Supremes uphold eviction law

Post #34,135 by Silverlock 4/2/02 9:30:31 AM Reply	Supremes uphold eviction law You live in public housing. You have a relative who lives with you in that public housing. That relative gets caught with drugs. Elsewhere. You get kicked out. Doesn't this mean that Jeb Bush will have to leave the taxpayer funded housing he currently enjoys? That was his daughter, right? Arianna [link\|http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/040102.html\|Huffington] The best scale for an experimental design is ten millimeters to the centimeter.
Post #34,198 by Ashton 4/2/02 3:54:36 PM Reply	Saw that. Are you surprised? This decision is as predictable as was the Selection of the Resident. I imagine it will take a decade to restore any semblance of respect for the USSC - a now blatantly self-inconsistent politically motivated disgrace.. as The Five have become. Not much guts in the remaining 4 either. You can't ascribe such overt behaviour to dumbth either - the dumb don't premeditate their coups. Can't even imagine how 'we' shall get out of this one, less'n they all eat some bad rubber chicken at some banquet celebrating the next official loss of civil liberties. One may always hope for Providence, when reason has abdicated. Ashton Nuke from orbit: the only actual cure invented in past 200 years.
Post #34,201 by Another Scott 4/2/02 4:08:27 PM Reply	An OpEd you might find interesting. By William Raspberry at the Washington Post. [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44588-2002Mar31.html\|Here]. Note that Raspberry notes that eviction isn't required in such cases, just an option. And he expects that the housing authority in question is considering modifying their policy regarding grandmothers like her. [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A22483-2002Mar26\|WP Story]: But in a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Supreme Court held that Congress had spoken "unambiguously" when it authorized the policy. "[T]here is an obvious reason why Congress would have permitted local public housing authorities to conduct no-fault evictions," Rehnquist wrote, quoting the language of federal regulations implementing the law. "Regardless of knowledge, a tenant who 'cannot control drug crime, or other criminal activities by a household member which threaten health or safety of other residents, is a threat to other residents and the project.' " Noting that Congress had found a drug-dealer-imposed "reign of terror" in public housing, the court seemed to view the case as a straightforward landlord-tenant matter in which tenants had signed a lease promising that no one in their apartments would use drugs -- period. Such evictions are "common" under normal landlord-tenant law, Rehnquist's opinion observed. [...] In fact, Oakland officials eventually permitted Pearlie Rucker to remain in her apartment once her daughter had been removed and, with her, the potential for drug use in the Rucker household. The vote in the case, HUD v. Rucker, No. 00-1770, consolidated with Oakland Housing Authority v. Rucker, No. 00-1781, was 8 to 0. Justice Stephen G. Breyer did not take part in the case. I think the USSC made the correct decision. Cheers, Scott.
Post #34,212 by Brandioch 4/2/02 6:23:07 PM Reply	Right decision, wrong process. ...the court seemed to view the case as a straightforward landlord-tenant matter in which tenants had signed a lease promising that no one in their apartments would use drugs -- period. Now, I can see this >IF< they drugs were in the domicile. If the crime is committed OUTSIDE of the domicile, I don't see HOW they could make THAT stick. If I was renting, it wouldn't matter >WHAT< I did, as long as I wasn't on the property. And I think this case illustrates all that is wrong with that ruling. In fact, Oakland officials eventually permitted Pearlie Rucker to remain in her apartment once her daughter had been removed and, with her, the potential for drug use in the Rucker household. Now, this is the correct solution to the problem. The law should state that the person with the drug problems (and only if such problems occur within the bounds of the project (say 500 yards in any direction?) ) will be evicted and issued a restraining order not to come within 500 yards of the domicile. That way, the punks are kicked out of the project and gramma isn't living on the street. ...Oakland officials eventually permitted Pearlie Rucker to remain in her apartment... I'd rather that decision not be left up to "officials" who might need to be reminded of what "compassion" is by the media. It's a stupid law, it needs to be rewritten. It's a stupid ruling, some judges need to be slapped.
Post #34,229 by Ric Locke 4/2/02 11:12:26 PM Reply	::shrug:: Maybe As I have reason to know from recent experience, drug users will ::gasp choke:: use drugs. The place where they do so is a matter of convenience. I, personally, think the drug laws are stupid and counterproductive -- but there they are. This law, as written, does not require that the family be kicked out if a member uses drugs. It does, however, allow managers of the housing complexes to make such a rule. It's a pity the whole thing wound up in the Supreme Court; it sounds like we had a hardass manager who made the whole thing worse than it needed to be. But if we're going to have a War on Drugs, this sort of thing makes sense as part of it. Whether the War on Drugs makes sense, a priori, is an entirely different kettle of disgusting substances. Regards, Ric
Post #34,270 by Brandioch 4/3/02 11:10:34 AM Reply	No disagreement on the "war". Leaving aside whether the "war on drugs" is sane or productive or whatever ... It's a pity the whole thing wound up in the Supreme Court; it sounds like we had a hardass manager who made the whole thing worse than it needed to be. Yup. And the way this law is written, such can be the case again. I'd say we'll be seeing more stories like this in the future.

Welcome to IWETHEY!