Not to mention the fact that the unit is then made available to someone else who is also in need of it and, hopefully, has better habits. It’s not like the unit is now left vacant and unused.
The thought that we should scrap our western system of rule of laws and just each “do what’s right” is so dumb and shows such ignorance that I am astounded anyone would seriously advocate doing that.
Western civilization has abided by this for centuries and has taken those centuries to improve the system to where we have it today. It has shown it is the best system yet invented by far to guarantee freedom and a stable system where people can prosper.
If the Judiciary is going to do whatever it sees fit without regard to the laws, then the executive should do the same and just ignore the rulings of the Judiciary which makes having a Judiciary quite pointless. I guess this would result in great savings because then we would no longer need a Legislature or a Judiciary: the Executive would “just do what’s right” without having to bother about any separation of powers.
At that point where the Executive is the only power, it is natural that certain branches of the executive would also want to impose their own views of what’s right and those better able to do it are the police and armed forces.
History has many examples of nations which thought the rule of law was just an impediment to the greater good but they did not fare well.
It is important that the laws be just and fair and good but it is even more important that they be constant, foreseeable and enforced equally, even if it results in hardships in particular cases. A nation where the law is uncertain or nonexistant and you are at the will and whim of government officials is a nation where I would not want to live.
Sure, we should be vigilant. But this decision doesn’t even come close to the issue of arbitrary arrest and punishment. We’re not even close to the slope. Hell, we’re not even at the ski resort yet.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment. The government isn’t searching, it isn’t seizing, it’s evicting. And the rule isn’t arbitrary. Stupid? Possibly, but not arbitrary. It was debated and passed by our legislative branch.
It’s Congress’s job to remedy bad statutes. It’s the Supreme Court’s job to invalidate unconsitutional statutes. Huge difference. Separation of Powers and all that.
Talk about arbitrary. How do you define the “spirit of the law”? I imagine you define it as the way you want the world to be. Guess what? So does everybody else so there is no definable “spirit of the law”. The Supreme Court looked to the intent and letter of the law and interpreted it correctly.
Yes, that’s why we have elected officials. And implicit in your argument is that there is an objective measurement of a “bad” law that the SC should catch. The only proper definition of a “bad” law for purposes of the judiciary is one that is unconstitutional.
So since the government does bad things sometimes it should make a policy of doing bad things (especially when you agree with the outcome)? Do you think Ollie North did the right thing or is the definition of unjust “that which Tuckerfan doesn’t like”?
That is an unproven thesis at best. And are you saying that Justice Ginsburg thinks the law is a good idea? How do you know that? I guess you plugged it into the Tyranny of Words theory. Here’s how the argument goes: We know Ginsburg voted to uphold the law because she likes it. We know she likes the law because she voted to uphold it.
Well, I’m glad your such a fan of Nixon who refused to follow arbitrary rules about breaking and entering when it would lead to what he thought was an unjust result. Don’t like my example? Tough. You have consistently argued for arbitrary government. In the present case you’d like the results of the arbitrary decision. In others, you certainly wouldn’t.
I feel that it is important that laws are first just and fair and good, then constant and foreseeable and enforced equally. This law fails the first half miserably, in that people can be evicted for that which they have no control over what so ever. Example: Grandparents are visited by relatives, not knowing that said relatives smoke or snort or shoot-up. It what way can the grandparents control this situation? I know! Why don’t we make a new law stating that, to get one of these apartments you must agree not to have any visitors at all! This would be the ONLY way not to be evicted the way the law is set up now.
If laws are unjust, unfair, and not good, then “constant, foreseeable and enforced equally” = “Draconian”.
IMHO.
>> I feel that it is important that laws are first just and fair and good, then constant and foreseeable and enforced equally
Nope. Cultures who think every case should be judged individually, on its own merits, without regard to laws or any other constraints, in other words, cultures where the end justifies the means, are cultures that do not progress.
For instance. We can feel tax laws are bad, unfair, we can feel they tax us too much but if we know beforehand what they are and what their effect will be, then we can plan our actions, our investments, our decisions, even if we feel they are bad.
Now Imagine a country where the government has only one tax law: every year we come around and take from you hat we feel we need but we have no idea what that may be. Even if in the end you pay less, it is a rotten climate for confidence and no one would invest there.
The same happens with criminal law. In the long run it is better that some criminals may get away through loopholes of due process than to scrap due process and send OJ to jail just because we know he was guilty.
