To be perfectly fair, you’re wrong.
If they came to her home, reasonably she was wanting to file a police report. Which they absolutely can do, but they refused.
To be perfectly fair, you’re wrong.
If they came to her home, reasonably she was wanting to file a police report. Which they absolutely can do, but they refused.
Seriously, free speech zones are a mockery of the Constitution.
Unless we are in red flag fire weather, you should be able to burn your flag wherever you please. If we’re in red flag weather, I politely request you, I don’t know, paper shredder the flag?
A metric ton is 1000 kg. Source: Aerospace Military Industrial Complex drug dealer.
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.
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.