Problem Solved

     Sometimes solutions to society’s problems suggest themselves.
     Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a Los Angeles ordinance barring people from living in vehicles was unconstitutional.
     The homelessness problem has been solved.
     All we need are some large public parking lots or vacant fields owned by governments that can’t afford to put buildings on them.
     Then fill them with impounded and donated cars.
     Voila! A massive housing project at little or no cost!
     And if you plant crops between rows of vehicles, you have a self-sufficient community.
     By the way, if you haven’t read the ruling (Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles), it was kind of an embarrassing slam dunk for the plaintiffs. A couple of the named plaintiffs were disabled and weren’t even sleeping in their cars. One guy got arrested while sitting in his car to get out of the rain.
     The key for police action seemed to be having stuff in cars and looking poor. It’s a wonder I managed to stay out of jail.
     Also, the police witnesses disagreed about what the ordinance meant. That didn’t help much in defending against a claim of unconstitutional vagueness.
     But the best part is the police memo that told officers “to ‘adhere to the ‘Four C’s’ philosophy: Commander’s Intent, Constitutional Policing, Community Perspective, and Compassion,’ with no further details.”
     No one seems to know what that meant.
     My guess is that it’s a secret message written in a long-lost police code. I think it has something to do with maintaining order by ridding the city of the scourge of messy cars.
     Elemental Danger: I have a new item for your Epic Litigation collection.
     The case is Brand v. Hyundai Motor America, described in a California appellate court ruling last week.
     We have here a couple of years of litigation and “numerous depositions” over a defective sunroof and a $6,000 deposit.
     When reading this ruling, it might strike you that there’s something wrong with the car company’s customer service practices.
     Or that there’s something wrong with a plaintiff spending more on a lawsuit than a new car.
     Those things don’t bother me. Litigation, as I’ve noted before, is the national pastime. These people are getting their money’s worth.
     What makes this particular ruling must reading are the images it conjures.
     Like this one: “a driver suddenly distracted, buffeted, or even incapacitated by unexpected incoming rain, sleet, snow, dust, or blinding sun, or endangered by objects shooting through or out of the cabin.”
     I’m picturing the movie version now. I’m thinking Tom Cruise sci-fi thriller.
     Functioning Government? I don’t want to alarm you, but something is wrong with the U. S. Supreme Court.
     It issued five rulings from Monday through Thursday last week and four of them were unanimous.
     The fifth had only one dissenter.
     Don’t these people know they’re supposed to be voting along party lines (or whatever their lines are)?
     I call for an immediate investigation of this phenomenon. Is there any danger of Supreme Court cafeteria food crossing over to the congressional cafeteria?
     We don’t want government to be boring.

%d bloggers like this: