If this doesn't piss you off, we can't be friends.
- Chastity
- Jun 22, 2019
- 2 min read
Did you read beyond the headline? Do you know your constitution? Because what some like to call "fake news" was the actual video of the court hearing where the lawyer herself says that the term safe & sanitary is so vague, and since the decree doesn't list the actual items needed to provide safe & sanitary environments, it is hard to argue that the juvenile detention centers are not providing a safe & sanitary environment.
And while I completely understand not everyone has common sense, if she is saying that safe & sanitary is too vague of a statement to be enforced, she is also saying requiring soap to make for a sanitary environment cannot not be enforceable.
She is also saying that SLEEP is cannot be enforceable by the district court.
Sleep.For.Children.
I'd like to know when is it acceptable for children to not have a toothbrush, toothpaste and soap, and sleep, for days. That's the argument, because that's what was found. If it was not found, why would they be arguing this?
RS even summarized it for you:
Judge Tashima cut in: “Granted that the decree doesn’t have a list of items that has to be supplied in order to be ‘sanitary.’” But he insisted: “It’s within everybody’s common understanding. If you don’t have a toothbrush if you don’t have soap, if you don’t have a blanket, it’s not ‘safe and sanitary.’ Wouldn’t everybody agree to that? Do you agree to that?”
Fabian [lawyer] responded: “Well— I think it’s— I think those are— there’s fair reason to find that those things may be part of ‘safe and sanitary.’”
Judge - “Not ‘may be.’ Are a part,” Tashima cut in. “Why do you say ‘may be’? You mean there are circumstances where a person doesn’t need to have a toothbrush, toothpaste and soap? For days?”
This is appalling, and we must do something.
Comments