I've been seeing a lot of anti-voting sentiment going around. Can't believe I have to say this, but you need to vote. Not only is there more to the election than just the president. (State policy, Senate, house), but not voting is not an act of protest. C'mon guys

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] regul@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If the Democrats are also pushing to make being homeless illegal why is that an incentive to vote for them? I guess I don't get your point. You think Biden doesn't feel the same way about Martin v Boise as Newsom?

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If the Democrats are also pushing to make being homeless illegal why is that an incentive to vote for them?

My point is Democrats want to overturn the status quo. The blue states assume they are going to get to decide what happens to homeless people next, presumably for the better. Unfortunately for them, a second Trump term would undoubtedly render homelessness illegal at the federal level. Best-laid plans gone awry thanks to Trump.

If the Republicans win in 2024 they will have control of all three branches of the federal government. They will be able reshape America how they see fit, and states rights are not going to stop them. States rights were only ever a justification from Republicans to turn their states into authoritarian christofascist workshops. Now they going to take what they've learned and practiced to the federal level and won't care about state rights whatsoever.

[–] regul@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The blue states assume they are going to get to decide what happens to homeless people next, presumably for the better.

The blue states are pushing to be allowed to put homeless people in jail again. Martin v. Boise required you to have enough shelter beds/housing available before you could force homeless people to leave the street. The blue states are joining the SCOTUS case because they will not build shelters. If that doesn't indicate that they have no intention of doing better, idk what does.

They will be able reshape America how they see fit

They don't need the other two branches of government to do this. They've already got the only one that matters and are doing it now even with a Democrat in the Oval Office.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

The blue states are joining the SCOTUS case because they will not build shelters.

Again, here is Governor Gavin Newsom's official statement. He seems intent on providing services to homeless people. Presumably that would include shelter.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/01/12/governor-newsom-statement-on-u-s-supreme-court-agreeing-to-hear-case-on-homelessness/

“California has invested billions to address homelessness, but rulings from the bench have tied the hands of state and local governments to address this issue.

“The Supreme Court can now correct course and end the costly delays from lawsuits that have plagued our efforts to clear encampments and deliver services to those in need.”

It's fair to not trust what someone says. At least with Democrats when they outwardly claim to have homeless people's interests at heart, since they are neoliberals as opposed to fascists I am inclined to believe them. However, I disagree with the need to remove homeless camps in order to provide services to people. If the services are good and this is effectively communicated to people, I think most people in need of those services will take them voluntarily.

This is opposed to the fascists in the Republican party who want to put homeless people in what will no doubt turn out to be death camps.

They don’t need the other two branches of government to do this. They’ve already got the only one that matters and are doing it now even with a Democrat in the Oval Office.

If Republicans want to make homelessness illegal at the federal level, they will need Congress to pass legislation and the presidency to sign the bill into law. All the Supreme Court can do is remove homeless encampments' Eighth Amendment protection based on the current question they are trying to answer. They could also assign whether they think the federal or state governments have the authority to write legislation to address homeless encampments. As they did recently with Trump v. Anderson, where they decided not only that states don't have authority to take Trump off the ballot but only Congress does. However the Supreme Court cannot write or sign into law any such legislation themselves.

Not that I assume anyone needs this, but it's catchy and I'll take any excuse to watch it, it's the "I'm just a bill."

I was just going to post this just for fun, but they actually raise a good point. Even with only Trump in office, without a Republican controlled congress, he can do a lot of damage with just executive orders. edit: added clarification to Trump v. Anderson

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 8 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Not that I assume anyone needs this, but it's catchy and I'll take any excuse to watch it, it's the "I'm just a bill."

I was just going to post this just for fun, but they actually raise a good point.

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] regul@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Even in Newsom's own statement he still says they're attempting to clear encampments. The reason they cannot clear encampments is because, by Boise, they do not have enough shelter. Altering Boise (which is what he wants to do) would enable them to clear encampments even if those people had no place to go. The California government is asking for carte blanche to take homeless people's possessions whenever they want, even if they have nothing to offer them. I don't know in what world that has their best interests at heart. It seems to basically mirror Republican policy.

You're acting as though the Democrats are not willing participants in making homelessness illegal, but then linking to an amicus brief where they're begging the Supreme Court to let them do just that.

