Blog

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The 9th circuit court of appeals affirmed the constitutional right of vagrants to sleep on sidewalks, in parks, and even on the steps of court houses.

Please consider the Coalition on Homeless v. the City of San Francisco, San Francisco Police Department filed January 11. 2024.

In the ruling, the court sided with the Coalition on Homeless and against the city to “prevent the City and County of San Francisco from enforcing any ordinance that punishes sleeping, lodging, or camping on public property“.

The ruling was based on an extreme interpretation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution.

Eighth Amendment

The 8th amendment says “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

In a 53-page ruling, the Appeals Court ruled that it is “cruel and unusual punishment” to prevent camping on sidewalks or any public property, presumably even courthouse steps.

The last 36 pages of the ruling (first link) was a blistering dissent by circuit judge Patrick J. Bumatay. Here are some pertinent snips.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear the Case

Due to the overwhelming and unprecedented stupidity of the 9th Circuit ruling, the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from local governments in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Phoenix.

The Wall Street Journal noted that California Governor Gavin Newsom argued in a friend-of-court brief that “courts are not well-suited to micromanage such nuanced policy issues based on ill-defined rules.”

The Journal’s comment is quite the hoot: “We look forward to Mr. Newsom’s constitutional communion with Justice Clarence Thomas.“

The Hotel California Wealth Tax Advances, You Cannot Leave to Escape It

On January 10, I commented The Hotel California Wealth Tax Advances, You Cannot Leave to Escape It

Wealth Tax Details

• The bill would impose an annual excise tax of 1.5% on the worldwide net worth of every full- and part-year California resident that exceeds $1 billion, starting this tax year.

• Come Jan. 1, 2026, the state would tax wealth that exceeds $50 million at a rate of 1% each year, with an additional 0.5% tax on assets valued at more than $1 billion.

• Part-time residents would be taxed on a pro rata share of their wealth based on the number of days they spend annually in California.

• The tax would also apply to nonresidents who have recently left the state.

• Democrats exempted real property from the tax as a favor to their high-end real-estate industry and Hollywood donors. 

• To spread the wealth around to plaintiff-bar donors, the bill would apply the state’s False Claims Act to wealth-tax records and statements. This means plaintiff attorneys could sue affluent individuals on behalf of the state for allegedly under-reporting assets. Plaintiff attorneys would be entitled to a share of the state’s recovery.

If the wealth tax passes, I look forwards to another mind meld of a different nature with the US Supreme Court.