The Oregon case decided Friday is the most significant to come before the high court in decades on the issue and comes as a rising number of people in the U.S. are without a permanent place to live.

  • FireTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    They aren’t trying to find what’s reasonable, they’re trying to find what the law says. There are a lot of stupid things that aren’t unconstitutional, like the death penalty. The majority operates on a ‘garbage in garbage out’ basis. We got a garbage outcome because they have a garbage law, and we haven’t gotten an amendment against it yet.

    That said I wholly agree with the sentiment and message regarding the penal institutions we have. The attempts the find different ways to fund that correctional system are consistently producing negative outcomes. The state should bear it’s full weight so that they have incentive to maintain a low prison pop.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      SCOTUS has absolutely set realist standards in the past. For example, gun regulations that are de facto bans are treated as such and declared unconstitutional.

      They absolutely do not have to sit back and consign homeless people to the prison debt system while bemoaning their inability to enforce the 8th amendment.