The Supremes

[hobbes2702 13,029]

11 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

As these two posts indicate, you two, along with many other Cloak room posters, are so biased in your thinking that you can't even understand any rational moderate viewpoint.  You believe you are right.  You believe you are informed. But the reality is that you are as misguided as many of the right leaning Republican voters. It's why every moderate poster just gives up any discussion in this Cloak room, because it's dominated by deep left thinking progressives. And that's fine. If you can't see that prohibiting a city from telling homeless people that they can't campout in an intersection, or on the sidewalk in front of a business, or in front of your own house, that makes it pretty clear about your ability to think rationally.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,867]

20 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

oh man, I bet that dude is super pissed today. wait....

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,867]

doble

Edited July 1 by Longhorn_Fan68

[Dahobbs 17,527]

23 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

As these two posts indicate, you two, along with many other Cloak room posters, are so biased in your thinking that you can't even understand any rational moderate viewpoint.  You believe you are right.  You believe you are informed. But the reality is that you are as misguided as many of the right leaning Republican voters. It's why every moderate poster just gives up any discussion in this Cloak room, because it's dominated by deep left thinking progressives. And that's fine. If you can't see that prohibiting a city from telling homeless people that they can't campout in an intersection, or on the sidewalk in front of a business, or in front of your own house, that makes it pretty clear about your ability to think rationally.

You're the one being biased here. The argument was that punishing someone for being homeless when the homelessness was involuntary constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th amendment. It wasn't about government having no ability to deter or control homelessness, it was about whether punishing involuntary homelessness was unconstitutional. That argument wouldn't prevent government from punishing voluntary homeless or from regulating homelessness by providing an alternative location and punishing those that camp elsewhere. Surely you see the moral quandary in punishing someone for being homeless when they have no choice in the matter, right?  

[Dbeasy 15,042]

13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Man, you have no clue what you're talking about. You're just bitching about homeless people and ignoring what the case was actually about. It wasn't "should homeless people pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Y/N?" It wasn't "can a city use its police power to do anything at all about homeless people?" It was "can a city put a homeless person in jail for camping on public property when they have nowhere else to go?" That was the question at issue.

Of course it is. Everyone understands that from the Supreme Court opinion. And you believe that cities should NOT be able to police the homeless, and that they should be able to put tents anywhere they want on public property. I get it. That's your viewpoint. And I get that you don't understand that your viewpoint is insane. And every rational person also understands your viewpoint is insane. You don't have to clarify anything. We get it.

10 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

You are a well-known poster here with some of the craziest viewpoints, along side the other "Misguided", so I would expect nothing less from you than a meaningless gif.

[tchookem 3,900]

I actually show this clip to 8th graders when I'm teaching the 7 principles and limited government. Occasionally, a few kids gasp when he says it, and that wakes up a couple more. It's going to be a bit different now. Everything is going come with a caveat... "That was until 2024. Now it depends. Read this and figure out if the Supreme Court believes in a government bound by laws."

With 6th graders, I do limited vs. unlimited. Guess I'm going to add a paraphrased version of this decision to the USA slide. I'll report back with what the kids say.

[Dbeasy 15,042]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You're the one being biased here. The argument was that punishing someone for being homeless when the homelessness was involuntary constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th amendment. It wasn't about government having no ability to deter or control homelessness, it was about whether punishing involuntary homelessness was unconstitutional. That argument wouldn't prevent government from punishing voluntary homeless or from regulating homelessness by providing an alternative location and punishing those that camp elsewhere. Surely you see the moral quandary in punishing someone for being homeless when they have no choice in the matter, right?  

Newflash. It's not. And it's obvious it is not. And in a rational Supreme Court it would have been a 9-0 vote instead of a 6-3 vote, except for loony thinking by three overly left-thinking judges.

[hobbes2702 13,029]

9 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Of course it is. Everyone understands that from the Supreme Court opinion. And you believe that cities should NOT be able to police the homeless, and that they should be able to put tents anywhere they want on public property. I get it. That's your viewpoint. And I get that you don't understand that your viewpoint is insane. And every rational person also understands your viewpoint is insane. You don't have to clarify anything. We get it.

