The quote for those wondering:

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

Plus ~~The Simpsons~~ Gerald Ford already did it

Technically they overturned both

If Biden drops out I'm going to tell libs I'm voting for him and regurgitate all the excuses they've made thus far

May also throw in a "we have to protect democracy, the people voted for Biden in the primary and now they're trying to overturn that??"

I don't think anyone has anything in defense of Biden here.

To @Dolores@hexbear.net's point, though, CNN embarrassed itself, too. They are both deserving of criticism.

Supreme Court... declares homeless people not protected from cruel and unusual punishment

As far as I can tell, this is a pretty significant misrepresentation of the ruling.

Johnson v. Grants Pass is a court case originally filed in 2018 that determined it is cruel and unusual punishment to arrest or ticket people for sleeping outside when they have no other safe place to go. The case started in Grants Pass, Oregon when the city began issuing tickets to people sleeping in public, even when there were not enough safe, accessible shelter beds.

The ruling from a lower court was that ticketing people for sleeping outside when they have no access to shelter constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, which the federal constitution prohibits. It looks like the Supreme Court decided took the opposite stance: that ticketing homeless people when there's no shelter available is not cruel and unusual punishment.

This is nowhere near a blanket ruling that "homeless people are not protected from cruel and unusual punishment." A comparison would be if a lower court said exposed toilets in jails constituted cruel and unusual punishment and the Supreme Court reversed. That's not saying prisoners can now be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment of any kind. It's saying that specific practice -- providing only exposed toilets in jail cells -- is not within the definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

This is obviously a bad ruling, but it is not anywhere near as bad as the headline claims. I don't think we do ourselves any favors overstating the severity of issues -- it's The Boy Who Cried Wolf, and the situation is bad enough that the actual facts are all we need.

they want to win but the tools they could use to win are "out of bounds"

Makes complete sense. Medicare for All is incredibly popular, and a serious push for it would win a lot of votes, but they can't do it because it's not friendly to capital.

There are too many minor players with career aspirations on the line for "losing on purpose" to make any sense. What we're seeing is:

1. No one is "the people in charge." We keep having these stories about how Biden only wants yes-men around, and there's no party mechanism that can force a sitting president to resign or drop out, even in an egregious situation like this. We have an imperial executive who's too senile to be competent, but who can still shout down minions who attempt to steer him.
2. The movers and shakers in the Democratic Party want to win -- hence the panic this morning when Biden’s ineptitude is impossible to keep ignoring -- but are too up their own asses to do a decent job of it. Believing their own bullshit is how they ignored this situation this long in the first place, is how they think you can fight fascism in the voting booth, etc.

Obama got Rat Boy and every other centrist candidate to simultaneously drop out/endorse Biden; Warren was left out of the deal so she could continue to siphon off progressive support for Bernie.

Biden must swim the Potomac to prove he's still got juice