Having rules that are certain and foreseeable in their effects is even more important than that the rules be perfect. What makes western countries good is the rule of laws, not that all their laws are good. What makes other countries bad is not so much bad laws but the absence of the rule of law.
Western countries are full of bad and stupid laws and yet they thrive. Making the goodness of the law the ultimate yardstick would be a disaster because not everybody is going to agree on what is a good law. Making the rule of law the overriding priority means we can all live in peace even if we disagree with some of the laws.
In summary: I believe the rule of law is an end in itself, otherwise, if we are only obligated to obey the laws we think are good, then the law is meaningless and empty.
But has it been an effective law? It was enacted as a response to the problem of drug proliferation and violence in public housing. The whole idea was to protect these same elderly and ‘innocent’ people, who have no choice but to live there. I disagree all the time with these “one strike, you’re out”-type legislations (but of course I couldn’t come up with a better way to ensure drastic changes) because of this - some people get caught in the middle undeservingly like these people did.
Based on what I read in the caselaw link provided above, and then here: Section 13662 it looks like someone needs evidence in order to kick a whole family out. A visitor smoking a joint in the bathroom doesn’t meet the criteria. And no, a grandmother may not have much control over a drug-using grandchild and maybe she shouldn’t lose her housing over it. But the alternative - that the housing unit as a whole has to tolerate the actions of any and all of the tenants’ family members - isn’t an attractive option either. That’s why the law was passed in the first place.
Oops, I didn’t see your post before mine, sailor. Agreed.
This buggers all sarcasm.
The febrile defense is offered that the SCOTUS simply acted within the confines of thier role, they are not empowered to enact or alter legislation. So far, so good. There is nothing directly relevent in the Constitution, so the line goes, so there is no basis to declare the rule “unconstitutional”.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
The Constitution is intended as a framework for justice, as such, it is expected that it will reflect common decency. We will not break a miscreant on the wheel, we will not torture a confession into being, etc. etc. No where does the Constitution say that we will not hold one person culpable for the actions of another over whom they have no control. Why? Because its so bleeding obvious no one ever thought of it! This is less a matter of the “rule of law” than common decency!
At the very least, they might have expressed some indignation at being placed in a position to uphold such a vile and indecent statute! If they are powerless to act as officials, could they not respond as human beings, rather than as souless apparatus?
The principles of justice and common decency precede the Constitution. Inasmuch as the Constitution embodies those principles, all well and good. An anolgy can be drawn to the struggle over the “right to privacy”. Of course there is a right to privacy, it is a human right. The mere fact that the Founding Ones neglected to codify that right does not negate its reality. They might very well have simply never considered that anyone could be so blindly legalistic as to approve the punishment of the innocent
The Supremes have shown themselves to be startlingly original when it comes to placing the preferred butt in the Oval Office chair. Yet somehow that originality and verve fail when confronted with a genuine injustice. I would hazard the guess that every single member of the SCOTUS has some relative, at some remove, involved with (drum roll…)DRUGS! Would they contenance some penalty upon themselves if cousin Billy Joe Bob puffed some Durango Ditchweed after soccer practice!
The law applies to everyone, but it weighs down upon the poor and powerless. Common decency demands that if they cannot find a way to negate this legal blasphemy, they might at least express some dismay!
And how is the Supreme Court supposed to determine “common decency”, and who gave them the right to legislate? Let me guess, they should do what you think is “common decency”. Or maybe we should take a vote and decide “common decency”. Are you really prepared for nine unelected Justices to legislate “common decency”? Rehnquist doesn’t like women wearing pants in the courtroom, do you think he’s a good judge of “common decency”?
And even if we could define “common decency” it would still be the job of Congress to legislate accordingly, not the Supreme Court.
No, it can’t. Any comparison between tenancy and individual rights is wrong. There simply is no right to government-subsidized housing. You’re comparing apples and dolphins, to borrow a phrase.
Thank God. This thread had gone on entirely too long without somebody making the “the election decision sucked so every decision should suck” argument. I was worried that the Dopers were slipping.
If they lived in public housing they would. The decision applies only when the government is the landlord of a housing project. Implying that it is some broad “punishment” that can be visited upon innocent homeowners is completely wrong.
A lot of people are harping on the fact that this is “punishment” and people are being deprived of their “rights” but that’s simply not true. In fact, one of the reasons for the law is that it removes what Congress considers bad tenants so the space is opened up for others on the waiting list. If you are going to argue that eviction is punishment, then you have to argue that those who do not have publicly subsidized housing and are just on the waiting list are somehow being punished. After all, the government isn’t providing them with housing. If lack of housing equals punishment, then every poor person without subsidized housing is being punished.
