“No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling(postalley.org)
postalley.org
“No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling
https://www.postalley.org/2021/04/25/no-defense-of-the-indefensible-los-angeles-judge-makes-landmark-ruling-on-homelessness/
123 comments
Read through and it seems to be a crazy plan for me. The judge appears to be extremely ideology driven and a believer of the critical race theory to his core.
It is also laughable to think a judge has a grand plan to solve a societal issue. So a judge appointed himself to be the supreme planner of the city? The idea that a judge thinks himself can solve the homeless problem with a big plan is by itself pathetic.
It is also laughable to think a judge has a grand plan to solve a societal issue. So a judge appointed himself to be the supreme planner of the city? The idea that a judge thinks himself can solve the homeless problem with a big plan is by itself pathetic.
> Read through and it seems to be a crazy plan for me.
There’s no as actual plan, just “you will put the money you promised to spend on this in escrow so as to not put the plaintiff’s in a worse situation than you have already announced the intent to, and then you will make certain explanations and achieve certain goals by set times”. A plan would specify how those results will be met.
> It is also laughable to think a judge has a grand plan to solve a societal issue.
This is not a plan nor is it aiming to solve a societal issue.
> So a judge appointed himself to be the supreme planner of the city?
No, the appointment was by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the position is judge of the adherence of parties brought before his court with federal law, with the broad power to order behavior changes where there are breaches in that adherence with harms to other parties.
> The idea that a judge thinks himself can solve the homeless problem with a big plan is by itself pathetic.
The particular identified Constitutional breaches involved in the city of LA creating Skid Row and then actively choosing a containment polcy to trap people there and prolong the harms deliverately inflicted is not equivalent to the broader “homeless problem”, and the order here isn’t a solution to either the former or the latter but a direction to cease and mitigate the active and ongoing harm LA is doing to the subjects of the former. A solution (or at least, compensatory remedy) for the former, narrower, problem would likely be a component of the final judgement if (as seems likely) LA loses the case, this is merely a preliminary injunction to avoid irreparable harm during the pendency of thr trial, not a remedy for past harm or permanent solution.
Yes, it would be crazy if the judge was doing what you describe, but the judge is doing something much narrower.
There’s no as actual plan, just “you will put the money you promised to spend on this in escrow so as to not put the plaintiff’s in a worse situation than you have already announced the intent to, and then you will make certain explanations and achieve certain goals by set times”. A plan would specify how those results will be met.
> It is also laughable to think a judge has a grand plan to solve a societal issue.
This is not a plan nor is it aiming to solve a societal issue.
> So a judge appointed himself to be the supreme planner of the city?
No, the appointment was by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the position is judge of the adherence of parties brought before his court with federal law, with the broad power to order behavior changes where there are breaches in that adherence with harms to other parties.
> The idea that a judge thinks himself can solve the homeless problem with a big plan is by itself pathetic.
The particular identified Constitutional breaches involved in the city of LA creating Skid Row and then actively choosing a containment polcy to trap people there and prolong the harms deliverately inflicted is not equivalent to the broader “homeless problem”, and the order here isn’t a solution to either the former or the latter but a direction to cease and mitigate the active and ongoing harm LA is doing to the subjects of the former. A solution (or at least, compensatory remedy) for the former, narrower, problem would likely be a component of the final judgement if (as seems likely) LA loses the case, this is merely a preliminary injunction to avoid irreparable harm during the pendency of thr trial, not a remedy for past harm or permanent solution.
Yes, it would be crazy if the judge was doing what you describe, but the judge is doing something much narrower.
[deleted]
Are you claiming the government of Los Angeles has not discriminated on the basis of race?
I have found with a high degree of correlation that people who refer to critical race theory in contexts like the above do so as a shibboleth, and they almost always deny even the existence of structural racism.
Right, I do agree structural racism / systemic racism has no meaning, as the great Thomas Sowell pointed out.
Are you claiming all the racial disparities in outcomes are caused by the government discrimination?
All the disparities don’t need to be caused by racial discrimination for it to be unlawful discrimination on race.