You are a well-known poster here with some of the craziest viewpoints, along side the other "Misguided", so I would expect nothing less from you than a meaningless gif.

Dude you don’t know what you’re talking about lol. Tell me some of my craziest viewpoints. I’d like to know them.

also

Edited July 1 by hobbes2702

[washparkhorn 9,939]

18 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

It's why every moderate poster just gives up any discussion in this Cloak room, because it's dominated by deep left thinking progressives.

[Brian Fantana 6,681]

3 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Newflash. It's not. And it's obvious it is not. And in a rational Supreme Court it would have been a 9-0 vote instead of a 6-3 vote, except for loony thinking by three overly left-thinking judges.

I'm framing this post

[Dahobbs 17,527]

7 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Newflash. It's not. And it's obvious it is not. And in a rational Supreme Court it would have been a 9-0 vote instead of a 6-3 vote, except for loony thinking by three overly left-thinking judges.

You don't think debtor's prison is a morally wrong thing? You don't think criminalizing being poor is wrong? I feel like you're really missing on the core parts of the argument--that homelessness be involuntary. I really don't understand why you think this is a radical opinion.  Should the state be able to jail you because you don't have $1 million in cash? 

Again, no one is saying no regulation at all. No one is saying you can't punish the drag rats that choose to be on the street. No one is saying you can't require that the homeless camp in certain designated areas. You're way over generalizing the argument. 

Edited July 1 by Dahobbs

[Js1 85,289]

Watching people lose their humanity and compassion over homeless people is so weird to me 

[David Dennison 18,851]

42 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

As these two posts indicate, you two, along with many other Cloak room posters, are so biased in your thinking that you can't even understand any rational moderate viewpoint.  You believe you are right.  You believe you are informed. But the reality is that you are as misguided as many of the right leaning Republican voters. It's why every moderate poster just gives up any discussion in this Cloak room, because it's dominated by deep left thinking progressives. And that's fine. If you can't see that prohibiting a city from telling homeless people that they can't campout in an intersection, or on the sidewalk in front of a business, or in front of your own house, that makes it pretty clear about your ability to think rationally.

Where can they camp out, pray tell?

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You don't think debtor's prison is a morally wrong thing? You don't think criminalizing being poor is wrong? I feel like you're really missing on the core parts of the argument--that homelessness be involuntary. I really don't understand why you think this is a radical opinion.  Should the state be able to jail you because you don't have $1 million in cash? 

Again, no one is saying no regulation at all. No one is saying you can't punish the drag rats that choose to be on the street. No one is saying you can't require that the homeless camp in certain designated areas. You're way over generalizing the argument. 

* Drag worms

[Dbeasy 15,042]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You don't think debtor's prison is a morally wrong thing? You don't think criminalizing being poor is wrong? I feel like you're really missing on the core parts of the argument--that homelessness be involuntary. I really don't understand why you think this is a radical opinion.  Should the state be able to jail you because you don't have $1 million in cash? 

Again, no one is saying no regulation at all. No one is saying you can't punish the drag rats that choose to be on the street. No one is saying you can't require that the homeless camp in certain designated areas. You're way over generalizing the argument. 

Actually, you are overgeneralizing the argument with this response. No one is talking about having to have $1M in cash. No one is talking about debtors prison. It's certainly not about involuntary homelessness. It's about governments ability to enforce very straightforward actions on the population that are so obvious, that to call it cruel and unusual punishment is ridiculous. But with enough money, you can get a lot of bad cases to the Supreme Court, and this is one of them.

[Dbeasy 15,042]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Watching people lose their humanity and compassion over homeless people is so weird to me 

 

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Where can they camp out, pray tell?

* Drag worms

This case is about a government being able to clear tents off the street. It has nothing to do with humanity and compassion over homeless people or how to solve homelessness. You are the ones projecting.

