Supreme Court conservatives appear ready to OK Trump’s census citizenship question

[softlynow 1,783]

7 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

From the article:

Look, I'm a mouth breather who's grasp of constitutional issues is limited.  But, if this is the case, then why have a Supreme Court, since the President can just issue an Executive Order at any time overriding what the Supremes have decided.  Going further, if this is the case, then the rest of the constitution is invalid, since the President can just issue an Executive Order for whatever he wants, right?

 

Is there still room on the ledge?

 

 

President Harris should just issue an executive order in January ‘21 invalidating the ‘20 census and starting a new one.

Then we will all agree this form of government is broken, and yell endlessly at each other with no effect while democracy dies. 

[Francisco 2.0 32,342]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2019 by Francisco 2.0

[El Diablo 4,232]

I find it funny that anyone could think that Donald actually understands what it is he's being told to do by his advisors/handlers.

[tx 3 putt 76,400]

Solicitor General need to resign today 

[Chooky 13,302]

Are you adding this question just to draw advantageous districts? 

No!  It's for making advantageous districts! 

 

[Biff Tannen 45,499]

No advantageous!  No advantageous!  Yes advantageous!

[retread 2,951]

lol. This fucking autocracy.

[Francisco 2.0 32,342]

 

[Francisco 2.0 32,342]

 

 

 

[David Dennison 18,660]

Hey, Republicans, this is what happens when you put a clown in charge of the Executive Branch. You get a clownshow.

But way to own the libs.

Well done.

[Francisco 2.0 32,342]

Jesus Christ.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-scrambles-to-save-citizenship-question-on-census/2019/07/04/238fe3fa-9e85-11e9-9ed4-c9089972ad5a_story.html?utm_term=.a2651da373b5

 

Quote

Spurred on by President Trump, government lawyers scrambled Thursday to find a legal path to add a controversial citizenship question to the 2020 Census, despite their conclusions in recent days that no such avenue exists.

Census officials and lawyers at the Justice and Commerce departments scrapped holiday plans and spent their Independence Day seeking new legal rationales for a citizenship question that critics say could lead to a steep undercount of immigrants, which could limit federal funding to some communities and skew congressional redistricting to favor Republicans.

 

Quote

The reversal came after Trump talked by phone with conservative allies who urged him not to give up the fight, according to a senior White House official and a Trump adviser, who both spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Trump was furious and thought the Commerce Department and the Justice Department — which has been arguing the case — had given up the fight too easily. He complained about Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.,who he said he thinks is lined up against him, the adviser and senior officials said. Trump also complained about Ross.

Before Trump’s tweets plunged their week into chaos, Justice officials thought the president understood how few legal options remained, according to people familiar with the matter. They had earlier told the White House that the case was a dead-end and that pursuing it would be a waste of time.

 

Quote

Trump made it clear to several advisers Thursday that addressing the matter should be the administration’s priority in the coming days, saying he does not like the confusion that has gripped the administration. According to the two Republicans, the president has told aides repeatedly, “Fix this.”

Trump has talked of issuing an executive order to the Commerce Department to try to forge a new legal avenue for the citizenship question, having picked up that idea from conservative allies, according to a senior administration official.

 

[DixonHur 11,227]

If they add the question, the resistance should start a campaign to have everyone say they are a citizen, whether they are or not.

[achooloco 1,065]

Or just lie. Anyway to just put like 100 as baseline answer for every home? Everyday it gets worse. Trumpkins are scum of the earth. Quit fucking up our country assholes!

[Ichabod 184]

As someone who has worked amongst illegal latinos his whole life, I must say that if given the opportunity to be legal citizens, the majority of them would vote republican.

[Js1 85,110]

Sure Jan 

[DixonHur 11,227]

3 minutes ago, Ichabod said:

As someone who has worked amongst illegal latinos his whole life, I must say that if given the opportunity to be legal citizens, the majority of them would vote republican.

So you're saying illegals are stupid?  That seems racist.

[David Dennison 18,660]

18 minutes ago, Ichabod said:

As someone who has worked amongst illegal latinos his whole life, I must say that if given the opportunity to be legal citizens, the majority of them would vote republican.

That's not even a little bit believable.

[henrygandorf 29,177]

maybe he’s suggesting they’d accept expedited citizenship in exchange for their votes. 

[Js1 85,110]

we just need to know - burnt chicken 

[tx 3 putt 76,400]

Just the tip 

[Voldemort86 2,259]

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

If they add the question, the resistance should start a campaign to have everyone say they are a citizen, whether they are or not.

If they ask the question,  I’ll probably leave it blank even tho I am a citizen.

 

this question is bullshit. I hate republicans. All they do is try to rig shit in their favor. I can’t believe some people don’t see through it or just don’t care. 

Edited July 5, 2019 by Voldemort86

[SubliminalHorn 6,674]

22 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

If they ask the question,  I’ll probably leave it blank even tho I am a citizen.

 

this question is bullshit. I hate republicans. All they do is try to rig shit in their favor. I can’t believe some people don’t see through it or just don’t care. 

