|
|
| What Has The Supreme Court Been Smoking? |
|
Posted by FoM on April 01, 2002 at 16:52:17 PT By Arianna Huffington Source: Arianna Online 
In an infuriating blow to reason, logic, fairness, compassion and equal justice, the Supreme Court ruled last week that people living in public housing can be evicted for any drug activity by any household member or guest -- even if the drug use happened blocks away from the housing project and even if the tenant had no inkling that anything illegal was taking place. Chew on that for a second. The highest judicial body in the land has said -- unanimously -- that it's OK to toss people who the court acknowledges are innocent out of their houses for crimes they didn't commit and didn't even know about. The generals in the drug war are getting mighty desperate -- and silly. The justices did not just uphold the constitutionality of the "One Strike and You're Out" eviction policy, first implemented by the Clinton administration in 1996; they also rushed to its defense, calling it "reasonable," "unambiguous" and "not absurd." But try to tell Pearlie Rucker that the law’s not absurd. She was the named defendant in the case the court ruled on, a 63-year old great-grandmother who found herself and everyone living with her facing eviction when her mentally disabled daughter was caught possessing cocaine -- three blocks away from Rucker's apartment. Or to co-defendant Herman Walker, a disabled 79-year old man, who now stands to lose his home because his full-time health care worker was found with drug paraphernalia in the apartment. You’d think that if the Supremes didn’t understand the hardship of poverty, they’d at least understand the hardships of old age. When the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had struck down this draconian policy, it ruled that it perverted the intent of the law, which was meant to improve the lives of public housing residents -- not destroy them. The high court's opinion, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist no less, tried to buttress its cold-hearted argument by claiming that so-called "no fault" evictions are justified because drug use leads to "murders, muggings, and other forms of violence." But he failed to point out how locking up innocent people solves that. Or what social ills will be avoided by Pearlie and Herman being cast out on their innocent rear ends. Surely even the most brutal and utilitarian calculus would at least balance the cost of punishing so many blameless victims against whatever perceived good is achieved. But, no, the justices couldn’t be bothered. In adopting such one-sided reasoning and hyperbolic "Reefer Madness" rhetoric the Supreme Court is following in the fear-mongering footsteps of the administration, whose latest whack-o anti-drug ad campaign tried to draw a link between teenage drug use and violent acts of terrorism. In reality, two of the four plaintiffs in the case before the court were elderly women whose grandchildren were caught smoking pot in a housing project parking lot. I have a feeling the grandkids were far more interested in the munchies than in murder and mayhem. The ruling is not only a galling example of drug war lunacy, but also a gut-wrenching reminder of just how differently America treats its rich and its poor. The multi-million dollar homes of Beverly Hills or the Upper East Side of Manhattan have more than their share of kids struggling with drug problems. But as concerned as these kids' parents are, you can bet that their problems are not compounded by the additional worry that the entire family will be tossed out onto the street because their kid is seen smoking a joint three blocks away. Why should we hold poor people to a standard of accountability most of us could never meet? "A tenant who cannot control drug crime," wrote Justice Rehnquist in the majority opinion, "is a threat to other residents and the project." I wonder if the Chief Justice would apply the same condemnatory logic to Gov. Jeb Bush, who also lives in public housing and was also unable to control his troubled daughter. Indeed, our political establishment, whether ensconced in plush public housing or not, is filled with people unable to "control drug crime" by a household member. But none of them -- including Sens. Ted Kennedy, Richard Lugar, and Richard Shelby, and Reps. Dan Burton, Spencer Bachus, John Murtha, Duke Cunningham and Maurice Hinchey -- were punished for the sins of their kids. What's more, unlike the thousands of poor and minority drug offenders who have had the book thrown at them, these lawmakers' lawbreaking offspring were frequently granted special treatment. Take the amazing case of Rep. Burton's son, Dan II, who, in 1994, was arrested for transporting seven pounds of marijuana across state lines with the intent to distribute. He pleaded guilty and received probation, community service and house arrest. Soon after, he was discovered growing 30 pot plants in his apartment but skated on the charges once again -- a federal felony carrying a mandatory-minimum sentence of five years in jail having been miraculously transformed into a state level misdemeanor. It's not surprising that poor kids are routinely sent to jail while rich kids are given a slap on the wrist and a ticket to rehab, or that poor parents are thrown out of their houses for not knowing what their kids are doing while powerful parents are given our sympathy and understanding. But it is unjust. And isn't that ultimately what the Supreme Court is supposed to be about: dispensing justice? Since Rehnquist and company were too busy taking hits from their double-standard bong, it's now up to Congress to undo this discriminatory policy. Here's a thought: Why don't Ted Kennedy and Dan Burton call a joint Senate-House hearing on "One Strike and You're Out" no-fault evictions. They can call Jeb Bush, Pearlie Rucker and their respective daughters (one taken to rehab, one taken to jail) as the first witnesses. Newshawk: Mike D. Related Articles: Grandmother Clause - William Raspberry High Court Rules It's OK to Evict Granny Justices Rule Drug-Eviction Law Is Fair Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #4 posted by Rev Bookburn on April 02, 2002 at 17:41:34 PT:
