Supremes Tickle ‘n Torch Homeless Camps

MSM’s headlines on Sup Ct considering judge-made right to vagrancy AGAIN parroted party lines ala Justices themselves. Progressive WaPo emphasized “divided” court, WSJ says they “signaled sympathy” for cities plagued by homeless camps.

Of course, the Democrat-liberals on the High Court could be counted on pushing in their oral argument questions the perceived righteousness of the judge-made law narrative. That is, that there’s to be written into the Constitution that homeless folks have the right to pitch a tent anywhere they want on public spaces & to deny them that right is “cruel & unusual punishment” traditionally reserved for criminal felonies. Never mind the reality that what such judge-made imaginings do is to make it harder if not impossible for cities to enforce any semblance of public order under the police powers clause, let alone get treatment for the addicts, mentally ill & confirmed hobos among the homeless.

As the WSJ editorials have noted, “Lower courts [in the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the West Coast] blocked anti-camping ordinances as unconstitutional on “cruel & unusual punishment” grounds. The WaPo coverage focused on the lib Justices giving plenty of airtime to the “creative” legal theory propounded by the homeless activists, while WSJ’s Jess Bravin more honestly & accurately wrote that “the Supreme Court seemed ready to let cities crack down on homeless encampments.” That’s because the conservative majority is, well, the majority these days, & THEIR questions & comments clearly intimated that cities have “competing priorities.” Said Chief Justice Roberts at one point, helping the homeless is certainly a priority, but local officials have always had the just-as-important need to have the “discretion … to govern their communities.” Exactly.

Davd Soul