Or that what the SCOTUS has decided, unanimously. The case at issue was a lawsuit brought by four elderly Bay Area public housing residents. They were evicted because family members who shared their public housing apartments were involved with drugs. I didn’t hear whether the drug offenders were users, or dealers, or gangsta hit men. and I don’t really care, because this is one case where I don’t think it matters, because punishment is falling on the brothers and mothers and fathers and uncles of the offenders, like some Biblical plague. What kind of fucking hysteria is this when poor old people are put out on the street because someone else used drugs? A roommate or family member could get convicted of assault, theft, or drunk driving, and nobody would get evicted. But somebody smoke one joint (correct me if the relevant law doesn not include pot), and out they go. The drug activity doesn’t even have to occur on the premises, for fuck’s sake.
I like this part espcially (from Belladonna’s cite):
She actually tried to take positive steps against here daughter’s drug use, but it made no difference.
We who look on this with dismay do not need CRorex’s reminder that the contract provisions allow innocent roommates or family members to be evicted. We already know that that’s what the rules say! We say the rules are draconian and grossly unfair to innocent people who, however well intentioned, were unable to prevent or even know about others’ involvement with drugs.
CRorex, how big of a barrell do you want to hold them over?
In most, if not all ,cases these tenants are in these subsidized units because they can’t afford to live anywhere else; they’d probably “sign the contract” if it included a codiclie stating they weren’t allowed to masturbate.
So then why make rules that aren’t even within their control to abide by for the sole reason of kicking them out?
Hrrm and I’m kinda putting word in Javaman’s mouth…
So please disregard that.
What I’m trying to get across the time for outrange and indignation was quite a while ago. Several years infact (I remember helping organizing some sort of petition about this in college).
Anyway, aren’t all of the court cases the article talks about having to do with the lease agreement and not the policy change?
Neither I, nor anyone else is discussing about the pros or cons of doing this… People were disgusted about the court’s ruling and how people were getting kicked out of their apartments. I was commenting on how this was a preexisting condition of their lease. I was attempting to bring up something that people who haven’t followed this issue may be unaware of, or people from overseas who aren’t aware of the current regulations of public housing in the US.
And I do think it is within the tenent’s ability to abide by their rules. They choose, granted depending on the type of retardation the girl in one of the cases may not be able to legally choose, but that was not brought up, to do drugs. The lease agreement is quite clear. Yes it is unfair to punish everyone else for the actions of a single person who doesn’t abide by the rules. But the actions are controlable.
If I signed a lease where I couldn’t masturbate, and if I didn’t want to be homeless I’d abide by the contract.
It would be unfair is the policy/lease change was made retroactive so people who already had leases before the change was made were forced to abide by the change. This is an issue I’m not sure about.
Personally, something should be done to control the crime problems in public housing developments. But is this how it should be done? That I’m not sure.
Actually you were right to remind us of exactly what the Supremes can and can’t do. Viewed as a simple contract law case, I suppose they really couldn’t have come to any other verdict, and that was why it was unanimous.
Invent me a time machine and I’ll be outraged about it then, but considering this is now, I think I’ll be outraged about it now.
Okay, maybe I should start a new thread since it seems to be a different issue, but it’s all wrapped up in the same cloth here.
Hypothetical: Some poor woman can be kicked out of her apartment when her freeloading son is caught smoking a joint in her bathroom – that ain’t right, contract or no contract.
Justice Breyer’s brother is a federal judge in California. I’m assuming he recused himself because his brother was involved in the case (as a judge, not a drug user, presumably). Justices don’t recuse themselves as a protest, they write dissenting opinions.
I agree with you on the issue of blame. The law, in my opinion, is stupid. But it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to strike down a law they find ill-advised. As long as it’s constitutional, they must uphold the law.
There’s a thread over in GD that takes a look at this issue as well. The link to One Strike policy is especially thought provoking when looking at the way poor people and those who are more advantaged are treated under the law.
crorex, must you be so depressingly literal? get off yer high horse. in one case, it was the tenant’s home health care worker who was busted for crack!
i mean, if this person is so infirm as to require home health care, how could he or she possibly monitor someones drug use?
as to signing the contract, im reasonably certain they signed because if they didnt, they would have nowhere to live. see how that works?
these people are old. im sure they have little control over what friends and especially relatives choose to do. jesus christ, cut em a break.
Yeah, but let’s not forget that the Court can sometimes decide that something is Constitutional only to have the Court reverse itself years later on a similar case. And then there’s cases where the Supreme Court rules one way and years later its decided that this was a wrong thing to do without another ruling on the matter. (Dred Scott anyone?)
The law is a crock of shit, and the Court could have, and should have found a way to overturn it. I mean, hell, they threw out clauses in deeds that said the house couldn’t be sold to a person of a certain ethnic minority. Why the hell couldn’t they say that its unfair to punish someone for the actions of another? What the Court has said is basically this: If your brother kills someone, you can be punished for the crime even though you had no involvement in any aspects of the crime. I don’t see how anyone can find this to a fair ruling. (Well, outside of politicians who only enacted the law so that they could look good at re-election time by saying that they’re being “Tough on crime.” :rolleyes: )
Of course it will!! Having the little old people living al fresco, or in homeless shelters, will provide many more easy targets that may distract the attention of human predators away from the rest of us. Maybe that’s the idea.
Well, I’ll write the dissenting opinion here. The means available for social programs are not unlimited which means some people are left out. Help should be given to those most deserving it and I think this is a valid factor to take into account. I would rather my tax money go to help those who are doing their best to succeed rather than those who are sheltering criminals. That’s just me. I have seen several areas of subsidized housing in DC which were just dens of crime and open air drug markets. Sorry but I think we should not be subsidizing that kind of stuff. At least not with my money if I can help it. You may now call me heartless if you like.
