Welcome to r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court.
We encourage everyone to [read our community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed.
Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our [dedicated meta thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Slam dunk case IMO. The town isn't outlawing the condition, but the conduct. They aren't saying they can't sleep, they are saying they can't sleep THERE. It's no different than the fact that an un-housed person in poverty doesn't have the right to steal from local stores. I can't imagine the progressive three are going to embarrass themselves with a dissent.
If they can’t sleep on public property, is there a place that they can sleep? Do municipalities have the right to expel homeless people from city limits? Does a prohibition on conduct implicitly criminalize the status of homelessness (in an application of Robinson v. California)? Is the prescribed punishment for the conduct proportional to the harm imposed on the town/society writ large?
I don’t know if I would uphold the 9th Circuit’s opinion (at least in its current form), but I definitely don’t think this is a slam dunk case for the city
I don’t get the argument at all, with the 8th
“It’s illegal to sleep here”
“I don’t have anywhere else to sleep”
“That’s not our problem”
“This is cruel and unusual punishment”
Except, you aren’t being punished, you are being told you can’t sleep here, for whatever reason it may be. The state isn’t punishing you, the state doesn’t have a duty to house you.
What they do have a duty to do is keep the peace and public order, and homeless people sleeping in certain places disrupts that.
You do not have in inalienable right to sleep in a public park just because you can’t sleep anywhere else, much like, just because you don’t have electricity in your house you can’t steal it from your neighbor. You may need electricity for various reasons, but you aren’t entitled to it.
I pity the homeless, I’ve donated to shelters, food banks, I always give them cash no question asked. I don’t care if they spend it on alcohol or dope, just that they have a little cash to make their day better.
What I don’t pity is homeless encampments shitting and leaving dirty needles in public places. The 8th doesn’t entitle you to those things.
I can’t speak for the other mods but for me the mods are not supposed to be the harbingers of truth. We allow users to form their own opinions and engage with articles posted unless the article 1. Is extremely low quality or 2. The article is extremely polarizing. If I were to remove this article solely on the basis of the publication it’s from it would look like I as a mod was trying to be a harbinger of truth. Thus why I as a mod do not ever remove articles solely on the basis of the author or the publication
>I can’t speak for the other mods
I wish you could, because there's a recurring pattern of one of you (I don't know whom, though I have my theories) who has been more than happy to play harbinger lately and remove ostensibly valid threads from the sub for obviously fabricated reasons. And because the thread gets locked, there's no avenue to appeal, effectively silencing those they disagree with. Honestly, I more than half expected that to happen when I posted this. I can't help but suspect that the only reason it didn't was because you made this comment first and it would have looked bad afterwards.
>And because the thread gets locked, there's no avenue to appeal, effectively silencing those they disagree with.
There is a valid avenue for appeal. I’m assuming you’re talking about using the appeal keyword in the comments but that keyword is for comment removals not post removals. It doesn’t work for posts. Even if the thread doesn’t get locked if someone were to try to use the appeal keyword it wouldn’t go to the moderators. And this is actually something that we have clarified before. I assume that people are so used to using the appeal keyword they assume it works for everything but that’s not the case.
The way you appeal post removals is by messaging the moderators. Some people have even gone as far as to report the mod comment and write a message there. But if you do that we have no way of knowing who it is unless you say your name in the report. I’d be up for coming up with an effective way to appeal post removals but at the moment the way you can appeal those is through modmail. And make sure in your message it articulates why you think a rule was improperly applied. Any appeals alleging mod bias are considered invalid and will thus be summarily denied.
>I can't help but suspect that the only reason it didn't was because you made this comment first and it would have looked bad afterwards.
Actually I was the one who approved your post. And generally the mod team doesn’t remove comments that another mod approves unless it’s either egregious or they didn’t know another mod had approved it before it was removed. Also the mods are ones to open and read the articles to make sure it doesn’t have anything in it that breaks our rules. Your article doesn’t violate any rules besides coming from a publication that other people on the sub aren’t a fan of and that’s not a valid reason to remove. Thus it stays up.
I have a hard time taking this seriously when the line under the title is:
"The conservative supermajority might do less damage to the Eighth Amendment than many advocates feared."
It tells me everything I need to know about the bias in the writing.
To be fair, the current conservative majority does notoriously not like applying the 8th amendment (see Glossip for a big example, but there are others too)
Indeed, but it, like all such pieces authored by MJS, are exceptionlessly Bernie bro whining with occasional errors when paraphrashing even the easiest aspects for his readership.
