City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, et al
What do I say now, after the Supreme Court decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson? My opinion about “what to do with the homeless” remains the same as before. My sympathies are as much with the homeless as ever. The use of quotation marks refers to the partisan rhetoric over the issue, which shall be addressed, separately. Put me down as empathizing with the homeless -as always. It is a matter of heart, for me, not satisfaction.
Praise the Supreme Court! While its ruling in Grants defines homelessness as a state-of-being, or (colloquially), as a "status," it grants that status is not a criminal offense. To speak plainly: to be homeless is not a crime. Homelessness is an Existential matter, not a legal status. The Court also hears that the fear of the plaintiffs was that the status of homelessness might become repression. A fallacy. The Supreme Court decision only affirms the power of local courts to enforce lawful statutes—or codes—enacted by democratically elected legislatures.
Neither is the decision an injunction against appeals in individual cases, God forbid. Grant mercy that I may suggest a hypothetical scenario. Two individuals are seated on a public park bench. A beat cop passes, either on foot—or what is more likely—in a patrol car. One of the two individuals seated on the park bench is shabbily dressed. Then, upon being approached by the policeman, does not pass the smell test. The individual is politely asked by the policeman to "move on."
To a casual observer across the street, and perhaps looking out of an upstairs window, it would appear to be an act of discrimination. Why was the one and not the other ordered to move on? My point is that Johnson should have appealed under protection of the 14th Amendment -not the 8th, i.e., "cruel and unusual punishment." As matters stand, what is glaringly apparent is that class action failed -not due process of law. The future, as said, is wide open for appealing individual cases of discrimination.
Didn't I predict this outcome? At the same time, I maintain that I am not rubbing it in. The long-awaited Supreme Court decision draws a clear line in the sand. On one side are the homeless and their advocates. On the other is public administration, be it State, city, local, or (now) Federal jurisdiction. Whatever one may think of my art, I must be counted among the former. I'm not a public official in any capacity, and (anyway) the Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson protects lawful statutes, not free expression.
Thank you Supreme Court. My only regret is the matter had to come to this -to reach the Supreme Court, that is. Homelessness should be mediated, not litigated. I have the highest regard for the justice system, and I cringe at the thought of Supreme Court Justices doing the dirty laundry of this plaintiff's cause. We must grin and bear it. The opinions of Justice Sotomayor, specifically, never impressed me before today; but now, by the idealism of her dissent, she wears a halo.