Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to overturned homeless law.

[pknopp]

Lower courts ruled that a city can not ban the homeless from sleeping on the sidewalks and parks.

Supreme Court allows that ruling to stand.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...ects-homeless-who-sleep-on-sidewalk?_amp=true

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Lower courts ruled that a city can not ban the homeless from sleeping on the sidewalks and parks.

Supreme Court allows that ruling to stand.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...ects-homeless-who-sleep-on-sidewalk?_amp=true

If there was no available alternative.........................where were the homeless supposed to sleep ?

 

[MeBelle]

No worries.

In California
Newsom will scream "State of Emergency" and wait for the Trump admin to save his @ss.

 

[WEATHER53]

Lower courts ruled that a city can not ban the homeless from sleeping on the sidewalks and parks.

Supreme Court allows that ruling to stand.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...ects-homeless-who-sleep-on-sidewalk?_amp=true

If there was no available alternative.........................where were the homeless supposed to sleep ?

Poor boo boos. Can’t even find a place to sleep and of course that’s every productive member of societies fault and responsibility to deal with.
We are a nation of personal responsibility absent candy asses

 

[MeBelle]

Lower courts ruled that a city can not ban the homeless from sleeping on the sidewalks and parks.

Supreme Court allows that ruling to stand.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...ects-homeless-who-sleep-on-sidewalk?_amp=true

If there was no available alternative.........................where were the homeless supposed to sleep ?

At Pelosi's, Newsom's, Maxine's, Obama's, etc ... house

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Lower courts ruled that a city can not ban the homeless from sleeping on the sidewalks and parks.

Supreme Court allows that ruling to stand.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...ects-homeless-who-sleep-on-sidewalk?_amp=true

Article is behind a paywall.

Got anything on this from a useful, credible source?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Lower courts ruled that a city can not ban the homeless from sleeping on the sidewalks and parks.

Supreme Court allows that ruling to stand.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...ects-homeless-who-sleep-on-sidewalk?_amp=true

Teaching the Democrats a lesson while waiting for a more definitive case..

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If there was no available alternative.........................where were the homeless supposed to sleep ?

That's a big if.

 

[Mac-7]

Lower courts ruled that a city can not ban the homeless from sleeping on the sidewalks and parks.

Supreme Court allows that ruling to stand.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...ects-homeless-who-sleep-on-sidewalk?_amp=true

If there was no available alternative.........................where were the homeless supposed to sleep ?

In a liberals front yard

 

[jwoodie]

https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...ects-homeless-who-sleep-on-sidewalk?_amp=true

The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a major case on homelessness, letting stand a ruling that protects homeless people’s right to sleep on the sidewalk or in public parks if no other shelter is available.

This illustrates why the "homeless" need to be assigned permanent housing. Then they can't complain that they have no where else to sleep. If they continue to violate vagrancy laws, they should be arrested and judicially ordered to attend therapy sessions (in secure facilities, if necessary).

 

[pknopp]

https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...ects-homeless-who-sleep-on-sidewalk?_amp=true

The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a major case on homelessness, letting stand a ruling that protects homeless people’s right to sleep on the sidewalk or in public parks if no other shelter is available.

This illustrates why the "homeless" need to be assigned permanent housing. Then they can't complain that they have no where else to sleep. If they continue to violate vagrancy laws, they should be arrested and judicially ordered to attend therapy sessions (in secure facilities, if necessary).

Just because this law noted "if they had nowhere else to sleep" doesn't mean that's the standard. That's simply what this law said.

Another law with no such language could just as well be overturned.

 

[theHawk]

https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...ects-homeless-who-sleep-on-sidewalk?_amp=true

The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a major case on homelessness, letting stand a ruling that protects homeless people’s right to sleep on the sidewalk or in public parks if no other shelter is available.

This illustrates why the "homeless" need to be assigned permanent housing. Then they can't complain that they have no where else to sleep. If they continue to violate vagrancy laws, they should be arrested and judicially ordered to attend therapy sessions (in secure facilities, if necessary).

Well it looks like Californians will get to pay for that.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

My advice, go east young man !

Seriously, the west coast is a giant lost cause, especially California.

 

[Blackrook]

The Supreme Court can only take a limited number of cases per year, so this is just a refusal to look at the case, not a national precedent.

 

[sparky]

Supreme Court allows that ruling to stand.

>>>>>



~S~

 

[Blackrook]

The decision to allow homeless people to sleep on the street or in a park was made by a judge who lives in a nice neighborhood where homeless people aren't allowed to wander, and his kinds go to nice parks where homeless people aren't allowed to camp.

 

[Blackrook]

The cops make sure that the homeless are only allowed to hang out in places where rich people don't live, that's what I'm saying. So the judge's decision does not affect him or his family personally.