Putting aside what the judge may or may not think of himself, the ruling is that actions taken by the Los Angeles government led to this specific situation and because of that, the city is responsible for remedying that situation, at least temporarily, in the near term.
The city does not need to be 100% responsible for every contributing factor to have a responsibility here just as a drunk driver is not off the hook because it was also raining when he crashed into someone.
Nowhere in the ruling does it claim to solve the broader issue of homelessness or dictate a long-term plan for the city. But it does say that the city can't simply let the situation fester while they noodle for decades on initiatives and broader plans.
The city does not need to be 100% responsible for every contributing factor to have a responsibility here just as a drunk driver is not off the hook because it was also raining when he crashed into someone.
Nowhere in the ruling does it claim to solve the broader issue of homelessness or dictate a long-term plan for the city. But it does say that the city can't simply let the situation fester while they noodle for decades on initiatives and broader plans.
The judge literally said that it’s up to the government to both solve it and deliver a report as to why it happened.
This is basically your boss “solving” issues by assigning the task to you.
The bosses lack of expertise is irrelevant so long as you are actually capable of doing what is asked.
This is basically your boss “solving” issues by assigning the task to you.
The bosses lack of expertise is irrelevant so long as you are actually capable of doing what is asked.
"so long as you are actually capable of doing what is asked"?
In this case, so long as the many hundreds of people in city government can solve the homelessness problem in 180 then it doesn’t matter that the judge couldn’t produce a solution on his own. He did order them to do it.
Finally! Impressive ruling.
Truly beautiful, glad I read it. The judge really stuck their neck out. Hope it all comes to fruition and a lot of things are learnt from it.
The main thing we'll learn? homelessness is not a money problem and 1 billion can't solve it.
Well, the things purchased with the $1B just might.
Money can't solve anything on its own, but you can't solve a problem without it either.
Money can't solve anything on its own, but you can't solve a problem without it either.
Hopefully this isn't taken as bad humour: I misread one word in the "way forward" section, seeing the word "benches" where it doesn't exist.
That reveals something about my subconscious; in my mind, there are few items of outdoor furniture as simple, rewarding, and pleasant to spend time on (alone or with loved ones) as a flat, comfortable bench.
Remarkable times in LA. Thank you for sharing this.
That reveals something about my subconscious; in my mind, there are few items of outdoor furniture as simple, rewarding, and pleasant to spend time on (alone or with loved ones) as a flat, comfortable bench.
Remarkable times in LA. Thank you for sharing this.
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.
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.
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.
If we're on the subject of compassion, millions who are no longer able to acquire effective pain relief could use some.
They're really not.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/us/san-francisco-drug-cri...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/us/san-francisco-drug-cri...
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?
> 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?
As someone looking at you guys from across the continent: at least part of your problem appears to come from a refusal to build dense housing which would allow people making something nearer average wage to sleep indoors.
Housing has very little to do with it. SF has always been an expensive city to live in and its surrounded with suburbs with affordable housing.
There are almost no homeless people in the surrounding areas because they come to SF for drugs and they know they won't be prosecuted for living their lifestyle. We're literally killing people by tolerating their bad behavior.
There are almost no homeless people in the surrounding areas because they come to SF for drugs and they know they won't be prosecuted for living their lifestyle. We're literally killing people by tolerating their bad behavior.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe do some research.
https://www.pacificresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/H...
"Roughly 34 percent of the homeless in San Francisco are homeless due to direct economic factors, such as evictions and job losses. Another 12 percent became homeless when they lost the safety net of family or friends."
"About 15 percent are due to drug addiction or substance abuse."
https://www.pacificresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/H...
"Roughly 34 percent of the homeless in San Francisco are homeless due to direct economic factors, such as evictions and job losses. Another 12 percent became homeless when they lost the safety net of family or friends."
"About 15 percent are due to drug addiction or substance abuse."
I've spoken with several people working directly with the homeless, 95% of the people on the street are not from SF, most of them are told to say they're from SF so they can get services. There are tons of fake/stilted reports from special interest groups, they're trying to feed the "Homeless Industrial Complex" which has been growing rapidly since 2003.
The City has even had to sue other counties for dumping: https://www.ktvn.com/story/30191022/nevada-san-francisco-rea...
