City of Grants Pass...

[Aardvark86]

Fascinating argument about whether the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) precludes arrest of homeless camping out in state parks.

I'm not sure I've heard an argument where "policy", as contrasted with 'law', seems to be as front and center as it is here. Very theoretical issue about whether homelessness is a 'status' and when it begins and ends (eg, where shelter is otherwise available)

BTW, very disappointed to hear justice Jackson use the horribly wordsalad phrase of "persons experiencing homelessness". Passive voice is never your friend, nor is three words when one will do; nor is nine syllables when two will do.

 

[millah_22]

Really kind of an interesting case. These people have nowhere to go. Making being homeless "illegal" just pushes people down and endless cycle of the judicial system. Grants Pass has pretty stiff city ordinances, so people move out to the woods.

I hate campers in the woods. If you follow any trail long enough you're bound to end up at a camp. It's a mess, it's unsafe, it's unhealthy, and often hostile. But again, when they're pushed out of town, where do they go? The woods or jail, right?

As for "persons experiencing homelessness" is correct. Homeless, homeowner, apartment dweller, doesn't define a person.

 

[h-hawk]

Shouldn't it be based on if the park allows camping and for how long? Do these people deserve more rights than anyone else? Some national or state organization has to come up with places for the homeless (who are often druggies or mentally ill) to stay where they and the public are both safe.

 

[millah_22]

Shouldn't it be based on if the park allows camping and for how long? Do these people deserve more rights than anyone else? Some national or state organization has to come up with places for the homeless (who are often druggies or mentally ill) to stay where they and the public are both safe.

It's kind of apples and oranges. Think more like encampments/tent cities instead of outdoorsmen type camping. Most camping in the state parks requires a day permit/daily fee. I'm doubting any of these people are paying that.

As for shelters. A lot of it is NIMBY. Shelters need to be in a place near public transit, a place near amenities, a place near food sources. They also need places big enough, and people to work it. This often means around city centers, or areas with a lot of business. Business owners do not want homeless loitering around. Business owners also have a lot of say in local politics. There's usually enough money floating around to get it done, but no one wants it in their backyard.

 

[Rifler]

Every state park I've ever camped in had a reservation schedule and a fee,.. As long as these people follow the rules they're fine,.. If not, they're out.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

OP is one of the people on this board I genuinely wish posted more.


Anyway you can put this shit in layman's terms @Aardvark86



Some homeless people have built a city in a state park by the sounds of it?


Assuming they have passes, aren't there rules.for how long someone can camp?

 

[Titanhawk2]

If they pay, leave them alone. If they don't, kick them out. So simple

 

[millah_22]

If they pay, leave them alone. If they don't, kick them out. So simple

Parks/Cities/ODOT/Railways kick campers out all the time. The issue at hand is fining/arresting them.

 

[Finance85]

Fascinating argument about whether the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) precludes arrest of homeless camping out in state parks.

I'm not sure I've heard an argument where "policy", as contrasted with 'law', seems to be as front and center as it is here. Very theoretical issue about whether homelessness is a 'status' and when it begins and ends (eg, where shelter is otherwise available)

BTW, very disappointed to hear justice Jackson use the horribly wordsalad phrase of "persons experiencing homelessness". Passive voice is never your friend, nor is three words when one will do; nor is nine syllables when two will do.

Punishment should be the operative word. Punishment should be taking an action to deprive someone of a right they are otherwise entitled to, whether that's a freedom, or property. When it comes to people taking over property they don't own, removing them isn't taking away their rights, it's only restoring them to the condition they were in prior to their illegal occupation of the land.

 

[Aardvark86]

OP is one of the people on this board I genuinely wish posted more.


Anyway you can put this shit in layman's terms @Aardvark86



Some homeless people have built a city in a state park by the sounds of it?


Assuming they have passes, aren't there rules.for how long someone can camp?

Thank you for the kind words.

A hard case in that on the one hand, as others noted, what exactly are the homeless supposed to do, and on the other, surely states should have the ability to maintain public spaces as something other than a personal residence. What is odd about this case, which Finance notes appropriately IMO, is that while there is certainly something unseemly and problematic (eg, perhaps in a due process sense) for penalizing "being homeless", and it can be very difficult to draw a status v. conduct line between "being homeless" and setting up camp, so to speak, in a public park, it strikes me as truly strange to suggest that it rises to a cruel and unusual punishment violation merely because the latter is deemed a criminal offense at a certain point, regardless of what the associated penalty is.