Have you met people? Real people? Well, I have and they’re fucking morons. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,713]

13 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Have you met people? Real people? Well, I have and they’re fucking morons. 

slorch'd

[DixonHur 11,227]

51 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

If they ask the question,  I’ll probably leave it blank even tho I am a citizen.

 

this question is bullshit. I hate republicans. All they do is try to rig shit in their favor. I can’t believe some people don’t see through it or just don’t care. 

Leaving it blank plays into their hand.  They're going to use the data for further gerrymandering the redistricting maps based on number of citizens.  If they pose the question, we need to over represent citizens in the census or risk a more Trumpified government.

[SubliminalHorn 6,674]

43 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

slorch'd

Bless your heart

[Tuco 5,076]

As a Nebraskan, I should shitcan the census form to reduce our count. Maybe we get one less cunty Rep.

But as An Omahan, that would be counterproductive.

[Ghost of LL 15,492]

5 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

I'm not at all certain that someone isn't going to get sanctioned out of all this.

[Homercles 10,205]

I’m worried this already had the intended affect and many won’t fill it out anyways.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,414]

I’m sure it isn’t a fun time to be in the DOJ when you’re ordered to find ways around SCOTUS when you’ve already lied to them.

can the president issue an EO to override SCOTUS?  My guess is that the question is ultimately printed on some forms, only to have a sticker placed over it. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I’m sure it isn’t a fun time to be in the DOJ when you’re ordered to find ways around SCOTUS when you’ve already lied to them.

can the president issue an EO to override SCOTUS?  My guess is that the question is ultimately printed on some forms, only to have a sticker placed over it. 

Hopefully people are starting to realize that the president "can" do whatever people let him do.   Our institutions are only as good as the people who run them.  The Senate has abdicated virtually all of its authority to Trump.  The House, even run by Dems, is too scared to hold him accountable.   The lower courts are trying to uphold the law, but the Supreme Court is bending over backwards to let Trump do whatever he wants. 

Without more, the Constitution and our laws are just words on paper.  They can't stop the president from doing jack shit.   Who is going to step up? 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm not at all certain that someone isn't going to get sanctioned out of all this.

Not a sign of a well considered pleading when typos are apparent.  

““f a viable path forward is found, DOJ’s current plan would be to file a motion in the Supreme Court to request instructions on remand to govern further proceedings in order to simply and expedite the remaining litigation and provide clarity to the process going forward.””

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm not at all certain that someone isn't going to get sanctioned out of all this.

It's a little different from the usual case where the lawyer with an insane client hesitates to so state to the judge.  Everyone knows the client is insane.  I'm not sure who could be sanctioned with the desired effect. Some harsh procedural sanctions might be appropriate, particularly in terms of putting a bullet in this charade.

[Nivek 16,861]

The Supreme Court dies a little when transparency and accuracy are not valid reasons. 

What happened in Texas recently on the subject of transparency?

[DixonHur 11,227]

50 minutes ago, Nivek said:

What happened in Texas recently on the subject of transparency?

I blame those commies in Austin!

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's a little different from the usual case where the lawyer with an insane client hesitates to so state to the judge.  Everyone knows the client is insane.  I'm not sure who could be sanctioned with the desired effect. Some harsh procedural sanctions might be appropriate, particularly in terms of putting a bullet in this charade.

The whole brief is on judicial estoppel. Granting that might be the “procedural sanction.”

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

[TexArcher 37,519]

7 hours ago, Ichabod said:

As someone who has worked amongst illegal latinos his whole life, I must say that if given the opportunity to be legal citizens, the majority of them would vote republican.

As someone who can spot a troll a mile away, bullshit.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

I would not want to be the government attorney who has to respond to this motion 

 

[horncyclist 1,386]

7 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

I would not want to be the government attorney who has to respond to this motion 

 

They deserve it. Everyone working on this are either (1) political appointees who volunteered to work for this human repository of corruption and deceit or (2) career attorneys who stuck around knowing this was coming and having better options.

Edited July 6, 2019 by horncyclist

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

7 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

I would not want to be the government attorney who has to respond to this motion 

 

 My prediction is the response is going to be something like “ well we said ‘end of June’ repeatedly what we really meant substantively was ‘well before the end of a regular litigation schedule.’ And that is still true.  Exigency Circumstances still exist. We need to get this all done in the next couple weeks.”

[HenryJames 65,890]

11 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Not a sign of a well considered pleading when typos are apparent.  

““f a viable path forward is found, DOJ’s current plan would be to file a motion in the Supreme Court to request instructions on remand to govern further proceedings in order to simply and expedite the remaining litigation and provide clarity to the process going forward.””

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

12 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Not a sign of a well considered pleading when typos are apparent.  

““f a viable path forward is found, DOJ’s current plan would be to file a motion in the Supreme Court to request instructions on remand to govern further proceedings in order to simply and expedite the remaining litigation and provide clarity to the process going forward.””

