« Greenpeace founder backs nuclear power | Main | Iranian nutjobs and nukes: Oh, my! »
April 17, 2006
More judges gone wild, 9th Circuit Edition
Yes, it's another example of judicial lunacy, turning the plain-English language of the Constitution into a DaVinci Code-worthy hunt for hidden meanings.
This time, the Ninth Circuit, having already stymied California's death-penalty as unconstitutionally cruel, decides to find that rousting bums and hobos is an Eighth Amendment violation.
Los Angeles' policy of arresting homeless people for sitting, lying or sleeping on public sidewalks as "an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless without shelter" violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and punishment, a federal appeals court ruled today.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, decided in favor of six homeless persons, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. The suit challenged the city's practice of arresting persons for violating a municipal ordinance, which states that "no person shall sit, lie or sleep in or upon any street, sidewalk or public way."
The appeals court ruled that the manner in which the city has enforced the ordinance has criminalized "the status of homelessness by making it a crime to be homeless," and thereby violated the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[...]
In her ruling, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said that Los Angeles' Skid Row has the highest concentration of homeless individuals in the United States. She said that about 11,000 to 12,000 homeless people live in Skid Row, a 50-block area, bounded by Third, Seventh, Main and Alameda Streets.
"Because there is substantial and undisputed evidence that the number of homeless persons in Los Angeles far exceeds the number of available shelter beds at all times, including on the night" the plaintiffs were arrested or cited, "Los Angeles has encroached upon" the plaintiffs' 8th Amendment protections "by criminalizing the unavoidable act of sitting, lying or sleeping at night while being involuntarily homeless," Wardlaw wrote.
Wardlaw believes that bums are now members of a protected class, and that penalizing the conduct that arises from their "condition" is impermissible.
Of course, reading the Constitution doesn't really help anyone understand how Wardlaw gets there from here.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Funny, isn't it? Almost 220 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, we've finally gotten around to making damn near anything "cruel and unusual."
Why is it when we analyze a contract, we base the interpretation on how the parties understood the document, using what is contained within its four corners, without any hidden meanings or penumbras? But the Constitution, that's different.
Sigh.
I expect the U.S. Supreme Court will add this to the list of Ninth Circuit reversals.
Wardlaw deserves a swift kick in the ass for this half-baked decision.
Posted by Mike Lief at April 17, 2006 12:27 AM
| TrackBack