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

[CO Horn 154]

1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

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

So, they are basically claiming that the Constitution is unconstitutional?

[Biff Tannen 45499]

1 hour ago, CO Horn said:

So, they are basically claiming that the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Yep.  All of the dotard supporters/deplorables:

 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

On 7/6/2019 at 10:10 AM, Ghost of LL said:

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.

The SG took the position that one purported reason for the question was not a pretext for another, illegal one.  Employment lawyers do this every day, as you well know.  I am not going to consider that lying to the Supreme Court, but within the bounds of advocacy.  The SG doesn't generally argue facts, anyway, just the law to be applied to those facts.

Now, though, once the advocated reason has been finally ruled a pretext, the SG is pretty much in a position to lie to the Supreme Court, or, more likely, some lower DOJ lawyer is placed in a position to lie to the district court.  I can't actually conceive of a scenario that really falls squarely within the bounds of advocacy, particularly with the orange baboon's tweet.

I don't disagree about credibility with the court and I personally won't get involved in a case that I can't convince myself to "believe" in, which is something of a shortcoming of a lawyer.  In that regard, gubmint lawyers have it tough sometimes, especially when their ultimate client is a shitgibbon.  But they regularly have to defend laws passed by a congress full of lesser shitgibbons.  I wouldn't want to do it.

And she didn't sanction you, did she?  It tends to be easier to sanction for relatively minor discovery abuses and such than for graver misconduct, particularly when that is clearly driven by a client.

Edited July 7, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[RDCanecutter 26282]

3 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Alabama v. United States Dep’t of Commerce

Ever since this issue came up, I have thought that instead of trying to get the citizenship question, Alabama should instead play to its strengths and cheat the hell out of the rules-as-written.

Need 100,000 more residents to keep from losing a seat? Hell, get a million more by selling no-residency residence to people from high-tax states. Have walls of PO Boxes or tiny little offices the way I hear they do in Gibraltar. "Oh Yeah Yoo Guice I Live in Bama." Heck, let in a few Venezuelans in to build dorms for the thousands of Venezuelan beauty-pagent winners. That's how Bama does it, not some dry Midwestern lawsuit-filing bullshit. We need Saban to kick some of these dumbasses upside the head.

[Brisketexan 104628]

So, they are basically claiming that the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Yes.

Because Alabama.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 hours ago, CO Horn said:

So, they are basically claiming that the Constitution is unconstitutional?

It's all just a big misunderstanding.  They're not wrong per se; it's just that they believe in a different constitution. 

[tx 3 putt 76400]

Alabama going to Alabama !!!!

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

On 6/27/2019 at 10:57 PM, atomheartbevo said:

At this rate, we will get a second civil war, only it will be within the GOP.   

The GOP has some fucked up people in it for damned sure.  The DNC has a left wing fringe just aching to put anyone over 40 in a re education camp.  There's a straight up hard core socialism wing that's gonna push as hard as it can to get its agenda enacted at the local level as it pushes for national prominence.

[pyrohornIII 4809]

14 hours 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. 

Not all aliens are here illegally.  The question is about citizenship, not if they are in the country illegally.   Twit.

[atomheartbevo 89449]

37 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The GOP has some fucked up people in it for damned sure.  The DNC has a left wing fringe just aching to put anyone over 40 in a re education camp.  There's a straight up hard core socialism wing that's gonna push as hard as it can to get its agenda enacted at the local level as it pushes for national prominence.

The GOP has Tea Partiers, and now Trumpkins, who try to apply ridiculous purity tests to everything.  Look at a place like Free Republic - after the primaries, they were banning people who had been members for 10+ years, simply for expressing misgivings about Trump.   And they  are still doing it.

