this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023

250 points (96.6% liked)

News

22612 readers

4018 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

250

Will the Supreme Court Make Life Worse for America’s Homeless? (newrepublic.com)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What few constitutional rights the homeless enjoy may soon be on the line at the high court.

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] qooqie@lemmy.world 93 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

Man you know what’s not hard? Empathy. You know what is hard? Constantly finding ways to make life for others difficult.

Literally just build some free housing that won’t kick people out after extended periods of time, give them social support for jobs, give them mental health support, and feed them. If they don’t want to live there because of mental health issues, they should still have access to the other amenities and eventually they might move in. And blam, you will have a much better city with less crime and a happier population. Oh and it’s cheaper then funding death and destruction

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 25 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Empathy is apparently nigh impossible for a lot of people, judging by how rarely they engage in it. I think you know which people I'm talking about.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think you know which people I'm talking about.

People who have money and have never had anything actually bad happen to them?

[–] Angry_Maple@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago

Those people, and also the people who are obsessed with having someone to look down on.

I've never understood that mindset, because it doesn't actually make them better, it just means that they're aholes.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

Last detail: Proper funding for extra policing, to handle the natural difficulties in transitioning a whole bunch of people to a more structured lifestyle all at once, in the same small geographical area.

Otherwise we'll run into the same problems we did last time we tried block housing, leading to "the projects". I mean, think about it. That's a fantastic market for a drug dealer or a gang otherwise, that many vulnerable people all in one place.

[–] Can_you_change_your_username@kbin.social 36 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Extra policing was part of the problem that led to the gangs. Extra policing targeted at an outgroup means every issue big or small is met with violence and imprisonment. The paternalistic overuse of the criminal justice system leads to the people losing trust in police and in the system. They still need someone to provide community structure, to settle disputes, and to offer some degree of protection and gangs are the homegrown solution to fulfilling that need. Extra social workers and community organizers that are from that community would do a lot better than extra police.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

People don't invite gangs to fill a need. Nor do they have the power to resist gangs when they want to take over. They fill a power vacuum. So, rather than eliminate the need for power to exist, you can also just prevent the vacuum. It's much more feasible.

But either approach. So long as gangs and drugs are successfully kept away, that is the important part. At least keep the dealers out of the buildings when they try to worm their way in.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Gangs don't need an invitation; they need members, and people do join gangs to fill a need.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

True. But once established they become an organism of sorts. It can move, find new prey, etc. It can create the misery it needs to have an environment it thrives in.

It's a chicken or egg problem, and the answer is unfortunately irrelevant. Now that they exist as independent powers, they no longer need anything to cause them, exterior of themselves. They become self-sufficient.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago

Extra policing would be fine if the problems with police departments were addressed. Without addressing that whole mess, though, throwing more police officers won't solve that problem.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 22 points 10 months ago

Not policing, extra services from non-violent professionals that know how to address issues with homelessness in a way that does not involve tasers and physical assault.

[–] qooqie@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Very true and these police should be trained and continually educated on how to deal with and identify mental health episodes. A lot of people hate police as do I, but I truly believe with proper oversight and education they can be a great asset to our society.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Or just rely more on social workers who actually have that education. And less on people with guns who have a history of authoritarian abuses and state sanctioned violence that can be triggering, especially for people with mental illness.

[–] qooqie@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago

Why not have both be trained? Doesn’t hurt I feel

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I love how the original idea for police was "Wow, we should really have some form of enforcing the law that isn't dependent on local prejudices or just government men trained only to shoot people", and now it's... well...

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Whose original idea for police? Sounds like maybe you're alluding to Robert Peel. But as far as I know, the intellectual heritage of American police is more of an extension of runaway slave patrols.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

Peel. I could get into a broader argument about the institutional origins of American police, but I think it suffices to say that American police were, at least in terms of becoming formalized structures, influenced by British (and French) policing ideals of the early-mid-19th century.

In that sense, they've certainly not lived up to the purported ideals.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

the original idea was to make the KKK be on the state payroll

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 3 points 10 months ago

If they don’t want to live there

This is the tricky part. Any realistic solution can't just gloss over it.

[–] Unaware7013@kbin.social 50 points 10 months ago

Let me just simplify the headline

Will the Supreme Court Make Life Worse for America?

The answer is yes, that's basically all they do for 99.9% of Americans.

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago

this country is so fucking stupid and evil

i like how thomas still gets to decide [and you know what he'll say]

[–] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Will the Supreme Court make life worse for

Yes. Invariably so.

[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 23 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Based on past decisions I'm gonna say yes

[–] moonsnotreal@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 10 months ago

"Why? 'Cuz fuck 'em, that's why" -Supreme Court

[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They're doing everything they can to make EVERYONE'S lives worse, so yes, absolutely they will.

