I agree, it's clearly a violation. But I don't think the 5th Circuit cares about the constitution. So rather than look up every single case, I just assumed some court made an insane ruling.

Because nuance is hard to come by. . .

No, the constitutional rights will not change. They will still have protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

The issue is the 9th circuit ruling is overly broad. I fully agree if somebody has nowhere to go, then penalizing them for existing is cruel and unusual. With the stipulations of the Boise shelters, that was certainly the case for the plaintiffs.

However stretching that to "unless there is a shelter bed for everybody, nobody can be penalized for declining a bed" is an illogical conclusion. The difference is individual versus population. If individual A has nowhere they can legally go, they cannot be punished. But that doesn't mean individual B, who does have somewhere to go also cannot be punished.

Using the same logic as the 9th Circuit's ruling, if the government cannot provide a foster home for every child, then we cannot enforce any child endangerment laws. Even if in the hypothetical some child may be able to be placed with a relative, they couldn't be removed from the endangering situation. That's illogical and this ruling needs narrowed in scope.

Edit: I also want to point out that even this post is probably too reductionist. So please add counterpoint, clarifications, etc. One compelling counterpoint I've heard is the difficulty of determining who would be unable to go somewhere. And truthfully I don't have a good argument against it. However I have a hard time accepting when shelter beds have lower occupancy, why no enforcement is allowed.

The bottom line remains these are people, and many desperately need help, some against their will. We need more housing, more support systems, more everything really. But throwing our hands up and allowing the problem to remain unabated is no benefit to the individual nor the community as a whole.

And in almost all instances the courts have ruled that anti-BDS laws are unconstitutional under the first amendment.

Those laws are just grandstanding.

At least somebody believes in him.

I wouldn't even say better features. This will be my last Pixel. I'm tired of Google just not maintaining their products at all.

Alice is a 7 year old girl. That is way, way worse.

Agreed. I feel she tried to do the right thing but didn't. I hope she learns and I don't really have animosity towards her. People make mistakes. And admitting you're wrong is a huge thing our society doesn't value like it should.

Meanwhile Bill Maher tried to do the wrong thing and managed to successfully do the wrong thing, but for the wrong reasons. So... task failed successfully? I have zero expectations for him and yet he always manages to be a disappointment.

It made me fiscally conservative in the sense of "maybe I should save this for little GopherOwl Jr's college fund not blow it at a nightclub." It didn't make me fiscally conservative as in "I don't care if they starve to death, cut my taxes!!!"

Responsible limits on campaign contributions are not remotely at odds with thinking money can be used on speech.

Writing a book is undeniably free speech. So why would it not be free speech if you pay out of pocket and self-publish? What if a group of people get together and pay to publish it as a collective?

Or how about Chevron running an ad saying "buy our gas." What if the ad says "buy our gas because global warming isn't real?" What if the ad says "vote for Eric Erickson, a staunch global warming denier?"

All are money, all are free speech, but not all are political speech. We don't need corporations or billionaires throwing unlimited money at political speech.