The epidemic of vagrancy, drug abuse and tent encampments that wrecked cities was set off in part by an utterly insane court decision from over a decade ago.

In Martin v. Boise, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that cities banning junkie vagrants from living on the streets was unconstitutional because it violated a ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling was unconstitutional and plainly insane, but in the 5 years since it was issued, it helped trash any attempts by cities to stop the nightmare.

The last time the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, even Democrat cities were begging the court to do something.

Pretty much every state affected in the area, from California to Idaho, are asking the Supreme Court to revisit it.

What happens next, who knows?

Urban Democrats who aren’t completely fringe lefties want some legal authority to deal with meth zombies living in local neighborhoods on the street.

Will that inspire any sanity in the court’s Dem justices?

The claim that banning public vagrancy is cruel and unusual punishment is clearly not what the Framers intended so you would think that there would be a win here with the originalists.

Then again Gorsuch has a history of going his own way on certain kinds of social issues. Amy Coney Barrett has proven to be the weakest of the three recent conservative appointees. And Kavanaugh has been kowtowing to Roberts. Still you would think this case should be a winner. Everyone except the DSA wants Martin v. Boise sent back to the judicial activist hell that spawned it.

And this time there won’t be much blowback except from AOC and the Squad for nuking it. Still you never know.

The one thing we’ve learned is to place little hope in Roberts, Kavanaugh, ACB and Gorsuch consistently doing the right thing.