[–] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

EVERYONE'S lives worse

Billionaires:

[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Billionaires aren't real people.

[–] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Based.

[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Damn, can I be something else? "Based" has too much 4chan baggage attached to it for me.

[–] zammy95@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Based is a 4chan thing? I've only heard gen z kids (take kids lightly here, I just mean young people really) say it really

[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately for several years the only way I ever saw it get used was in reference to someone saying something extremely racist or bigoted in some other way. Now it's evolved beyond that but I still can't shake the way I saw it used constantly before from my mind.

[–] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Un-based.

[–] 21Cabbage@lemmynsfw.com 14 points 10 months ago

Would've also made a great Onion headline.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

Yes they are after all mostly Christians. Christianity in USA is a form of insane sociopathy.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

i mean, i agree the conservatives have shown they contain zero empathy for anyone anywhere except themselves.
but
wasnt the US constitution written for and by a bunch of rich, land-owning white guys? i guess im surprised what rights any non-landowners currently have. lucky us!

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's a bit over-simplistic. If the founders had simply wanted to swap out rule by British monarchy and oligarchs with themselves, they could have done a lot more to enable that. The Constitution allowed the States to set voting rights as they liked, and there was more diversity than you'd expect. 60 percent of white men were eligible to vote in 1776, and while that's obviously not exactly good, it's not an attempt to establish a blatant neo-nobility. In 1789, Georgia abolished the property requirement. Vermont granted voting rights to all men in 1791. Property restrictions were gradually eliminated over the next few decades, and by 1856, property ownership was no longer a requirement in any state.

Given the original framework of the United States as a somewhat loose coalition of operationally independent states, it would have been seen as an overreach for the Constitution to mandate how states could distribute voting rights. The federal government wasn't meant to play a super significant part it the average person's day-to-day life.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

One does have to wonder, though, if the main reason they avoided trying to set up a new aristocracy is because they were afraid of what would happen if they did. They had just convinced a whole lot of people to take up arms against the king, and it doesn't take much imagination to see those same people turning against a new batch of American aristocrats very quickly.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

For sure; the founders were an ideologically diverse group of people with a lot of different and conflicting agendas. That said, the influence of some sincere belief in humanist Enlightenment philosophy is impossible to deny, even if it was certainly restricted in its scope. Many of the founders very much intended to abolish slavery, for instance, but it became clear that the Southern states would refuse to join if that was made an absolute condition. There is an alternate universe where two distinct countries were created rather than accepting the continuation of slavery as a compromise, though it's hard to say if that's really a better world or not.

My main point is that it's somewhat ahistorical to speak of the founders a cohesive ideological group at all. "They" weren't collectively avoiding are seeking much of anything in common; the final Constitution was the result of a lot of very heated debates and compromises.

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 10 points 10 months ago

Not even gonna read the article. Yes, they will

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Going to go against the grain here, probably not. The case hasn't even been granted cert yet. They probably won't take up the case.

[–] Velociraptor@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

That seems to be the job of the Supreme Court for quite a few groups of people yes.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Yes, probably.

Next clickbait headline...?

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz 7 points 10 months ago

Tread carefully SC. lots of us are on that fence with very little to lose should we become homeless. I can lose my house, but I'll never lose the memory of how you fuckers sold us out to your donors.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

They won't differ, they simply make life as bad as possible for everyone.

[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago

Yes.

[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago

Probably

[–] GopherOwl@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Because nuance is hard to come by. . .

No, the constitutional rights will not change. They will still have protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

The issue is the 9th circuit ruling is overly broad. I fully agree if somebody has nowhere to go, then penalizing them for existing is cruel and unusual. With the stipulations of the Boise shelters, that was certainly the case for the plaintiffs.

However stretching that to "unless there is a shelter bed for everybody, nobody can be penalized for declining a bed" is an illogical conclusion. The difference is individual versus population. If individual A has nowhere they can legally go, they cannot be punished. But that doesn't mean individual B, who does have somewhere to go also cannot be punished.

Using the same logic as the 9th Circuit's ruling, if the government cannot provide a foster home for every child, then we cannot enforce any child endangerment laws. Even if in the hypothetical some child may be able to be placed with a relative, they couldn't be removed from the endangering situation. That's illogical and this ruling needs narrowed in scope.

Edit: I also want to point out that even this post is probably too reductionist. So please add counterpoint, clarifications, etc. One compelling counterpoint I've heard is the difficulty of determining who would be unable to go somewhere. And truthfully I don't have a good argument against it. However I have a hard time accepting when shelter beds have lower occupancy, why no enforcement is allowed.

The bottom line remains these are people, and many desperately need help, some against their will. We need more housing, more support systems, more everything really. But throwing our hands up and allowing the problem to remain unabated is no benefit to the individual nor the community as a whole.