights?
Austin Flake
2024-06-03 21:39:35 +0000 UTCThis
Pixel Mountain (aka Rachel)
2024-06-03 16:25:10 +0000 UTCFrom the start of this conversation my mind immediately went to the fact that it should be our (the public and the governments we elect to represent us) responsibility to take care of people so they are housed, rather than try to find ways to get rid of them. And my mind went from, “This is the responsibility of the local government, i.e. Grant’s Pass” to, “But of course that would only be true and reasonable if all the levels of government, up to and including the federal government, were also responsible.” In other words, we should have a structure and systems that prevent the kind of poverty and mental illness (including addiction) that result in homelessness. If we had that, there would be no need to make laws trying to deal with people who are unhoused. I can see how all of the above can sound like bleeding-heart-liberal drivel. It’s not though. It’s logical, as well as ethical.
Pixel Mountain (aka Rachel)
2024-06-03 16:24:54 +0000 UTCThat opened the flood gates to all the voter suppression laws that were essentially passed the next day
Lawrence Frank
2024-06-03 13:45:54 +0000 UTCThe worst case of the Supreme Court disrespecting the legislative process and will of the people could be Shelby county v Holder which gutted the voting rights act that congress passed by 97-0 or something.
Lawrence Frank
2024-06-03 13:45:13 +0000 UTCWe must be down quotas in the private prison system. Gotta figure out more ways of getting headcount.
Richard Scott
2024-06-03 13:26:01 +0000 UTCThe answer will be: it's cruel, but it's not unusual, carry on.
Guy Chapman, the Solutions Archaeologist
2024-06-03 11:08:53 +0000 UTCAt some point someone must be looking at how much money it costs to implement a law like this and get it through the Supreme Court and go... Wouldn't it just be cheaper, easier, and more productive to just house the homeless people?
Unlikable Internet Goblin
2024-06-03 11:01:22 +0000 UTC