[Brisketexan 105,078]

I do have one question....is deployment/use of military force a "core function" of the office as Commander in Chief?  Or, if it is purportedly under some authorization (use of force resolution from Congress), then that makes it official, but not core?

Because going back to my analogy....Obama orders a drone strike on foreign soil that kills an American.  I don't think there's any good argument that it's not POTENTIALLY official, even likely official.  I don't know whether it's a "core function" act.  But to my analogy....Obama orders it because the American it kills is someone he owes $20 million to, and the debt dies with that guy, or the guy grabbed his daughter's ass one time so Obama just wants to kill him (that is, his REASON for striking was 1) to kill this guy for 2) an entirely personal reason).

Whether that is immune or not turns on whether the act was merely potentially official, or was a core function.  That seems to be....an important question.  Because if it is broadly determined that "ordering the military to blown something/someone up" is a core function, then yes.  The SCOTUS just made it completely legal for the POTUS to kill anyone and everyone he pleases for any reason.  Joe Biden could--according to that reasoning--order an airstrike on Mar A Lago, and he would have complete immunity.  He might be impeached for it, but he couldn't ever go to prison for it.

I am curious about the answer to that question.

Edited July 1 by Brisketexan

[Biff Tannen 45,665]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

* Drag worms

[David Dennison 18,851]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Come at me, bro.

[Biff Tannen 45,665]

Y'all need to STFU about homeless people in this thread right now.  There are WAY bigger fish to fry now.  And we are in the fucking fryer.

[tx 3 putt 76,874]

 

[David Dennison 18,851]

3 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

This case is about a government being able to clear tents off the street. It has nothing to do with humanity and compassion over homeless people or how to solve homelessness. You are the ones projecting.

So it's a case giving cover for shitty government.

Conservatism in a nutshell.

[RomaVicta 29,902]

There's some strange irony in there somewhere. A movement claiming it wants to make America Great Again and actually called the Republican Party has moved a substantial number of actual voters to disenfranchise themselves by supporting a candidate and party taking America to a whole new place for it called fascism.

These same voters are convinced they are saving the republic from the anti-fascist party of voters.

Another strange aspect is that there is a massive galaxy of independent news organizations that can't bring themselves to see the biggest story of their lives right in front of them. Will his performance hurt Biden in the polls? Let's talk about the campaign like we always do!

It would be far less embarrassing if we weren't being destroyed by an idiot. Of course, it's apt that he is driven by greed and narcissism because that's what capitalism and conservatism drive us towards.

I think I may already be out on the ledge just taking it all in and enjoying the breeze. I can't do a thing about this. Only ruthless use of force has a chance now. After the bananas are harvested, maybe the Army will take action.

Let's enjoy the football season when it gets here. Hook 'Em, my friends!

[Captainant 27,638]

4 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Actually, you are overgeneralizing the argument with this response. No one is talking about having to have $1M in cash. No one is talking about debtors prison. It's certainly not about involuntary homelessness. It's about governments ability to enforce very straightforward actions on the population that are so obvious, that to call it cruel and unusual punishment is ridiculous. But with enough money, you can get a lot of bad cases to the Supreme Court, and this is one of them.

You're doing this weird thing where you aren't considering and treating those homeless people as if they aren't citizens or even human beings. It's absolutely about involuntary homelessness - cities do nothing to help these people out of that situation, and angry internet boomer-minded people like yourself only want to punish those people for having the temerity to be poor. 

Where the fuck are they supposed to go? It seems like pissing in the wind to spend all this energy on punishing them, when there's nothing being done to prevent the overload of homelessness across the nation.

Or maybe you just get your rocks off on looking down on the less fortunate, who's to say

[Foosters 17,842]

 

20 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Newflash. It's not. And it's obvious it is not. And in a rational Supreme Court it would have been a 9-0 vote instead of a 6-3 vote, except for loony thinking by three overly left-thinking judges.

haha

Let me guess, you're one of the people constantly complaining about the level of discourse in the CR?