Its very well known that SF has drug tourists, its so obvious if you're on the streets here...
The City has even had to sue other counties for dumping: https://www.ktvn.com/story/30191022/nevada-san-francisco-rea...
Its very well known that SF has drug tourists, its so obvious if you're on the streets here...
> I've spoken with several people working directly with the homeless
And somehow this makes you an expert or informed on the matter?
> 95% of the people on the street are not from SF
This is likely the case for every metro in the world. And?
> well known that SF has drug tourists
Facts and research, please. You seem keen to peddle the homeless as drug-addled perpetrators stereotype.
And somehow this makes you an expert or informed on the matter?
> 95% of the people on the street are not from SF
This is likely the case for every metro in the world. And?
> well known that SF has drug tourists
Facts and research, please. You seem keen to peddle the homeless as drug-addled perpetrators stereotype.
Yes, speaking with experts makes one informed.
Even the Mayor of SF has talked about how SF has drug tourists and how they need to be prevented from receiving services. You don't seem to be very informed about SF.
Even the Mayor of SF has talked about how SF has drug tourists and how they need to be prevented from receiving services. You don't seem to be very informed about SF.
Every single public service is abused by some percentage of people using it. So? The mayor holding a press conference or speaking to the press to score points doesn't make it any more credible than the Reagan's bullshit about drugs in the 80s.
I'm not interested in the incredibly small percentage of people exploiting the system that isn't helping them in the first place, but the large percentage of homeless - transient or long term - that need services but are fought every part of the way by ignorance like this.
I'm not interested in the incredibly small percentage of people exploiting the system that isn't helping them in the first place, but the large percentage of homeless - transient or long term - that need services but are fought every part of the way by ignorance like this.
Its not an incredibly small number of people exploiting the system, its 95% of people in this system.
> its 95% of people in this system
Pulling numbers out of thin air doesn't make them true.
Pulling numbers out of thin air doesn't make them true.
Here is the Supreme Court ruling in 1975:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson
Carter era federal law signed into effect 1980:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_of_Institutionali...
Other links:
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-mental-institutions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson
Carter era federal law signed into effect 1980:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_of_Institutionali...
Other links:
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-mental-institutions
Reagan hasn't been Governor of California for 45 years.
Why haven't they fixed it since then?
Why haven't they fixed it since then?
Because its illegal to commit someone to an institution who hasn't comitted a crime.
San Francisco is trying a new approach but has only managed to get ONE person into conservatorship in the last 2 years because of all the roadblocks put up by a group called "The Coalition on Homelessness".
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/conservatorship-off-to-a-slo...
To give you an idea, you have to be 5150'ed (aka put on a psychiatric health hold) 8 times in order to receive inpatient treatment. 8 times. If you told someone they'd have to try to kill themselves 8 times before they got help, they'd probably call you nuts.
San Francisco is trying a new approach but has only managed to get ONE person into conservatorship in the last 2 years because of all the roadblocks put up by a group called "The Coalition on Homelessness".
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/conservatorship-off-to-a-slo...
To give you an idea, you have to be 5150'ed (aka put on a psychiatric health hold) 8 times in order to receive inpatient treatment. 8 times. If you told someone they'd have to try to kill themselves 8 times before they got help, they'd probably call you nuts.
> Because its illegal to commit someone to an institution who hasn't comitted a crime.
I'm still not seeing what that do with "Reagan".
If it's a law he instituted, that law could be changed back, yes?
I'm still not seeing what that do with "Reagan".
If it's a law he instituted, that law could be changed back, yes?
No, the ACLU sued and its now the law of the land, its probably impossible to undue. Uninformed people blame Reagan for "closing the institutions" but you can't have an institution and nobody to put in it...
You have legalised cannabis in the states, that's a better pain relief option.
And your medical degree is from where?
It's probably sarcasm
What is the nature of this “false compassion”?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/us/san-francisco-drug-cri...
Here's a current article written by a local advocate, its unfortunately paywalled but you're probably aware of ways around that.