Speaking of FR, seems like if Twitter was forced to host “conservatives” that they banned, then places like Free Republic should be forced to host liberals.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Js1 85110]

*This is fine . Gif*

[Ghost of LL 15492]

The SG took the position that one purported reason for the question was not a pretext for another, illegal one.  Employment lawyers do this every day, as you well know.  I am not going to consider that lying to the Supreme Court, but within the bounds of advocacy.  The SG doesn't generally argue facts, anyway, just the law to be applied to those facts.
Now, though, once the advocated reason has been finally ruled a pretext, the SG is pretty much in a position to lie to the Supreme Court, or, more likely, some lower DOJ lawyer is placed in a position to lie to the district court.  I can't actually conceive of a scenario that really falls squarely within the bounds of advocacy, particularly with the orange baboon's tweet.
I don't disagree about credibility with the court and I personally won't get involved in a case that I can't convince myself to "believe" in, which is something of a shortcoming of a lawyer.  In that regard, gubmint lawyers have it tough sometimes, especially when their ultimate client is a shitgibbon.  But they regularly have to defend laws passed by a congress full of lesser shitgibbons.  I wouldn't want to do it.
And she didn't sanction you, did she?  It tends to be easier to sanction for relatively minor discovery abuses and such than for graver misconduct, particularly when that is clearly driven by a client.

No—no sanctions. Just a very frank discussion.

As to the SG, I’m not talking about the Commerce Department’s justification, which was “contrived.”

I’m talking about the SG’s representation to the Court that there were exigent circumstances that required the Court to take the case, bypassing the court of appeals.

As it turns out, that was false. The Government can apparently reprint the forms if it gets the answer it wants at some point in the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TwiceHorn 31283]

16 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

No—no sanctions. Just a very frank discussion.

As to the SG, I’m not talking about the Commerce Department’s justification, which was “contrived.”

I’m talking about the SG’s representation to the Court that there were exigent circumstances that required the Court to take the case, bypassing the court of appeals.

As it turns out, that was false. The Government can apparently reprint the forms if it gets the answer it wants at some point in the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Meant to ask if you meant something else, I haven't followed all the details super-closely.  I assume that means the SG was lied to by his "client," as opposed to being an active fabrication by the SG himself.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5784]

7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes.

Because Alabama.

I remember the last time Alabama freaked out about illegal immigration, and all the undocumented immigrants left.....their crops rotted in the fields. 

[Gil Bang 25898]

out with the old lawyers, in with the  new

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Embarrassing.  

[Francisco 2.0 32342]

 

 

 

 

 

[tx 3 putt 76400]

 6/30 is the new rallying cry !

[hpslugga 4044]

1 hour ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

I remember the last time Alabama freaked out about illegal immigration, and all the undocumented immigrants left.....their crops rotted in the fields. 

That was actually Georgia, but yeah. 

[Ghost of LL 15492]

Meant to ask if you meant something else, I haven't followed all the details super-closely.  I assume that means the SG was lied to by his "client," as opposed to being an active fabrication by the SG himself.

And that’s when you fire the client.

Of course, the Office of the Solicitor General can’t fire the client.

But if you’re the Solicitor General, you can quit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Irieguy 1059]

2 hours ago, hpslugga said:

That was actually Georgia, but yeah. 

You are both right. Alabama in 2011.  Georgia in 2012.  I’m sure the 3rd time will be a charm for this idiotic policy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58c1d07fe4b0ed71826b55e0/amp

”Fun fact” - Georgia was forced to use prisoners to tend the crops. Welcoming felons on to your land to own the libs. 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Irieguy

[relapse98 634]

On 7/3/2019 at 6:45 PM, ChickenSandwich said:

Good to know that the majority of the country disagrees with the Surly group think

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

I can't* believe we are to the point where public employees just go to court as their normal litigation tactics and say "Black is white, up is down.  It was the last guy that said otherwise, and he's craaaazy."  Every day this administration searches for new ways to make a mockery of our country.

 

*can

[DigglerontheHoof 21065]

I will absolutely leave any citizenship question blank.  Fuck em. 

[Chad Fuck 17566]

On 7/7/2019 at 9:39 AM, ChickenSandwich said:

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

Alabama.  The vanguard of the people's rights!