Gorsuch, as usual, really asking the hard hypotheticals of the great Ed Kneedler (and insisting they not be evaded); interestingly, you can hear his (and Kav's) Jesuit education at Georgetown Prep coming through in his recognition of the real-world difficulties of homelessness.

Also got a chuckle about the earlier reference to McPherson Square encampment a few years back in DC, which turned the place into a real shithole in the course of a couple of weeks before they cleaned it out.

 

[Finance85]

Thank you for the kind words.

A hard case in that on the one hand, as others noted, what exactly are the homeless supposed to do, and on the other, surely states should have the ability to maintain public spaces as something other than a personal residence. What is odd about this case, which Finance notes appropriately IMO, is that while there is certainly something unseemly and problematic (eg, perhaps in a due process sense) for penalizing "being homeless", and it can be very difficult to draw a status v. conduct line between "being homeless" and setting up camp, so to speak, in a public park, it strikes me as truly strange to suggest that it rises to a cruel and unusual punishment violation merely because the latter is deemed a criminal offense at a certain point, regardless of what the associated penalty is.

Gorsuch, as usual, really asking the hard hypotheticals of the great Ed Kneedler (and insisting they not be evaded); interestingly, you can hear his (and Kav's) Jesuit education at Georgetown Prep coming through in his recognition of the real-world difficulties of homelessness.

Also got a chuckle about the earlier reference to McPherson Square encampment a few years back in DC, which turned the place into a real shithole in the course of a couple of weeks before they cleaned it out.

Your take on the Jesuits is interesting. They are an interesting bunch, for sure. They somehow try to find a balance between compassion and discipline.

 

[Aardvark86]

Your take on the Jesuits is interesting. They are an interesting bunch, for sure. They somehow try to find a balance between compassion and discipline.

My son went to Gonzaga in DC, which is Prep's Jesuit competitor/rival/brother school here, and they work together a lot on the social missions. At Gonzaga, they have a men's homeless shelter in the basement of the school, and the boys serve the men their meals every day, and more importantly, talk with them, which I'd wager is probably a one-of-a-kind thing for a high school in this country. I'm completely serious when I say I can hear the understanding of the reality from Kav and Gorsuch.

I'm not sure I'd say the Jesuits find a balance, I'd say they're more like the counterweight to, say, Dominicans. But your broader point is spot on -- Catholicism is both justice (in the doctrinal sense) AND mercy, but the sad thing is that too few in the laity and the priesthood seem to find a way to balance the two well.

 

[Finance85]

My son went to Gonzaga in DC, which is Prep's Jesuit competitor/rival/brother school here, and they work together a lot on the social missions. At Gonzaga, they have a men's homeless shelter in the basement of the school, and the boys serve the men their meals every day, which I'd wager is probably a one-of-a-kind thing for a high school in this country. I'm completely serious when I say I can hear the understanding of the reality from Kav and Gorsuch.

I'm not sure I'd say the Jesuits find a balance, I'd say they're more like the counterweight to, say, Dominicans. But your broader point is spot on -- Catholicism is both justice (in the doctrinal sense) AND mercy, but the sad thing is that too few in the laity and the priesthood seem to find a way to balance the two well.

Good post. I missed the oral argument. I'll read it tomorrow, or listen to it later. Sounds fun. You know this, but I'm not a Kavanaugh fan. I am a Gorsuch fan, however. I'm not sure if it's because we're the most philosophically aligned, or because we have a similar personal style.

 

[Aardvark86]

Good post. I missed the oral argument. I'll read it tomorrow, or listen to it later. Sounds fun. You know this, but I'm not a Kavanaugh fan. I am a Gorsuch fan, however. I'm not sure if it's because we're the most philosophically aligned, or because we have a similar personal style.

Understood. I have to say, while Kav is perhaps a bit more of an institutionalist than I like (which Gorsuch, who is my current judicial hero, assuredly isn't), there are certain aspects of Kav's approach that I like. I often find his questions at argument, and his concurrences, do an outstanding job, with tremendous brevity and clarity, of being "helpful" to understand exactly what has, and has not, been decided.

