The entire idea of a constitution is that policy is sometimes more important than democracy.

The people of the city of Boise decided to discriminate against the most vulnerable members of society. That is a failure of democracy, and it's why we have things like the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Constitution says nothing about how to treat the “most vulnerable.” Voters get to decide how nicely or badly to treat people on the basis of their circumstances. The prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment sets certain narrow limits (can’t flay people alive), but those apply to everyone equally.

When you strip away the judicial smoke screen, what the ninth circuit really decided is that the lack of available shelter spots should be a defense to liability under vagrancy laws. That’s a great policy. But it has nothing to do with whether the punishment is cruel or unusual. Constitutionally, the people of Boise don’t even have to have any homeless shelters. Whether they do or not is a matter of their on conscience. And whether they do or not, they can still enforce vagrancy laws (which date to the 16th century).

>The people of Boise decided how to govern their community.

Overturn Citizens United and you may see the people start deciding in other directions that actually benefit the homeless & poor.