If you don’t like it, blame Congress, not the Supreme Court.
That will do nicely, thank you. Have you a better standard? One that does not involve punishing the innocent for the actions of others? Step in the right direction, don’t you think?
Well, they do, dont they?
I think William Rehnquist is a mediocre man who was raised to his position as a reward for the reliability of his opinions. However, the gown he designed for the impeachment proceedings, with those darling gold stripes, show him as a simply stunning fashionista. wherein his true calling may lie.
Dead on! There is no such right! Got me there! Or would, if that were even remotely relevant to the argument. The argument is “equal protection”, not any “right to tenancy”.
Didn’t say it should suck. Said it does suck. Which it does.
Boy, got me again! No doubt about it, if I had made such an argument, it would be a stupid one. Not much gets past you, huh?
But just so! If has the probity and wit to own ones home, one is not subject to such iron clad whims. Whose quote? Something about how the law in its majesty permits the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges?
This last is a chestnut! There are so many words, there simply must be an argument somewhere. Perhaps in the implied irony of the “quotes”. Alas, no. It is “punishment”. When someone is punished for the actions of another over whom he has no control, one most certainly, posolutely and absitively, is being deprived of thier “rights”.
Yes. The Supreme Court should stay within their powers as dictated in the Constitution. I thought I was pretty clear about this.
No, they don’t. I don’t even know what you’re trying to argue here. The Supreme Court decides whether a law is constitutional not whether it is “decent” or a good idea.
Dear God, don’t backtrack in the post immediately after the statement. At least allow a decent number of posts to muddle the argument.
You said a good analogy to this case is the “right to privacy”, because there is an implicit right to implicit right to privacy. The only implicit right you could logically be referring to is the implicit right of tenancy. If that’s not what you meant, then I’m afraid your argument is nonsensical. Equal Protection is not analogous to an implicit right because Equal Protection is an explicit provision of the Constitution. I have quoted the relevant section of the Fourteenth Amendment for you:
Here’s your quote:
You made the argument and it is, indeed, a stupid one. Your analogy was between public housing residents losing their lease and a private homeowner losing his house. The analogy was clear and clearly bad.
I am truly impressed with your ability to make conclusory statements. If it is punishment, then why aren’t those without subsidized housing being similarly punished. They have no control over other the tenants ahead of them or the people who select tenants.
If your employer loses his contract with the government and has to close shop are you deprived of your rights? You had no control over it. Why should you be “punished” for actions over which you had no control? Because it’s not “punishment”. It sucks, but it’s not punishment. The government in this case is acting as a landlord, not as sovereign. In my business example the government is acting as a contractee, not as sovereign. The fact that its decisions have negative consequences for people does not automatically turn it into an equal protection issue.
>> When someone is punished for the actions of another over whom he has no control,
I’m sorry but I do not get this. So if my landlord does not renew my lease he is “punishing” me? Where is it written in the Constitution that anyone is entitled to free housing? It is not an entitlement. The government can stop giving you free housing, free food or free money for any reason or for no reson. In fact, many people believe it should cut back in social programs. This may not jibe with what you think is just and fair but it so happens that other people have other ideas of what is just and fair and those people get to vote and their representatives enact laws which reflect those views. So stop acting like it is a given that the law under discussion is immoral and indefensible. Obviously many people thought it was a good law.
And I repeat, regardless of whether I think social programs spend too much, whatever they spend they should spend in the best possible way. Money does not grow on trees, it is limited. I vote a housing unit be given to those who show they deserve it better, for instance, those who keep their drug-dealing relatives away.
A question: Did any of the Justices say that while they found the government’s actions to be legal, the law itself is objectionable and that were it in the power of the Court to repeal such a law they would have done so? I’m betting you won’t find such a statement any where.
This whole case is a perfect example of a nation whipped into a frenzy over a single issue to the point where it’s willing to sacrifice an essential liberty for a little temporary safety. Why were drug offenders singled out? Why not other individuals who commit criminal acts?
And no one is saying that government money should go to house drug dealers or users in government housing, what we are saying is that someone who hasn’t committed a crime shouldn’t be subject to eviction because of the actions of another.
Do you think this only applies to the poor?
How many of us middle-income people have FHA or VA or state-guaranteed mortgages?
Now that the Supreme Court has sanctioned this type of behavior towards one class of government subsidy recipient, can the idea of expansion be that farfetched?
