WHAT HAS HIGH COURT BEEN SMOKING?

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 innocent people out of their houses for
crimes they didn't commit and didn't even know about.

The justices did not merely 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."

Tell that to Pearlie Rucker, 63, the named defendant in the case the
Supremes ruled on, a 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, 79, a disabled man, who now stands to
lose his home because his full-time health-care worker was found with drug
paraphernalia in the apartment.

The court's opinion, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist no less,
tried to buttress its cold-hearted argument by claiming so- called
"no-fault" evictions are justified because drug use leads to "murders,
muggings and other forms of violence."

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 multimillion-dollar homes of Beverly Hills or the Upper East Side of
Manhattan have more than their share of kids struggling with drug problems.
But you can bet their problems are not compounded by the additional worry
that the entire family will be tossed out onto the street because their kid
is 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," Rehnquist wrote 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 - was punished for the sins of his 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.

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 the double-
standard bong, it's now up to Congress to undo this discriminatory policy.

Here's a thought: Why don't Kennedy and 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.