 

[Finance85]

Wow. What a session.

The liberals go all in very early on the City.
Roberts actually cuts them off so the other Justices can ask questions. That doesn't happen much.
Jackson actually asks, in jest, if executing the homeless wouldn't solve the issue.
Very strange arguments, even by SCOTUS standards. It was more about the question of conduct than one of punishment under 8A.
Gorsuch loves his hypotheticals.

 

[Aardvark86]

Wow. What a session.

The liberals go all in very early on the City.
Roberts actually cuts them off so the other Justices can ask questions. That doesn't happen much.
Jackson actually asks, in jest, if executing the homeless wouldn't solve the issue.
Very strange arguments, even by SCOTUS standards. It was more about the question of conduct than one of punishment under 8A.
Gorsuch loves his hypotheticals.

Yep really one of the more fascinating arguments I’ve heard.

 

[lucas80]

Yep really one of the more fascinating arguments I’ve heard.

1. We don't handle homelessness and mental illness very well in this country. The fact that the SCOTUS is in on this for this matters tells us all how much we've failed.
2. Wait until the presidential immunity hearing, there will be some fascinating arguments in that one.

 

[torbee]

Punishment should be the operative word. Punishment should be taking an action to deprive someone of a right they are otherwise entitled to, whether that's a freedom, or property. When it comes to people taking over property they don't own, removing them isn't taking away their rights, it's only restoring them to the condition they were in prior to their illegal occupation of the land.

That is a solid argument and I tend to agree.

I also think people mistakenly believe more affordable housing will solve the problem. In my experience, a sizable percentage - maybe even a majority - of homeless won’t accept even free accommodation because of either rampant drug use or mental health problems and most often both.

It’s more of a drug/mental health issue than an affordable housing issue.

 

[lucas80]

Thank you for the kind words.

A hard case in that on the one hand, as others noted, what exactly are the homeless supposed to do, and on the other, surely states should have the ability to maintain public spaces as something other than a personal residence. What is odd about this case, which Finance notes appropriately IMO, is that while there is certainly something unseemly and problematic (eg, perhaps in a due process sense) for penalizing "being homeless", and it can be very difficult to draw a status v. conduct line between "being homeless" and setting up camp, so to speak, in a public park, it strikes me as truly strange to suggest that it rises to a cruel and unusual punishment violation merely because the latter is deemed a criminal offense at a certain point, regardless of what the associated penalty is.

Gorsuch, as usual, really asking the hard hypotheticals of the great Ed Kneedler (and insisting they not be evaded); interestingly, you can hear his (and Kav's) Jesuit education at Georgetown Prep coming through in his recognition of the real-world difficulties of homelessness.

Also got a chuckle about the earlier reference to McPherson Square encampment a few years back in DC, which turned the place into a real shithole in the course of a couple of weeks before they cleaned it out.

Not picking on you, but are two guys like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch raised comfortably, who went to elite prep schools and universities really that in touch with the real world difficulties of homelessness?

 

[Finance85]

That is a solid argument and I tend to agree.

I also think people mistakenly believe more affordable housing will solve the problem. In my experience, a sizable percentage - maybe even a majority - of homeless won’t accept even free accommodation because of either rampant drug use or mental health problems and most often both.

It’s more of a drug/mental health issue than an affordable housing issue.

This is true. When I was traveling to Portland every week, the commuter train from the airport to downtown passed a stop known as Skidmore. there was a road overpass and parking garage there. about 50 feet from the stop there's a homeless shelter. It has an occupancy sign in the window like motels have. I never saw the sign indicate they were full. I never saw less than a dozen people in sleeping bags on the sidewalk at the station.

So I asked around as to why people would rather sleep on the sidewalk. It was about the rules inside the shelter. No booze, no drugs, and no weapons allowed. So the homeless would find a partner and they would watch each other's stuff while one of them would go inside the shelter to use the bathroom, and perhaps get a meal.

A few blocks away, at one of the squares near the federal courthouse, a large van would show up and people would line up around 4:00 for free food.