Here's a snippet:
I called Thomas Wolf, one of the loudest critics of the city’s policies, to run past him what I was hearing from professors and other experts who have spent their lives studying drug use.
“Forgive me for saying this,” Mr. Wolf politely told me, “but those people who you said you talked to — the experts — they have never shot dope, man. They never stuck a needle in their neck. They never spent a night on the street.”
Mr. Wolf has done all of those things, which makes him one of the most poignant voices in the debate over what San Francisco should do to address an epidemic that claimed 713 lives last year, more than twice as many as died from the coronavirus in the city in 2020.
“You can study homelessness and addiction in a book all day long,” Mr. Wolf told me. “But until you have experienced the power of addiction and the things you thought you would never resort to, you don’t really understand.”
Here's a current article written by a local advocate, its unfortunately paywalled but you're probably aware of ways around that.
Here's a snippet:
I called Thomas Wolf, one of the loudest critics of the city’s policies, to run past him what I was hearing from professors and other experts who have spent their lives studying drug use.
“Forgive me for saying this,” Mr. Wolf politely told me, “but those people who you said you talked to — the experts — they have never shot dope, man. They never stuck a needle in their neck. They never spent a night on the street.”
Mr. Wolf has done all of those things, which makes him one of the most poignant voices in the debate over what San Francisco should do to address an epidemic that claimed 713 lives last year, more than twice as many as died from the coronavirus in the city in 2020.
“You can study homelessness and addiction in a book all day long,” Mr. Wolf told me. “But until you have experienced the power of addiction and the things you thought you would never resort to, you don’t really understand.”
Unclear. From what I can tell people seem to think that letting people languish/die on the street by choice is the right thing to do. I'd prefer that we look at addiction as a disease and a public health risk and that we get those people off the street - either into treatment or into the justice system because of the crimes they commit to maintain their addictions. If you look at what a lot of european countries do - they force people off the streets, while thats not very legal here, maybe that is what we should do.
Don't forget alcohol and other legal drugs.
SF always had a "skid row" area that was mostly alcoholics, but it was a fraction of the size it is now (it was basically a block or two). Now we have an entire neighborhood besieged with people openly using drugs, needles in their arms, smoking fentanyl with anything they can get their hands on.
Alcohol and "legal drugs" are not the problem.
Alcohol and "legal drugs" are not the problem.
I think a block or two is not correct, especially when you correct for population growth and the policy that started shipping them in from other parts of the city. Can you show me population statistics for skid row and overall city homeless compared to the rest of the city/state/country over time?
I don't doubt that opioids have contributed, but alcohol and other legal drugs are a major problem too. If this ruling is based on government caused harm, then it would require investigating the availability of alcohol due to policy too.
I don't doubt that opioids have contributed, but alcohol and other legal drugs are a major problem too. If this ruling is based on government caused harm, then it would require investigating the availability of alcohol due to policy too.
I'm from SF, I know exactly where "skid row" was, and I also worked there for about a decade. Nobody was shipped in from other parts of the city either unless you count people moving from other counties to where meth/heroin/fentanyl was easily available.
You can count the number of people on the street, maybe 1 in 15 has an alcoholic beverage, the rest are smoking meth/fenty/heroin.
SF's problems are all about drugs.
You can count the number of people on the street, maybe 1 in 15 has an alcoholic beverage, the rest are smoking meth/fenty/heroin.
SF's problems are all about drugs.
Oh, when they say Skid Row, they mean the 50 block one in LA (the most famous one). Maybe SF is different.
It seems alcohol is still the most abused substance in the homeless population. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29852450/
It seems alcohol is still the most abused substance in the homeless population. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29852450/
AFAIK "Skid Row" is a generic term, and I did reference SF's specific area.
This is basically what you'll see every few feet in San Francisco's Tenderloin district:
https://twitter.com/DTenderloine/status/1382405311009488897
(Warning, extremely graphic)
Alcohol is certainly abused, but not as publicly as Heroin/Fentanyl....
This is basically what you'll see every few feet in San Francisco's Tenderloin district:
https://twitter.com/DTenderloine/status/1382405311009488897
(Warning, extremely graphic)
Alcohol is certainly abused, but not as publicly as Heroin/Fentanyl....