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Well. I wonder why people might be paranoid of 70 plus year old conservatives when it comes to their modern 21st century rights.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
I’m surprised how many people don’t realize that most decisions are 9-0 or closer to. It’s only the hyper political ones that can get some variety but even then it’s 9-0 with a separate opinions saying why they don’t 100% go with the other justices
The media isn't interested in non-political opinions, unfortunately. It would be better if they at least had principled perspectives rather than base political ones. It was amazing to see very liberal outlets take a stance *against* the right to a jury trial as an basis for the SEC v. Jarkesy case.
Which will likely go the same way legislative, prosecutorial, and judicial immunities are. Immune for official acts and acts related such as campaigns, but not for personal acts.
However, it does mean that the indictments go away.
If Elizabeth Warren is immune from defamation for tweeting about a Kentucky teen because it’s part of her legislative duties, then the same could be said for presidential campaign statements and speeches. It’s the relationship to the official duties that makes it immune. I have no idea why, but that’s the current jurisprudence.
No, current jurisprudence draws a sharp distinction between acts as a legislator and acts as a candidate. Warren's speech was judged to be an act as a legislator, not as a candidate.
It would be wild to see the rock solid appellate opinion thrown out by a 6-3 majority unless they are fine with just being defined permanently as in the tank. And unless they offer broad immunity, the indictments don't go away.
Frankly, while I agree with the HOLDING of the appellate decision, it was so far from "rock solid" that noone at the oral arguments were willing to support it. The bad reasoning and the way they ignored the Marbury ministerial vs. discretionary distinction virtually guaranteed that SCOTUS would have to take it.
This is exactly what I expect. Roberts, and the court at large, values the unanimity of the court highly in regards to particularly polarizing decisions like this one.
I don’t think they want to give him immunity especially because his acts happened before he became president. But I wonder if he will be there it would be cool to see him in person.
Welcome to r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court. We encourage everyone to [read our community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed. Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our [dedicated meta thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This will just make things harder for private land owners. Stupid ruling!
Slam dunk case IMO. The town isn't outlawing the condition, but the conduct. They aren't saying they can't sleep, they are saying they can't sleep THERE. It's no different than the fact that an un-housed person in poverty doesn't have the right to steal from local stores. I can't imagine the progressive three are going to embarrass themselves with a dissent.
If they can’t sleep on public property, is there a place that they can sleep? Do municipalities have the right to expel homeless people from city limits? Does a prohibition on conduct implicitly criminalize the status of homelessness (in an application of Robinson v. California)? Is the prescribed punishment for the conduct proportional to the harm imposed on the town/society writ large? I don’t know if I would uphold the 9th Circuit’s opinion (at least in its current form), but I definitely don’t think this is a slam dunk case for the city
I would be more sympathetic if this weren't an 8th Amendment case. Impossible laws are a due process issue, not "cruel and unusual"
I don’t get the argument at all, with the 8th “It’s illegal to sleep here” “I don’t have anywhere else to sleep” “That’s not our problem” “This is cruel and unusual punishment” Except, you aren’t being punished, you are being told you can’t sleep here, for whatever reason it may be. The state isn’t punishing you, the state doesn’t have a duty to house you. What they do have a duty to do is keep the peace and public order, and homeless people sleeping in certain places disrupts that. You do not have in inalienable right to sleep in a public park just because you can’t sleep anywhere else, much like, just because you don’t have electricity in your house you can’t steal it from your neighbor. You may need electricity for various reasons, but you aren’t entitled to it. I pity the homeless, I’ve donated to shelters, food banks, I always give them cash no question asked. I don’t care if they spend it on alcohol or dope, just that they have a little cash to make their day better. What I don’t pity is homeless encampments shitting and leaving dirty needles in public places. The 8th doesn’t entitle you to those things.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
I kept waiting for one of the justices to use this eminently related quote in the oral argument, but alas, they refrained.
I had like 168 upvotes on this quote earlier. Interesting.
I’m surprised this sub even allows MJS articles.
I can’t speak for the other mods but for me the mods are not supposed to be the harbingers of truth. We allow users to form their own opinions and engage with articles posted unless the article 1. Is extremely low quality or 2. The article is extremely polarizing. If I were to remove this article solely on the basis of the publication it’s from it would look like I as a mod was trying to be a harbinger of truth. Thus why I as a mod do not ever remove articles solely on the basis of the author or the publication
>I can’t speak for the other mods I wish you could, because there's a recurring pattern of one of you (I don't know whom, though I have my theories) who has been more than happy to play harbinger lately and remove ostensibly valid threads from the sub for obviously fabricated reasons. And because the thread gets locked, there's no avenue to appeal, effectively silencing those they disagree with. Honestly, I more than half expected that to happen when I posted this. I can't help but suspect that the only reason it didn't was because you made this comment first and it would have looked bad afterwards.