|
| This is a vital and excellent commentary except for one thing: I do not believe the Supremes were smoking anything. I think it is more likely that they were sniffing glue. When you think they can't stoop any lower after undermining the US Constitution and selecting a president who is a third generation member of a crime family, they perpetrate the war on the poor with such a sick ruling. The Taliban would be proud to know that their influence has spread so deeply. This article should be broadcast throughout the world. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by lasjoe4 on April 02, 2002 at 15:17:25 PT |
| you know i think that the people of america are to blame for this atrocity just as much as the mindless fools who make these laws. must citizens don't have the guts or intelligence to stand up and reprove the curfews that allow the police to remove high school students from the street against their own freewill, even though these kids are considered old enough to be put on tial as adults they aren't treated as one. you see our great institution called freedom is trying to make it's mass population ignorent of the world and it's workings. must students in the 60 had a vocabulary of almost 12 thousand words today te average vocab is only 4 thousand, see anything wrong with this. if you don't you need to read the books 1984 by george orwell and a brave new world by aldous huxley, if these books don't open your mind up to what's going on and has been for the past 60 years then your almost beyond all hope. the point i'm trying to make i guess is that in this day people are more concerned about money then knowledge, don't get me wrong i dig money too but nothing scares people in power more then little people who know what's going on and know how to inform other people about it. so basically learn all you can about everything and tell people abou this atrocity that's taking place in "the land of the free". WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #2 posted by freddybigbee on April 02, 2002 at 10:54:29 PT:
|
| Write to your local newspaper and advise them, as I have, that Arianna Huffington is the finest editorial journalist in the country; and that they would be well-served to feature her on the editorial page on a regular basis! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by dddd on April 01, 2002 at 20:41:48 PT |
| ....These "justices" are appointed for life...No one should be appointed for life..that's like crowning them king or queen.........all us citizens who are considered "The enemy",in the drug war,,we'll soon be classified as terrorits. We have been losing big time if this is a war........When we see national commercials,sponsored by the government that suggests that drug users are sponsoring terrorists,,,It scares me shitless...this war will not be won without a huge change in the world....I'm afraid to say it,because I can imagine being labeled by the secret cyber police snoops,,,,but I'll say it anyway;..There will be no change without a revolution,,and revolutions are no longer an option for us citizens.....Let's say that some concerned Patriotic zealot like 4Q,,,actually tried to organize a "Revolt Against The War on Drugs" on this site,other similar sites..and in a careless,ill advised,,'dam the torpedos',manner,4Q started to try and recommend a revolution involving civil disobedience,,,nope,,4Q is aware that he is quite likely already in some cyber database,of the dark powers that operate beyond the knowledge of the People,,,behind the wall of national security during war,,,and they ve successfully fabricated a pair of false "wars",,Drugs and Terror.................The days of freedom are changed now!..We have a new system of being free,,and that is a 'SUPERVISED FREEDOM! ,,,and we are told that government supervision is necessary to remain in free...We have definitly crossed a line,where our "freedom",is now conditional,and controlled by factions that are not "We the People"..Any plan to organize anything against government authority is covered under the USA PATRIOT,,and anyone involved can be considered a terrorist!..If you do successfully organize,and protest against the authority of the authorities,,you will be crushed!,any large crowd,can be broken up with bats and tear gas,,all they got to say is that someone threw a rock...The "news" media will not give national coverage of demonstrations...at least not balanced coverage. ..The Supreme cohort has become like some kinda Little Ceasar,,who interprets the law,and justice,in dictator like ways.They are all extremely rich...they do not live in the same America that most everyone else does.... I'm not saying they are all bad,,but some of them have obviously become remarkably imbalanced,,not to mention administrative puppets of the Imperial Republicanocrat Party of the Corporate states of america....dddd [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |