4 ms·
You and I clearly read completely different court opinions here. I see a case where a local government made it illegal to sleep outside and a supreme court dec
by _heimdall 2y ago
You and I clearly read completely different court opinions here.
I see a case where a local government made it illegal to sleep outside and a supreme court decision that says this is within local governments' jurisdiction and doesn't violate any federal laws. It specifically doesn't make being poor illegal, though obviously it will greatly impact the homeless.
Its a huge leap you're making to claim that the law or the ruling makes being poor illegal, and I don't see that claim supported by either the new law or the ruling. I get that you strongly disagree with it and find the law to be immoral, and I totally agree with that. But personal emotion doesn't change the words written down and misrepresenting the law doesn't do anyone any good.
The law sucks, but it doesn't make being poor illegal. Plenty of people who are poor still have a roof over their heads, and there are homeless people who sleep in shelters rather than on the streets. If neither of those are illegal then the law couldn't have made being poor illegal.
You don't need to make the leap to misrepresenting the law to point out how terrible it is. The law as written is garbage.
- tsimionescu 2y agoYou're again ignoring the fact that the law was before the Supreme Court specifically because it makes it illegal to be homeless. And the Supreme Court agreed with that, but found that it is not a problem.
- _heimdall 2y agoI'm not ignoring that, I just don't see being homeless and being poor as equivalent. Would you only consider someone poor if they're living in the street? I also don't the the bench said it wasn't a problem. As best I understand it the question was related to (a) jurisdiction and (b) whether the local law is legal under our existing federal laws.