Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

postalley.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 126 posts

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#21

Post by crooked-v »

adamsvystun wrote: post #11

> Carter ordered the City and County to provide offers of shelter within 90 days to all unaccompanied women and children in Skid Row; within 120 days shelter for all families there; and within 180 days shelter for everyone there. Further, he required them to offer housing and treatment services to all individuals within Skid Row who are in need of services from the Department of Mental Health or the Department of Pub…

Judges have tremendous discretionary power, limited mostly by explicit legislation and by the rulings of higher courts.

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#22

Post by sologoub »

adamsvystun wrote: post #11

> Carter ordered the City and County to provide offers of shelter within 90 days to all unaccompanied women and children in Skid Row; within 120 days shelter for all families there; and within 180 days shelter for everyone there. Further, he required them to offer housing and treatment services to all individuals within Skid Row who are in need of services from the Department of Mental Health or the Department of Pub…

> Generally speaking, courts have ruled that individual residents do not have a right to demand aid from their government. However, there is one important exception: when the government was an active, willing, and knowing participant in creating the conditions that lead to the need for aid. This is known as the “state-created-danger” doctrine. Judge Carter invokes this as the primary justification for his sweeping order: that Los Angeles created layers of structural racism that deprived Black people of opportunity, and it had an explicit policy of concentrating the homeless population in Skid Row and then depriving them of services.

Seems like in limited circumstances where the government itself is implicated in harm, than yes.

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#23

Post by tremon »

adamsvystun wrote: post #11

> Carter ordered the City and County to provide offers of shelter within 90 days to all unaccompanied women and children in Skid Row; within 120 days shelter for all families there; and within 180 days shelter for everyone there. Further, he required them to offer housing and treatment services to all individuals within Skid Row who are in need of services from the Department of Mental Health or the Department of Pub…

Well, you could quote the next paragraph as well:

> when the government was an active, willing, and knowing participant in creating the conditions that lead to the need for aid. This is known as the “state-created-danger” doctrine. Judge Carter invokes this as the primary justification for his sweeping order

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#24

Post by celticninja »

disgrunt wrote: post #17
underseacables wrote: post #8

Now let’s see if the city appeals. Edit: They have. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-orders-lo...

As they should. This is judiciary overreach.

Yes let's leave these people in horrific environments and situations because we can.

I can't believe that when common morality is so absent,that when it is so bad it has to be legally mandated, there are still people who think that leaving them to rot is ok.

You are probably not a Christian, but you have a large Christian population and that they allow this to happen just highlights the hypocrisy of the entire idea of the United States.

Spend a billion or 12 on a brushfire war to shake your stick and measure your military penis but spend a fraction of that on helping poor people and you balk.

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#25

Post by thrill »

celticninja wrote: post #18
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opioids are at most a companion to the homeless epidemic. If we're on the subject of compassion, millions who are no longer able to acquire effective pain relief could use some.

You have legalised cannabis in the states, that's a better pain relief option.

And your medical degree is from where?

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#26

Post by giantg2 »

crooked-v wrote: post #21
adamsvystun wrote: post #11

> Carter ordered the City and County to provide offers of shelter within 90 days to all unaccompanied women and children in Skid Row; within 120 days shelter for all families there; and within 180 days shelter for everyone there. Further, he required them to offer housing and treatment services to all individuals within Skid Row who are in need of services from the Department of Mental Health or the Department of Pub…

Judges have tremendous discretionary power, limited mostly by explicit legislation and by the rulings of higher courts.

Well... in theory they are limited that way. In practice they can do whatever they want and chock up the discrepancies to "mistakes" in applying the law. Then the loser has to spend thousands on an appeal to get a chance at justice. Also, any investigation into those "mistakes" and any true misconduct are usually so protected that their secrecy outweigh your right to any exculpatory evidence contained in them. Makes you wonder how widespread the mistakes and misconduct are that they want to keep it a secret...

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#27

Post by giantg2 »

bifrost wrote: post #7

Interesting how the article completely leaves out the Heroin/Fentanyl/Meth epidemic. SF is another example of what happens when public policy gets it wrong, our false compassion is killing people and city leaders are doing less than nothing about it.

Don't forget alcohol and other legal drugs.

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#28

Post by bifrost »

olliej wrote: post #19
bifrost wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In SF our homelessness is driven by drug abuse and the lack of ability to put addicts and the mentally ill into conservatorship, its well documented. > If we're on the subject of compassion, millions who are no longer able to acquire effective pain relief could use some. Could you clarify what you mean by that?

What on earth? In SF homelessness is caused by the lack of housing. Mental illness is courtesy the Reagan era dismantling of mental health services in CA, and is over-represented for sure. However, the driving factor for homelessness in SF, is the fact that there is no where for people to live. Thats part of why eviction is so stupidly hard in SF. Once you become homeless it is functionally impossible to get out.

Its not caused by lack of housing, the people on the street are incapable of supporting themselves much less maintaining a dwelling - have you ever been here? Our homeless are mostly drug-seeking tourists who are from elsewhere.

The Reagan canard is also just that; The Supreme court ruling sought by the ACLU during the Carter administration is why people are out on the street, the govt can't legally commit people like that anymore.

Evictions are hard here for the same reasons that its trivial to get fentanyl in front of the federal building that houses the DEA - failed govt policy.

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#29

Post by Camillo »

I'll never understand how the American system of government is meant to work. You've got a legislature that typically fails to legislate, an executive that sometimes does the legislature's job, and a judiciary that can randomly step in and write both laws and decrees as long as someone brings the case before them.

I hasten to note that many of everyone's favorite decisions came out of this process, so it seems to work. But from a civil law background, it just looks bizarre. Why would anyone design a system like this?

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#30

Post by disgrunt »

celticninja wrote: post #24
disgrunt wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As they should. This is judiciary overreach.

Yes let's leave these people in horrific environments and situations because we can. I can't believe that when common morality is so absent,that when it is so bad it has to be legally mandated, there are still people who think that leaving them to rot is ok. You are probably not a Christian, but you have a large Christian population and that they allow this to happen just highlights the hypocrisy of the entire idea o…

Judges aren't kings. In the United States there is a separation of powers for a reason. Skid Row is a failure of the executive and legislative branches in California. California voters have perpetuated this failure by continually re-electing them.
Post reply on HN