Now let’s see if the city appeals.
Edit: They have. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-orders-lo...
Edit: They have. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-orders-lo...
> 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 Public Health. He also required them to offer support services to all who accept shelter offers.
> Judge Carter ordered the city to place $1 billion in escrow; ordered the cessation of all sales or transfers of public lands;
Does the judge have the power to order such things?
> Judge Carter ordered the city to place $1 billion in escrow; ordered the cessation of all sales or transfers of public lands;
Does the judge have the power to order such things?
> 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.
Seems like in limited circumstances where the government itself is implicated in harm, than yes.
> 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.
The state-created-danger doctrine does not mean any of those [1,2]. The law is about direct physical harm by the inaction of individual officers, not any vague policy implications. This judge's interpretation of the law is as crazy as his ideology.
1 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/legal-doctrine-of-state-cr...
2 https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
The state-created-danger doctrine does not mean any of those [1,2]. The law is about direct physical harm by the inaction of individual officers, not any vague policy implications. This judge's interpretation of the law is as crazy as his ideology.
1 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/legal-doctrine-of-state-cr...
2 https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
> direct physical harm by individual officers
No, it's not. Your own links directly contradict that; see, for example, the second paper and page 10 (not an officer of the law, not direct physical harm) and page 18 (officers of the law but no direct harm of any kind).
No, it's not. Your own links directly contradict that; see, for example, the second paper and page 10 (not an officer of the law, not direct physical harm) and page 18 (officers of the law but no direct harm of any kind).
I didn't want to mean the harm was directly caused by the officer. Updated the language.
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
> 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
Doesn't that also apply to every problem in society?
No, there are extensive factual findings in the order (based on evidence presented in the hearings so far in this case) as to how the particular harms at issue in this case were deliberately and knowingly sought by the government, both the deliberate racial discrimination and the freezing of it's consequences through the deliberate “containment” strategy in skid row.
Most social problems aren't the clearly demonstrable product of deliberate government choice of the harm in this way.
Most social problems aren't the clearly demonstrable product of deliberate government choice of the harm in this way.
Yeah. This is this judge's over broadening interpretation of the law. If his logic follows, a judge can define any flaw in the society as a state created danger and the judge can create grand plans to fix any societal issues. Lol.
> Does the judge have the power to order such things?
The actual order is linked and has fairly extensive citations of precedent on that point, but, generally, yes, the federal courts have fairly extensive power to order equitable relief, even on a preliminary basis, where it finds actual (or, for preliminary orders, probable) Constitutional violations (and in some other cases, as well.)
The actual order is linked and has fairly extensive citations of precedent on that point, but, generally, yes, the federal courts have fairly extensive power to order equitable relief, even on a preliminary basis, where it finds actual (or, for preliminary orders, probable) Constitutional violations (and in some other cases, as well.)
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...
Ideally this would be coming from the legislature, but I'd rather a judge do it if no one else will.
"Ideally this would be coming from the legislature"
You mean legally?
You mean legally?
The US is a common law country: legal judgments are one of the three pillars of common law, along with legs®s and common practice (things that have always been that have been neither established nor prohibited by either of the other two pillars).
IANAL. IANAA, but I have lived all my life in a common law country, FWIW.
IANAL. IANAA, but I have lived all my life in a common law country, FWIW.
If you say that in court you will be called a Sovereign Citizen and told to shut up (ask me how I know...). Even though we are a common law country, the judicial rulings are supposed to be based on statute, regulations, case law, and customs. It seems this ruling takes it further than that. It seems the only basis is the government caused harm doctrine and the application in this case seems contrary to other cases/issues. The courts are required to take other doctrines into account too. For example, if these policies are enacted by elected representatives, then the court would have to find that the aggrieved people were guaranteed those treatment services, shelter, or to be released somewhere else by right in order to overcome that will of the people doctrine. I think that's a hard sell since the legislature hasn't (to my knowledge) cemented that as rights in these circumstances.
I have my popcorn ready to watch the appeals process and policy discussions this should engender. I expect that much of the ruling will be struck down, but cannot help but think that the state-caused-danger has legs.
