The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the the prejudices which judges share with their fellow men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
We are rules by individuals, not demi-gods, and it has be shown that gods are not always to our liking as well. This includes judges, who are guided by the limitations of the times, their own beliefs and biases, and how two work together with various aspects involved in adjudication. Thus, the law is not merely words that can be rationally applied to individual cases, but a result of a whole slew of factors combining together, or more simply "what the courts will do in fact." The net result is not always to everyone's liking.
So is the case when various disadvantages individuals seek out protection of their rights, especially equal protection of the laws, including the homeless. To take an obvious example, various courts have limited the right to beg for money in the way the homeless are best able to do so. The courts, however, find it okay to allow people to knock on our doors, call our homes (even now, in various contexts this is perfectly fine), and basically beg for money by various charities that are of dubious help to the common man or woman on the street. Suffice to say public begging has various problems, but so does a lot of other requests for funds, and regulation is probably more appropriate than de facto bans.
A lawsuit rejected in the Ninth Circuit suggests that any number of examples can be found that affects the homeless. This case involves mail delivery. To wit:
No-fee postal boxes are available to customers who are ineligible for carrier delivery service. .... No-fee boxes are unavailable in large cities such as Seattle because the Postal Service delivers mail to all physical addresses in the area. ...
These homeless persons experienced various difficulties when they attempted to take advantage of these services. The Postal Service denied Bar and Currier?s request for postal box rental because they lacked physical addresses. Even after Currier submitted an identification card issued by a homeless shelter, he was still not permitted to rent a box. Johnson was allowed to rent a box after providing his driver?s license. They were all told that they were ineligible for no-fee postal boxes and that they could receive general delivery service only at the Main Post Office.
All the same, the Post Office was found to have the discretion to carry out such a policy, one that favors certain residents over others, even though delivery of the mail was found to have clear First Amendment concerns. I'd add a lot more is affected as well, as the partial dissent noted:
limited general delivery is not at all sufficient for homeless persons like sixty-one year old Willard Johnson, whose shelter is nine miles from the downtown post office, whose arthritis makes it difficult and painful for him to travel long distances, and who was almost terminated from receiving public assistance because he did not receive notice of a case appointment sent to him at another shelter.
The dissent would oppose a broad based attack on the program, but agreed that various individuals were illegitimately burdened. This was in part a matter of him disagreeing with the majority as to the strength of the "public forum" argument, just one way legal terms can be tossed around, depending on the "felt necessities of the time."
There is also the legal principle that policies bound to harm cannot be stopped until someone in particular is injured by them, and then only after years of litigation. We are seeing a form of this in the enemy detainee cases, in which hundreds of detainees are released long after their stay would have been deemed legitimate under current doctrine.
Anyway, as with an opinion that upheld a policy banning long hair in prison even if religious obligated (the Native American involved, however seems to be treated fairly well in regard to his religious needs. The opinion sounds fair overall), just one more matter the third branch of government is currently handling. btw I did manage to read the sex toy decision, and my comments were quite appropriate.