[Dahobbs 17,527]

2 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Actually, you are overgeneralizing the argument with this response. No one is talking about having to have $1M in cash. No one is talking about debtors prison. It's certainly not about involuntary homelessness.

Yes, yes it is. That is what was argued to the Supreme Court.

From the opinion: " Plaintiffs insist the Court should extend Robinson to prohibit the enforcement of laws that proscribe certain acts that are in some sense 'involuntary,' because some homeless individuals cannot help but do what the law forbids."

Quote

It's about governments ability to enforce very straightforward actions on the population that are so obvious, that to call it cruel and unusual punishment is ridiculous. But with enough money, you can get a lot of bad cases to the Supreme Court, and this is one of them.

The argument was never about a blanket prohibition on punishing homelessness at all. That's something you've made up all on your own. You're tilting at a strawman and lashing out at anyone pointing out the straw in your teeth. 

I think punishing those who are homeless involuntarily is immoral. But I also recognize that our constitution doesn't prevent all immoral behavior (nor should it). I'm just not sure why you're so insulted at the idea that a good government shouldn't punish those who have nothing and have no choice but to be homeless. 

 

 

[Pancho 44,712]

So…how does law school work right now? Because if I was in law school or just recently graduated, I’d demand a refund.

[tx 3 putt 76,874]

 

[Chuckie Finster 22,694]

When do you think the country realizes that “lifetime” appointment is technically something the citizenry can control?
Obviously not advocating for this, but historically brazen power grabs like this have been met with violence.

[Serak The Preparer 3,431]

28 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Of course it is. Everyone understands that from the Supreme Court opinion. And you believe that cities should NOT be able to police the homeless, and that they should be able to put tents anywhere they want on public property. I get it. That's your viewpoint. And I get that you don't understand that your viewpoint is insane. And every rational person also understands your viewpoint is insane. You don't have to clarify anything. We get it.

You are a well-known poster here with some of the craziest viewpoints, along side the other "Misguided", so I would expect nothing less from you than a meaningless gif.

 

12 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Actually, you are overgeneralizing the argument with this response. No one is talking about having to have $1M in cash. No one is talking about debtors prison. It's certainly not about involuntary homelessness. It's about governments ability to enforce very straightforward actions on the population that are so obvious, that to call it cruel and unusual punishment is ridiculous. But with enough money, you can get a lot of bad cases to the Supreme Court, and this is one of them.

These are pretty funny posts on the same page. @wildcat09, @Dahobbs, @hobbes2702 etc., clearly think that the homeless form a superclass that police cannot touch and that cities have no legal ability to do anything to the homeless population. Stupid left wing jerks, think more like a reasonable moderate (unless of course that is an overgeneralization).

[miguelito 11,255]

2 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

 

The SC would have a ruling on that by happy hour.

[Dahobbs 17,527]

2 minutes ago, miguelito said:

The SC would have a ruling on that by happy hour.

Not if a missile from a Reaper before then. 

[elfenix 34,225]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

 

As these two posts indicate, you two, along with many other Cloak room posters, are so biased in your thinking that you can't even understand any rational moderate viewpoint.  You believe you are right.  You believe you are informed. But the reality is that you are as misguided as many of the right leaning Republican voters. It's why every moderate poster just gives up any discussion in this Cloak room, because it's dominated by deep left thinking progressives. And that's fine. If you can't see that prohibiting a city from telling homeless people that they can't campout in an intersection, or on the sidewalk in front of a business, or in front of your own house, that makes it pretty clear about your ability to think rationally.

Are you saying I'm toxic?

[Captainant 27,638]

[Beantown Express 2.0 6,559]

22 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

This case is about a government being able to clear tents off the street. It has nothing to do with humanity and compassion over homeless people or how to solve homelessness. You are the ones projecting.

This short clip from a Mel Brooks movie should give you your answer on the homeless and others.