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

On 7/7/2019 at 9:39 AM, ChickenSandwich said:

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

If Alabama's doing it, you can pretty much be sure that it's wrong.

[RDCanecutter 26282]

12 hours ago, Irieguy said:

You are both right. Alabama in 2011.  Georgia in 2012.  I’m sure the 3rd time will be a charm for this idiotic policy.

Yep. The main driver of the anti-immigrant law in Alabama was a cartoon character of a politico named Scott Beason. Everything Beason touched turned to shit, he was actually pretty bipartisan if you look at the things he fumbled-- he'd talk a far-right, drunk-in-a-bar, Texshas-tough-Dan-Patrick-style  talk, but if you didn't know that, half the time you'd think he was a saboteur for the left, so wide-spread were his fuck-ups. I mean, I lived through George Wallace, and Wallace was competent compared to Beason. Wallace was a crooked old patronage politician. Beason was like a suicidal German performance artist.

They ran regular stories on the poor non-Mexican souls who signed up to pick tomatoes. Half the problem is that the farmers had no system for actually hiring individuals who weren't in whatever labor system the Mexicans were in-- forget whether people would work, the farmers didn't even know how to find them. There are plenty of locals who know how to pick tomatoes. Thing is, half of them are 80 years old, the other half are hippies. Hippies got their own tomatoes to pick.

(Plenty of real Mexicans here at the moment. I have the interesting job of teaching their kids Spanish. Pos la neta es que I pick up old-timey sayings from the kids, and in return I teach them not to yell "cabron" at adults they like, just because that's how their dad talks. Every new class starts with them looking at me like I'm Peggy Hill. One useful ice-breaker is to teach the whole class to sing "El Rey" without consulting the lyrics, after we do that, it's a pretty easy semester.)

Edited July 8, 2019 by RDCanecutter

[Chad Fuck 17566]

22 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Yep. The main driver of the anti-immigrant law in Alabama was a cartoon character of a politico named Scott Beason. Everything Beason touched turned to shit, he was actually pretty bipartisan if you look at the things he fumbled-- he'd talk a far-right, drunk-in-a-bar, Texshas-tough-Dan-Patrick-style  talk, but if you didn't know that, half the time you'd think he was a saboteur for the left, so wide-spread were his fuck-ups. I mean, I lived through George Wallace, and Wallace was competent compared to Beason. Wallace was a crooked old patronage politician. Beason was like a suicidal German performance artist.

They ran regular stories on the poor non-Mexican souls who signed up to pick tomatoes. Half the problem is that the farmers had no system for actually hiring individuals who weren't in whatever labor system the Mexicans were in-- forget whether people would work, the farmers didn't even know how to find them. There are plenty of locals who know how to pick tomatoes. Thing is, half of them are 80 years old, the other half are hippies. Hippies got their own tomatoes to pick.

(Plenty of real Mexicans here at the moment. I have the interesting job of teaching their kids Spanish. Pos la neta es que I pick up old-timey sayings from the kids, and in return I teach them not to yell "cabron" at adults they like, just because that's how their dad talks. Every new class starts with them looking at me like I'm Peggy Hill. One useful ice-breaker is to teach the whole class to sing "El Rey" without consulting the lyrics, after we do that, it's a pretty easy semester.)

Con dinero o sin dinero...

[RDCanecutter 26282]

1 minute ago, Chad Fuck said:

Con dinero o sin dinero...

hago siempre lo que quiero...

[DanRydell 799]

23 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

It's all just a big misunderstanding.  They're not wrong per se; it's just that they believe in a different constitution. 

Even the CSA Constitution did apportionment by counting the whole number of free persons (plus 3/5 of slaves). 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

2 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I will absolutely leave any citizenship question blank.  Fuck em. 

that's not the point.  they give two fucks about your answer.  they only want to ask the question, which will ensure a bunch of people (5%+) won't respond to the census at all.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

Modern day political bullshit by Trump.

Create a problem. Get slapped down. Act like a martyr. Rinse. Repeat.