I believe cities should buy vacant warehouses or retail space and put cots and toilets inside. It doesn't have to be any more difficult than that. That provides basic shelter. It also negates some of the arguments that people have no choice but to camp out on sidewalks or city parks.

 

[Aardvark86]

1. We don't handle homelessness and mental illness very well in this country. The fact that the SCOTUS is in on this for this matters tells us all how much we've failed.
2. Wait until the presidential immunity hearing, there will be some fascinating arguments in that one.

1. I suppose you are correct as far as #1 goes in the sense that it is truly bizarre that the issues at the intersection of public housing and public park policy are coming up in the context of a constitutional amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.
2. I actually don't think that hearing is going to be that interesting at all, and that it will be relatively short. The whole point of the country's founding was that the king can, in fact, do wrong.

 

[Aardvark86]

Not picking on you, but are two guys like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch raised comfortably, who went to elite prep schools and universities really that in touch with the real world difficulties of homelessness?

More than most guys raised comfortably who went to elite prep schools and universities, because they went to Georgetown Prep.

 

[lucas80]

More than most guys raised comfortably who went to elite prep schools and universities, because they went to Georgetown Prep.

Anything to back that up with, or does going to an elite school automatically imbue one with special levels of understanding and compassion? Neither one of them has worked an honest day in their lives much less experienced homelessness in any fashion other than polite discussion at a cocktail party.

 

[lucas80]

Homeless advocates in Iowa worry about the potential consequences of the SCOTUS ruling. Homelessness is up almost 15 percent in Iowa since 2019.
https://www.kcrg.com/2024/04/24/iow...public-sleeping-bans-wake-supreme-court-case/

 

[Colonoscopy]

Really kind of an interesting case. These people have nowhere to go. Making being homeless "illegal" just pushes people down and endless cycle of the judicial system. Grants Pass has pretty stiff city ordinances, so people move out to the woods.

I hate campers in the woods. If you follow any trail long enough you're bound to end up at a camp. It's a mess, it's unsafe, it's unhealthy, and often hostile. But again, when they're pushed out of town, where do they go? The woods or jail, right?

As for "persons experiencing homelessness" is correct. Homeless, homeowner, apartment dweller, doesn't define a person.

I don't feel like we have good information on exactly who these people are. Drug addicts? Mentally ill? Priced out of the housing market? Dirty hippies? I need to know this in order to formulate good policy.

 

[The-Dude-Abides]

Just starting the argument now. Hadn't heard much about the case until this sitting started. I wasn't familiar with an 8A case before this and Martin v. Boise that focused not on a particular sentence or the manner in which it is carried out, but rather on the fact that a certain type of conduct is criminalized under certain circumstances. Sort of an ex ante/ex post deal.

I was trying to guess the constitutional basis for the claim, and I was thinking something sounding in due process. Reading the briefs, it seems there is a substantial line of cases on this point, like criminalizing habitual drunkenness. Should have read more of Chemerinsky I guess.

 

[The-Dude-Abides]

Yep really one of the more fascinating arguments I’ve heard.

Agreed now that I've listened to it all. There was almost a vibe for at least part of the argument as though the justices were lawyers examining a witness in a trial setting, building an evidentiary record of sorts. Most striking example was the Chief asking the advocate in about five seconds, can a person go from having an address to not, and then vice versa, and then cuts her off with a curt thank you. Then Jackson doing the same type of thing with regard to addiction status. Really curious to see how this one comes out.

 

[Finance85]

Just starting the argument now. Hadn't heard much about the case until this sitting started. I wasn't familiar with an 8A case before this and Martin v. Boise that focused not on a particular sentence or the manner in which it is carried out, but rather on the fact that a certain type of conduct is criminalized under certain circumstances. Sort of an ex ante/ex post deal.

I was trying to guess the constitutional basis for the claim, and I was thinking something sounding in due process. Reading the briefs, it seems there is a substantial line of cases on this point, like criminalizing habitual drunkenness. Should have read more of Chemerinsky I guess.

Gorsuch touched on the 14A aspect of the case, and asked why that wasn't more important than the 8A aspect. Very little of the oral arguments actually touched on 8A, but rather if the homelessness is an a condition, and camping was an action.