Funny thing, I have seen typos and mistakes in various court papers from some of the biggest, most prominent law firms in the nation.  From what I have seen, though, federal government attorneys seem less prone to them than most (my experience with actual DOJ is pretty limited).  They do tend to have a lot of "staff," meaning sub-attorney paralegals, secretaries, and clerks that apparently proofread a lot.  They also have a massive collection of briefs to recycle, which sometimes cuts down on the errors.  They also tend to get twice as long to respond as most litigants.

But, like anyone, make em respond in two days, one of which is a holiday, and they fuck it up.

[retread 2,951]

Supposedly DOJ lawyers were brainstorming in efforts to find "a new rationale." I wonder how that conversation went?

I picture them playing spades all day with a bottle of bourbon and ESPN on the office TVs.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,414]

13 minutes ago, retread said:

Supposedly DOJ lawyers were brainstorming in efforts to find "a new rationale." I wonder how that conversation went?

I picture them playing spades all day with a bottle of bourbon and ESPN on the office TVs.

while shit rolls downhill, you know many of the low level lawyers are smiling that they're not the ones that have to break the news to POTUS that he can't defy SCOTUS rulings.

[Ghost of LL 15,492]

13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's a little different from the usual case where the lawyer with an insane client hesitates to so state to the judge.  Everyone knows the client is insane.  I'm not sure who could be sanctioned with the desired effect. Some harsh procedural sanctions might be appropriate, particularly in terms of putting a bullet in this charade.

I don't know, man.  I will tell you that I've had just one occasion to really piss off a federal judge.  It's been about ten years, but I remember it well.  Judge Boyle looked down at me and said, "Mr. [Ghost], I know you're new on this case.  And I know your client isn't here, and he's the one who is responsible.  But he's not here.  You are.  And you're here representing him.  So I'm going to tell you something . . . ."

She then told me some things that had me go straight back to the office, go into my supervising partner's office, and tell him that we needed to withdraw from the case or else resolve it fast enough that we never again had to go back before Judge Boyle.

And my client didn't do a fraction of what the DOJ has done in this case.

Here's the thing--as a lawyer who appears in court (whether it be trial courts or appellate courts), credibility is the currency in which you trade.  But credibility isn't like currency.  You can't spend it to buy stuff.  If you spend it, it's gone forever.  And you can't get more.  Only by hording it can you get actual currency.

Being Solicitor General of the United States brings a lot of credibility.  That credibility gets transferred to a private firm one day, at which the erstwhile Solicitor General can charge $1,000/hour.

But a former Solicitor General who has been caught lying to the Supreme Court?  A lawyer who has no credibility in the one forum in which I'm going to pay him to represent me?  Well, that lawyer aint worth shit.

If I'm that guy, I'm resigning on Monday and taking my cush-ass job in the private sector immediately.

[cactusflinthead 27,594]

Oh yeah. This one too.

Howdy Mr. President!

Sleep Well. 

Discovery sounds fun.

[Crusher 127]

How many illegal aliens answer the census anyways? These are done every ten years, correct? There should be some data right?

Nope. How could there be realistic data on the real % of illegal aliens in the country who answered the survey if we don't even know how many of them are here in first place?

We don't even know how many? I've heard 10 million.. I've heard 30 million?

What a fucked up situation. 

[hobbes2702 12,846]

14 minutes ago, Crusher said:

How many illegal aliens answer the census anyways? These are done every ten years, correct? There should be some data right?

Nope. How could there be realistic data on the real % of illegal aliens in the country who answered the survey if we don't even know how many of them are here in first place?

We don't even know how many? I've heard 10 million.. I've heard 30 million?

What a fucked up situation. 

You clearly don’t know what the census does. Which comes as no surprise 

[Crusher 127]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

You clearly don’t know what the census does. Which comes as no surprise 

I believe it's a count of all the people who live in America.. Correct?

[ChickenSandwich 9,798]

Alabama v. United States Dep’t of Commerce

June 7, 2019

 

Summary

The State of Alabama filed a lawsuit against the Commerce Department and Census Bureau, challenging the Bureau’s policy of including all U.S. residents in the Census count used for apportionment.

The suit argues that including undocumented individuals in the population count will deprive Alabama of its “rightful share of political representation,” as well as cause the state to lose a congressional seat and an electoral vote to a state with a higher number of undocumented individuals. The state contends that counting undocumented individuals violates the Constitution’s provisions governing congressional apportionment and the electoral college, as well as the federal government’s constitutional duty to conduct an “actual enumeration” of the population. The suit further argues that the policy of counting undocumented individuals is “arbitrary and capricious” and “contrary to law” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The state is asking the court, among other things, to bar the Bureau from pursuing a total population count for apportioning congressional seats and electoral votes and to declare unconstitutional any apportionment of seats and votes based on total population.

On June 5, 2019, the court denied the federal government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, allowing the Plaintiffs to proceed with their claim that including undocumented individuals in the population count used for congressional apportionment violates federal law. 

https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/alabama-v-united-states-dept-commerce#.XSE8MCVxn3o.twitter