[DigglerontheHoof 21065]

5 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

that's not the point.  they give two fucks about your answer.  they only want to ask the question, which will ensure a bunch of people (5%+) won't respond to the census at all.

No shit.  Tell me what else I can do as a protest, and I will.  

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 minute ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

No shit.  Tell me what else I can do as a protest, and I will.  

stink palm 'm.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

15 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

No shit.  Tell me what else I can do as a protest, and I will.  

 

[4th&Five 41461]

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

24 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Also true.  So weird in the (Thomas, I believe) opinion that he just says “the law says they have to state some rationale.  They did so.  Case closed.”   Totally forgot the court serves a truth finding function, and substituted a make-sure-they-filed-the-necessary-paperwork function

[Chad Fuck 17566]

5 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Also true.  So weird in the (Thomas, I believe) opinion that he just says “the law says they have to state some rationale.  They did so.  Case closed.”   Totally forgot the court serves a truth finding function, and substituted a make-sure-they-filed-the-necessary-paperwork function

A "rubber stamp" if you will.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

Also saw this in The Atlantic, by Peter Shane, a law prof that is an "expert" on administrative law, presidential power law, and separation of powers.  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/executive-order-cant-fix-trumps-census-problem/593449/?utm_source=feed

Doesn't say anything particularly new, but lays out the legal framework clearly and gives kind of a primer on the effect of executive orders.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

23 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Also true.  So weird in the (Thomas, I believe) opinion that he just says “the law says they have to state some rationale.  They did so.  Case closed.”   Totally forgot the court serves a truth finding function, and substituted a make-sure-they-filed-the-necessary-paperwork function

Pretty consistent with Thomas' whole "if they aren't screaming 'die, nagger, die' while acting," it's not actionable discrimination.

[GSU&UT 1798]

welp

 

[yoladu 4067]

I mean honestly... what is the point of the Supreme Court, y'all?

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

7 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

welp

 

The Supreme Court ruled in June that the Trump admin could not include the citizenship question.

 

Well, that's not exactly true...

[CO Horn 154]

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

No shit.  Tell me what else I can do as a protest, and I will.  

If you're in California or Texas, include your pets on the census.  If you live in Alabama, Georgia North Carolina, etc, only include yourself.

 

If the law doesn't apply to elected officials, why should it apply to you.

[CO Horn 154]

Actually, scratch that.  If you live in a state with a bunch of bullshit gerrymandering, only include yourself, otherwise, include the pets.

[retread 2951]

22 minutes ago, yoladu said:

I mean honestly... what is the point of the Supreme Court, y'all?

What's the point of Congressional testimony if you can lie through your teeth with zero consequences?

Edited July 8, 2019 by retread

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

19 minutes ago, yoladu said:

I mean honestly... what is the point of the Supreme Court, y'all?

same thing with the Muslim ban.  just keep doing it until the illegal changes to legal.

"Let's ban Muslims."

SCOTUS:  No.

"Let's ban Muslims."

SCOTUS:  No.

"Let's ban guys from [wink] these [wink] random [wink] countries."

SCOTUS:  Ok.

[Bateshorn 9905]

Surly Law Dogs:  Am I correct in assessing the change in lawyers is so the previous lawyers will not be caught purjurying themselves when the rational changes.  Essentially the new lawyers will be telling fresh lies? 

Also, doesn't matter who answers the question or not, they just need enough data so Red States can draw districts according to voting age citizens and have some formal data to pass the sniff test with this court.  Once you get the question on the census, whether 1 person or 400 million answer it is irrelevant.  You have "data."

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

14 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Surly Law Dogs:  Am I correct in assessing the change in lawyers is so the previous lawyers will not be caught purjurying themselves when the rational changes.  Essentially the new lawyers will be telling fresh lies? 

yes, except you wouldn't call it perjury.  it's a little askance of 'getting caught' though.  more like it's just too hard to have a judge look at you in the face arguing the exact opposite of what you argued before and expect to win anything.