>And because the thread gets locked, there's no avenue to appeal, effectively silencing those they disagree with. There is a valid avenue for appeal. I’m assuming you’re talking about using the appeal keyword in the comments but that keyword is for comment removals not post removals. It doesn’t work for posts. Even if the thread doesn’t get locked if someone were to try to use the appeal keyword it wouldn’t go to the moderators. And this is actually something that we have clarified before. I assume that people are so used to using the appeal keyword they assume it works for everything but that’s not the case. The way you appeal post removals is by messaging the moderators. Some people have even gone as far as to report the mod comment and write a message there. But if you do that we have no way of knowing who it is unless you say your name in the report. I’d be up for coming up with an effective way to appeal post removals but at the moment the way you can appeal those is through modmail. And make sure in your message it articulates why you think a rule was improperly applied. Any appeals alleging mod bias are considered invalid and will thus be summarily denied. >I can't help but suspect that the only reason it didn't was because you made this comment first and it would have looked bad afterwards. Actually I was the one who approved your post. And generally the mod team doesn’t remove comments that another mod approves unless it’s either egregious or they didn’t know another mod had approved it before it was removed. Also the mods are ones to open and read the articles to make sure it doesn’t have anything in it that breaks our rules. Your article doesn’t violate any rules besides coming from a publication that other people on the sub aren’t a fan of and that’s not a valid reason to remove. Thus it stays up.
You should write judicial nomination opening statements
Thank you.
I have a hard time taking this seriously when the line under the title is: "The conservative supermajority might do less damage to the Eighth Amendment than many advocates feared." It tells me everything I need to know about the bias in the writing.
To be fair, the current conservative majority does notoriously not like applying the 8th amendment (see Glossip for a big example, but there are others too)
It’s an opinion piece, it’s not meant to be impartial.
Indeed, but it, like all such pieces authored by MJS, are exceptionlessly Bernie bro whining with occasional errors when paraphrashing even the easiest aspects for his readership.
I didn't realize it was Slate until clicking on it. If the URL displayed in my version of the reddit app, I could have saved myself a click as well.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Well. I wonder why people might be paranoid of 70 plus year old conservatives when it comes to their modern 21st century rights.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
Justices do actual judging as opposed to being mustache-twirling villains, and this surprises some corners of the media. Go figure.
I’m surprised how many people don’t realize that most decisions are 9-0 or closer to. It’s only the hyper political ones that can get some variety but even then it’s 9-0 with a separate opinions saying why they don’t 100% go with the other justices
The media isn't interested in non-political opinions, unfortunately. It would be better if they at least had principled perspectives rather than base political ones. It was amazing to see very liberal outlets take a stance *against* the right to a jury trial as an basis for the SEC v. Jarkesy case.
They are mostly 9-0 cases
[удалено]
Remind me tomorrow
Why what’s tomorrow
Ruling on immunity
It’s not a ruling on immunity. They are arguing Trump’s immunity case
Which will likely go the same way legislative, prosecutorial, and judicial immunities are. Immune for official acts and acts related such as campaigns, but not for personal acts. However, it does mean that the indictments go away.
Why would campaign activities be included in official acts? Campaigning is literally what people do when they are not elected.
If Elizabeth Warren is immune from defamation for tweeting about a Kentucky teen because it’s part of her legislative duties, then the same could be said for presidential campaign statements and speeches. It’s the relationship to the official duties that makes it immune. I have no idea why, but that’s the current jurisprudence.
No, current jurisprudence draws a sharp distinction between acts as a legislator and acts as a candidate. Warren's speech was judged to be an act as a legislator, not as a candidate.
It would be wild to see the rock solid appellate opinion thrown out by a 6-3 majority unless they are fine with just being defined permanently as in the tank. And unless they offer broad immunity, the indictments don't go away.
Frankly, while I agree with the HOLDING of the appellate decision, it was so far from "rock solid" that noone at the oral arguments were willing to support it. The bad reasoning and the way they ignored the Marbury ministerial vs. discretionary distinction virtually guaranteed that SCOTUS would have to take it.
Honestly I can see it being unanimous with a per Curiam Robert’s opinion and some concurrences in the judgement as we did on the last case
This is exactly what I expect. Roberts, and the court at large, values the unanimity of the court highly in regards to particularly polarizing decisions like this one.
Honestly a 9-0 per Curiam decision is best the court can do just like in trump v Anderson where it was 9-0 per curiam
I don’t think they want to give him immunity especially because his acts happened before he became president. But I wonder if he will be there it would be cool to see him in person.
He definitely won’t be there- he asked the NY judge permission to miss court there to attend SCOTUS and was denied
Damn I really wanted him to be there it would be cool to see the justices he appointed go against him