And a short aside about your Trump v. Anderson comments. The Supreme Court made their ruling only as strong as it needed to be to accomplish their goals. This is basically a hallmark of the Roberts Court. If they thought there was any threat from the legislature to actually ban Trump from running, the ruling would have been more expansive. The Supreme Court is Lucy holding the football and you're Charlie Brown thinking this time you've got a chance.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It seems to basically mirror Republican policy.

No, here is the relevant line from Governor Gavin Newsom.

“The Supreme Court can now correct course and end the costly delays from lawsuits that have plagued our efforts to clear encampments and deliver services to those in need.”

They plan on giving services to homeless people. This would presumably include shelter.

You’re acting as though the Democrats are not willing participants in making homelessness illegal, but then linking to an amicus brief where they’re begging the Supreme Court to let them do just that.

This Supreme Court decision will most likely remove the Eighth Amendment protection that homeless encampments currently have. While that will remove their current legal standing, by which I mean how they are currently defended in courts, it will not impact the legality of homeless encampments one way or another. Laws will have to be passed and in some cases laws may already be on the books, that will determine the legality of homeless encampments. The Supreme Court cannot write, pass, or sign legislation to make homelessness illegal. As long as Biden is president, homelessness will at least be a state issue as apposed to a federal issue. If Trump becomes president homelessness will be a federal issue.

If they thought there was any threat from the legislature to actually ban Trump from running, the ruling would have been more expansive.

With the current Republican House of Representatives, there is little chance of Congress barring Trump from office. Under a Democrat controlled Congress they could bar Trump from holding office, but that would of course be too little too late. That is neither here or there though. The point of that example was to demonstrate that the Supreme Court can only determine who has authority in any given case, whether that be the federal government or individual state governments.

To be clear, the difference between Democrats and Republicans on this issue of homeless encampments, is that Democrats want their blue states to be able to help homeless people the way they see fit, which I agree is not the best way to do this, while Republicans want to make homelessness illegal at the federal level. If he is elected, Trump is going to decide what happens to homeless people in California, not Gavin Newsom. Trump is a fascist, so when he says "tent cities" on "large parcels of inexpensive land" he means death camps. So even though Democrats are approaching this with supposedly the best interests of homeless people in mind, it's not going to matter because Trump, if elected, will pull the rug out from under them. edit: typos

[–] regul@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

“The Supreme Court can now correct course and end the costly delays from lawsuits that have plagued our efforts to clear encampments and deliver services to those in need.”

By "plagued our efforts" he means "we can't clear camps". How do you think he wants to do good things after reading that?

Democrats should have recognized the protections granted by Martin v Boise and not joined in Grants Pass v Johnson in an attempt to get rid of them. The fact that they're still supportive of sending things to SCOTUS shows how truly far to the right they are. Constantly decrying the SC as a newly-biased institution but still submitting briefs to them. They're either expecting this partisan institution to magically hand down liberal decisions, or they want the right wing response.

Which do you think it is?

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

By “plagued our efforts” he means “we can’t clear camps”. How do you think he wants to do good things after reading that?

Democrats should have recognized the protections granted by Martin v Boise and not joined in Grants Pass v Johnson in an attempt to get rid of them.

Don't get me wrong, I think what the Democrats want to do is not great, just better than what Republicans want to do. Democrats think they need to clear camps first and then provide services to homeless people. I think they should provide services, advertise the services and people will leave the camps if the services are good. But regardless, the point is currently trans people are no worse off in blue states under Biden currently, but they will be much worse off under Trump.

The fact that they’re still supportive of sending things to SCOTUS shows how truly far to the right they are.

There is no denying that the Democrats have been neoliberals since the 90's.

Constantly decrying the SC as a newly-biased institution but still submitting briefs to them. They’re either expecting this partisan institution to magically hand down liberal decisions, or they want the right wing response.

Which do you think it is?

I wouldn't be surprised if some neoliberals among the Democrats have genuinely bought into the states' rights bullshit. They are going to be disappointed if Trump wins. I think most people want the power to do things their way. Gavin Newsom seems too with it to have fallen for states' rights so he probably thinks he's going to do be able to do things his way. He is probably betting on a second Biden term and is going to be disappointed if Trump wins. edit: typos