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

[–] 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