To those who think it fair that a poor woman in the projects was evicted because her home healthcare worker used drugs outside her premises and without her knowledge, I ask this:
If a tradesman or tradesman’s helper should be caught with pot and should your name appear last on this person’s daily worksheet, would you think it fair that you were foreclosed upon?
If your adult child still uses your address as a maildrop because punks in his own neighborhood steal tax refund checks from mailboxes, is this kid a “member of the household”? Should this child be suspected of using or selling drugs, would you want to be foreclosed upon?
Would banks want to touch alternative privately-insured refinancing for those who suffered “drug-related” foreclosures of FHA/VA/state- guaranteed mortgages? Possibly the sleazy companies that offer 125% loans might–at usurious rates, of course.
Even people with PMI (private mortgage insurance)or who own outright could be de-subsidized by a denial of 2 other subsidies-- the mortgage interest deduction and the $250,000 capital gains exemption on personal-residence sales.
Don’t tell me that our sleazy Congress and state legislatures could resist deficit reduction via such so-called sin taxes?
Don’t tell me that narcs and prosecutors wouldn’t buckle under the pressure to file bogus charges in order to please those who fund their offices.
Barry Goldwater was absolutely right when he stated that the government big enough to give us all we want is big enough to take all we have.
Since there’s no right to welfare, and since subsidized housing IS welfare, I have no qualms about these people being kicked out for not obeying the rules.
Peachy. And what we are saying is write your congressmen/women and complain to the people who made the laws, not to the ones assigned to adjudicate them. In theory, it will work better because…wait for it…their accountable to the voting public - unlike, oh…say a Supreme Court justice. You have written them already and not just thrown a temper tantrum on a message board, haven’t you?
However, I don’t know whom my we encompasses and don’t speak for anyone but myself.
Oh, zenith, I suggest then that you pay close attention to any new legislation in that arena. If you don’t like it, make your voice known, and get every single person who agrees with you to do the same. Make sure your representatives, regardless of whom you voted for, represent you.
If they do not know that the relative or visitor is using drugs, how in the hell can they obey the rules? The only way, as I said before, is to require them to never have visitors. Now, I realize that the law is barely constitutional, but I am pissed off that not one of the members of SCROTUM…er, I mean SCOTUS, saw fit to mention that this law could be unfair to those who have very limited housing opportunities.
No need to be pissed, Rehnquist did mention this previously:
…which sounds like he was sympathetic to the tenants. But the language of the law, specifically the word “any” (drug use), was clear and that explains the ruling without dissent. Also within the decision it was mentioned that grounds for eviction is left to the discretion of the housing authorities involved - again, the work of Congress and it’s use of the word “any.” So some HA’s may be more lenient than others and the Justices pointed that out.
Aside from that…this law was passed in 1988. I have no idea how effective it’s been but the individual cases in this matter are…hmm…can’t think of the word, but pretty good examples of what public housing wants to be rid of.
Two of the elderly people - their grandsons were together, smoking pot in the parking lot. (Dumbasses.) The grandsons were both listed as tenants. The third one - daughter busted for coke and a crack pipe somewhere in public, later went to jail. Daughter also listed as a tenant. The fourth - his caregiver and others were busted for coke in his apartment, and after the second warning they began the eviction. This seriously undermines the argument that any casual visitor can get them thrown out, doesn’t it? It’s been ten years already, the one-time visitor evictions must not be happening.
Mind you, if the grandsons were caught smoking pot somewhere else besides the damn parking lot of where they live with Grandma, I’d have more sympathy. Just looking at the facts, and the reasoning behind the law that’s being invoked, I’m just not seeing at all why this was “unfair.”
Personally, I don’t give a damn what the Justices think about any particular law. Whether the law is smart is a political issue, not a judicial one. They’re paid to interpret the Constitution, not for political commentary. It doesn’t matter one bit if they all thought it was a fabulous or lousy idea.
While I agree with the general sentiment that the War on Drugs is getting ridiculous, tenancy in subsidized housing is nowhere close to an essential liberty.
And all I’m saying is that your complaints should be directed at Congress, not the Supreme Court.
As I said above, it’s irrelevant what the Justices think of the law. In fact, the challenge to the law was on such narrow grounds that it’s not even that amenable to an indignant comment by the Justices. They were asked to decide on the Ninth Circuit’s statutory interpretation (which was pretty ridiculous, I have to say) and a weak Due Process argument. It was an easy decision to make.