Re:“No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landma...
by dragonwriter on Monday April 26, 2021 @10:46AM
(#26943041)
> Read through and it seems to be a crazy plan for me.
There’s no as actual plan, just “you will put the money you promised to spend on this in escrow so as to not put the plaintiff’s in a worse situation than you have already announced the intent to, and then you will make certain explanations and achieve certain goals by set times”. A plan would specify how those results will be met.
> It is also laughable to think a judge has a grand plan to solve a societal issue.
This is not a plan nor is it aiming to solve a societal issue.
> So a judge appointed himself to be the supreme planner of the city?
No, the appointment was by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the position is judge of the adherence of parties brought before his court with federal law, with the broad power to order behavior changes where there are breaches in that adherence with harms to other parties.
> The idea that a judge thinks himself can solve the homeless problem with a big plan is by itself pathetic.
The particular identified Constitutional breaches involved in the city of LA creating Skid Row and then actively choosing a containment polcy to trap people there and prolong the harms deliverately inflicted is not equivalent to the broader “homeless problem”, and the order here isn’t a solution to either the former or the latter but a direction to cease and mitigate the active and ongoing harm LA is doing to the subjects of the former. A solution (or at least, compensatory remedy) for the former, narrower, problem would likely be a component of the final judgement if (as seems likely) LA loses the case, this is merely a preliminary injunction to avoid irreparable harm during the pendency of thr trial, not a remedy for past harm or permanent solution.
Yes, it would be crazy if the judge was doing what you describe, but the judge is doing something much narrower.
There’s no as actual plan, just “you will put the money you promised to spend on this in escrow so as to not put the plaintiff’s in a worse situation than you have already announced the intent to, and then you will make certain explanations and achieve certain goals by set times”. A plan would specify how those results will be met.
> It is also laughable to think a judge has a grand plan to solve a societal issue.
This is not a plan nor is it aiming to solve a societal issue.
> So a judge appointed himself to be the supreme planner of the city?
No, the appointment was by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the position is judge of the adherence of parties brought before his court with federal law, with the broad power to order behavior changes where there are breaches in that adherence with harms to other parties.
> The idea that a judge thinks himself can solve the homeless problem with a big plan is by itself pathetic.
The particular identified Constitutional breaches involved in the city of LA creating Skid Row and then actively choosing a containment polcy to trap people there and prolong the harms deliverately inflicted is not equivalent to the broader “homeless problem”, and the order here isn’t a solution to either the former or the latter but a direction to cease and mitigate the active and ongoing harm LA is doing to the subjects of the former. A solution (or at least, compensatory remedy) for the former, narrower, problem would likely be a component of the final judgement if (as seems likely) LA loses the case, this is merely a preliminary injunction to avoid irreparable harm during the pendency of thr trial, not a remedy for past harm or permanent solution.
Yes, it would be crazy if the judge was doing what you describe, but the judge is doing something much narrower.