Ultimately, my guess is that a superior court will set the judgement aside while upholding some elements as correct, then direct the city and county to address those specific elements deemed to have merit.
The end result would be legislative change in the context of elements deemed valid.
Or perhaps I am overly optimistic....
Ultimately, my guess is that a superior court will set the judgement aside while upholding some elements as correct, then direct the city and county to address those specific elements deemed to have merit.
The end result would be legislative change in the context of elements deemed valid.
Or perhaps I am overly optimistic....
Yeah, the courts generally say that you have to accommodate or remedy whatever the general request or grievance. They generally do not write/rewrite policy. That's supposed be for the executive and legislative branch to come up with.
It should be interesting to watch. My guess is we won't hear the final result for a few years... as usual.
It should be interesting to watch. My guess is we won't hear the final result for a few years... as usual.
Right, but... if I understand correctly, the judge ordered things to be done to stop the ongoing harm while the case was being decided. In order to avoid having to do this, LA is going to need to win an appeal about the temporary order before the 180 days runs out. Court slowness is now working against LA.
Disclaimer: IANAL, and all that...
Disclaimer: IANAL, and all that...
Ah, I missed the part about it being temporary. It seems like quite a large and expansive judgement for a temporary measure. Usually they are small injunctions against a new law or policy, like the recent one against enforcing the bump stock ban.
> Yeah, the courts generally say that you have to accommodate or remedy whatever the general request or grievance. They generally do not write/rewrite policy.
That’s…actually not all that true, especially in the case of systematic racial discrimination by local government. School integration, including bussing, is a pretty good example where policy was often dictated in fairly explicit detail by the courts.
That’s…actually not all that true, especially in the case of systematic racial discrimination by local government. School integration, including bussing, is a pretty good example where policy was often dictated in fairly explicit detail by the courts.
In the case of school integration, the prior ruling under Brown was not being followed. That failure to follow that ruling then lead to a second judgement giving judges specific powers to force the correct implementation of Brown if the school districts had not done it themselves.
It's very odd to jump directly to writing detailed policy on a first judgment. Usually it's only that a specific policy is not allowed or general issue must be corrected. Usually it takes a failure of valid corrective policy to be implement for the courts to force a specific policy which they have devised.
It's very odd to jump directly to writing detailed policy on a first judgment. Usually it's only that a specific policy is not allowed or general issue must be corrected. Usually it takes a failure of valid corrective policy to be implement for the courts to force a specific policy which they have devised.
> It's very odd to jump directly to writing detailed policy on a first judgment
It is not at all unusual for preliminary injunctions, when they are issued at all, to include specific mandated interim actions to prevent or interrupt ongoing harm. That’s, in fact, the whole reason preliminary injunctions exist.
It is not at all unusual for preliminary injunctions, when they are issued at all, to include specific mandated interim actions to prevent or interrupt ongoing harm. That’s, in fact, the whole reason preliminary injunctions exist.
I missed that it was an injunction. I still feel this is unusual for an injunction given the scope.
The US was a common law country, then created the constitution based on that common law and now it is a constitutional republic. The constitution is the pillar now not "common law".
I think he means they accept common law doctrines as part of the law. For example, malicious prosecution is not a statute (in some states) but can still be prosecuted (I forget if they handle it civilly or criminally) under common law doctrine.
Essentially.
The constitution is the floor the stool sits on, and it supports common law both implicitly (cf, e.g., [1]), and explicitly (cf the 7th Amendment).
[1] https://constitutionalism.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/common-la...
The constitution is the floor the stool sits on, and it supports common law both implicitly (cf, e.g., [1]), and explicitly (cf the 7th Amendment).
[1] https://constitutionalism.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/common-la...
You may get that opportunity, the order reads like he's going to run for office.
Judges don't write laws
Obviously the US can afford housing the homeless. I just don't understand how a judge can just decide to spend a billion dollars.
> Obviously the US can afford housing the homeless. I just don’t understand how a judge can just decide to spend a billion dollars.
The judge didn’t decide to spend a billion dollars. The judge ordered the city to put $1 billion dollars the mayor had pledged to the cause of homelessness in escrow. The actions ordered by the court may cost more or less than $1 billion.