 

[Brisketexan 105,078]

8 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

Well....that's actually pretty much always been true.  That's why you've seen the memes about how pretty much everything Hitler did was legal.  That is, it did not violate the law of the German state.  The point there being that the law can allow some pretty horrific things if the scope of what is "official" is broad enough.

The breadth of that remains an open question here.  But it's always been true that if the President (or most any other gov't official) is committing an official act, he's immune to some extent or another.  It's an "official act" for a cop to execute a search warrant.  It is not an official act for a cop to just kick down my door and steal all my stuff.  In between....is the matter of a cop making an arrest (official act) and beating the fuck out of me for funsies in the process (not an official act....maybe).

Ultimately, it's a cautionary tale against bestowing too much power on an executive or other officials.  If they haven't been given the power, then there's no argument that they have immunity for exercising it.

 

Again, all of this is in the context of ordinary, every day actors.  When we're talking about Trump, we're not even on the map of the visible universe of "ordinary actors."  That's the danger here.  We can't have objective, detached conversations about laws and norms when one party gives zero fucks about any of them.

Something being against the law stops most people.  It at least slows down the rest of people.  But for the truly sociopathic, it is less of an impediment than wet toilet paper.  

[elfenix 34,225]

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

John Roberts and a lot of the other Republican party apparatchik think Nixon did no wrong and have set out to fix anything standing in the way of his successor.

[ultimaton 2,966]

19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Not if a missile from a Reaper before then. 

Just needs a cool action movie zinger before launching. "Your lifetime appoinments have been... officially cancelled."

 

Edited July 1 by ultimaton

[Sawbonz 27,542]

39 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Where can they camp out, pray tell?

* Drag worms

We’ve gone over this and honestly it’s spit in the ocean with this other bullshit ruling but the homeless problem in America is not a poverty problem. It’s a mental illness / substance abuse problem (and public health problem) 

[David Dennison 18,851]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

We’ve gone over this and honestly it’s spit in the ocean with this other bullshit ruling but the homeless problem in America is not a poverty problem. It’s a mental illness / substance abuse problem (and public health problem) 

It's all of those things, which means it is, among other things, a poverty problem.

[softlynow 1,812]

29 minutes ago, Pancho said:

So…how does law school work right now? Because if I was in law school or just recently graduated, I’d demand a refund.

Law school is, first and foremost, a means to an income. Every other consideration is secondary. Right now law students and recent grads are seeing that corruption can be quite lucrative and their opportunities in that field are increasing. Why would they want a refund?

[Woodrow Call 494]

3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

And he just got the green light to do whatever he wants as long as it's "official."

Today is the day democracy officially died in the U.S.

[Woland 732]

When seizing power, isn’t the usual play to declare a state emergency? Then everything is official business. If you follow the Putin example, one of your first moves is to fire all the state governors and appoint new ones.

[Sawbonz 27,542]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's all of those things, which means it is, among other things, a poverty problem.

How many schizoaffective disorder alcoholic meth addicts have you personally encountered?

[David Dennison 18,851]

Just now, Woland said:

When seizing power, isn’t the usual play to declare a state emergency? Then everything is official business. If you follow the Putin example, one of your first moves is to fire all the state governors and appoint new ones.

[Goofyboy 3,269]

When do we coronate King Biden?

[Satchel 6,934]

Today’s ruling was the Leo court’s big FU to everyone who is not MAGA.

[David Dennison 18,851]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

How many schizoaffective disorder alcoholic meth addicts have you personally encountered?

I'm sure a few without my knowledge, but that's beside the point. There are homeless folks all over America who don't suffer from any of those things. 

[Sawbonz 27,542]

Biden needs to fuck shit up. I really cannot believe I’m typing this 

[tchookem 3,900]

Ya'll just wait until Greg Abbott and the SCOTX see this and start getting ideas. Teachers like me are going to be round up put in camps.

[Sawbonz 27,542]

Just now, David Dennison said:

I'm sure a few without my knowledge, but that's beside the point. There are homeless folks all over America who don't suffer from any of those things. 

The vast majority of homeless in America do suffer from these things.