The courts have broad authority to order government or other parties to take action to remediate (or cease exacerbating) unlawful harms they have caused; and $1 billion isn’t anywhere near the maximum that it has cost the subject of such an order to comply.
The judge didn’t decide to spend a billion dollars. The judge ordered the city to put $1 billion dollars the mayor had pledged to the cause of homelessness in escrow. The actions ordered by the court may cost more or less than $1 billion.
The courts have broad authority to order government or other parties to take action to remediate (or cease exacerbating) unlawful harms they have caused; and $1 billion isn’t anywhere near the maximum that it has cost the subject of such an order to comply.
This interpretation of "state created danger" seems remarkably overbroad. By this logic, you could tie just about any danger back to the state with a similar degree of proximity. Take someone hit by a drunk driver, for example. The government repealed Prohibition, regulates and licenses alcohol production and sale, and is fully aware of the risks of drivers abusing alcohol (DUI laws, PSAs, etc). That sure sounds like an active, willing, and knowing participant in creating the conditions of the danger. Can the victim of a DUI therefore successfully sue the government?
I'd fully expect this to get quickly overturned on appeal.
I'd fully expect this to get quickly overturned on appeal.
> By this logic, you could tie just about any danger back to the state with a similar degree of proximity.
Um, if you actually read the detailed recitation of relevant fact findings in the decision, I don’t think you can trace most dangers back to the state with similar proximity.
> Take someone hit by a drunk driver, for example. The government repealed Prohibition, regulates and licenses alcohol production and sale, and is fully aware of the risks of drivers abusing alcohol (DUI laws, PSAs, etc). That sure sounds like an active, willing, and knowing participant in creating the conditions of the danger.
That’s not nearly the specificity of the harms to particular persons that is established with the skid row containment policy.
Um, if you actually read the detailed recitation of relevant fact findings in the decision, I don’t think you can trace most dangers back to the state with similar proximity.
> Take someone hit by a drunk driver, for example. The government repealed Prohibition, regulates and licenses alcohol production and sale, and is fully aware of the risks of drivers abusing alcohol (DUI laws, PSAs, etc). That sure sounds like an active, willing, and knowing participant in creating the conditions of the danger.
That’s not nearly the specificity of the harms to particular persons that is established with the skid row containment policy.
This is somewhat begging the question, which is, at its core: “is the gov’t directly responsible for the humanitarian crisis at Skid Row.”
It was intended as more of a proof by contradiction. If we assume that the judge is correct in assessing this as a state created danger, then this standard would also apply to a wide variety of dangers that the government is also involved with, which have never been classified as such.
The notion that this reasoning would apply to an absurd (for your reductio ad absurdum) variety of cases is just a slight reframing of the point of contention.
By way of example, assume, for the sake of contradiction, that your argument is valid. Then, by similar reasoning, I could argue that any argument I disagree with can be taken to unreasonable extremes, and is therefore invalid, etc. etc. :P
By way of example, assume, for the sake of contradiction, that your argument is valid. Then, by similar reasoning, I could argue that any argument I disagree with can be taken to unreasonable extremes, and is therefore invalid, etc. etc. :P
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?
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?
The Federalist Papers give a really good overview.
Note that they spent many years analyzing the failure modes of previous republics, and attempting to design a system resistant to those failure modes.
I mean, we're still on our first republic (at least at the moment), while France is on its fifth, so obviously they did something right.
Note that they spent many years analyzing the failure modes of previous republics, and attempting to design a system resistant to those failure modes.
I mean, we're still on our first republic (at least at the moment), while France is on its fifth, so obviously they did something right.
Second. Articles of Confederation were the first.
Third if you count the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Third if you count the Civil War and Reconstruction.
I might grant the Articles of Confederation for the sake of argument.
The Civil War failed, so that one doesn't count. The post-Civl War United States continued to operate under the same Constitution. There were some new amendments, certainly, but it wasn't scrapped and rewritten from scratch, and the overall form of the government of the United States remained the same.
The Civil War failed, so that one doesn't count. The post-Civl War United States continued to operate under the same Constitution. There were some new amendments, certainly, but it wasn't scrapped and rewritten from scratch, and the overall form of the government of the United States remained the same.
A key thing to keep in mind is that the US is one of the oldest among modern democracies, and the Constitution and the way the government was structured was entirely novel at the time. Other countries then had the mistakes of the US to learn from when implementing their own democratic systems.
We also have to note that the current implementation in not the way it was designed.
Quite a lot of that also comes down to bad timing: the system was designed for a mostly-agrarian population with a relatively small urban class and inherent logistical limitations on maximum population density, and then the Industrial Revolution came along and upended literally everyone's expectations about how population centers, the economy, wealth distribution, etc would continue to work for the foreseeable future.
It's seems that just about any system of government has issues with citizen/subject contentment or efficiency once becomes large and diverse.
I agree that representation is lacking. I can't get an intelligent response from my reps, if I even get a response at all.
I agree that representation is lacking. I can't get an intelligent response from my reps, if I even get a response at all.
You may be interested to hear that those limits in the House of Representatives are actually entirely artificial because of a measure passed in 1929 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule), and that there's an ongoing effort to increase the number so that each more closely reflects their constituents (https://twitter.com/uncapthehouse).
Yeah, I was aware of that. As the representation goes up (number of voting members) the efficiency/effectiveness tends to go down. Seems like a lose-lose scenario. I think a better scenario is to follow the original intent of the 10th ammendment and leave the states to provide most of the laws (smaller populations should result in better representation). Sadly it seems that just about anything can be shoehorned into the federal perview with the right judge. For example, growing your own wheat, on your own land, for you own consumption can be restricted by the federal government because the fact that you no longer have to buy your wheat impacts the interstate commerce of the wheat market.
The American system boils down to this: Never give anyone power that someone else cannot block. The point wasn't efficiency; the point was preventing authoritarianism.
Now, you can look at a case like this, and say that what the judge did is pretty authoritarian. But there's an appeals court above this court, and LA has already appealed. If this judge overstepped, the ruling can be overturned.
Now, you can look at a case like this, and say that what the judge did is pretty authoritarian. But there's an appeals court above this court, and LA has already appealed. If this judge overstepped, the ruling can be overturned.
It isn't designed like this. The people in power have steadily granted themselves more power over time. None of the people in the system want to call out the fundamental issues in the system today because they all take advantage of them.
Where do you live?
How about we deregulate zoning so housing can become affordable?
And remove rent controls. Also they should establish vagrancy laws. Guess how many people wouldn't bother living in CA then? South Park has already covered this topic.
I wonder if Skid's homelessness will disappear now that there is a strong motive (a potentially big bill) to fix the issue.
> To enable that, Judge Carter ordered the city to place $1 billion in escrow; ordered the cessation of all sales or transfers of public lands; ...
While I agree that Skid Row is a disaster. If I were a Californian, I don't think I'd be comfortable with this degree of legislating from the bench.
While I agree that Skid Row is a disaster. If I were a Californian, I don't think I'd be comfortable with this degree of legislating from the bench.
> While I agree that Skid Row is a disaster. If I were a Californian, I don't think I'd be comfortable with this degree of legislating from the bench.
As a Californian, I’m not comfortable with the degree of active racial and other unlawful discrimination and actively seeking to preserve the harms of that discrimination carried out by the City of Los Angeles with no impediment from the State of California.
As an American, I’m not at all unhappy with the federal courts stepping in this way when a state, or a subdivision thereof, violates the rights secured to the people under the Constitution.
As a Californian, I’m not comfortable with the degree of active racial and other unlawful discrimination and actively seeking to preserve the harms of that discrimination carried out by the City of Los Angeles with no impediment from the State of California.
As an American, I’m not at all unhappy with the federal courts stepping in this way when a state, or a subdivision thereof, violates the rights secured to the people under the Constitution.
Interesting that no mention is made of appeal. Is the city willing to embark on this without challenging it? That's almost too much to hope for, so I hate to assume.
So to update, it has been appealed: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-orders-lo...
Rural life looks better every day.
The article links to the full decision as well.