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

[wildcat09 29258]

24 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Also, consistent with my point, above:

This is fucked. If you *dont* have any hysteria about this, nothing will make you care about presidential overreach

Paging @Anastasis

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Maybe this is just what they came up with to get around judicial estoppel.  Have this start a new case to get sued over where they haven't represented June 30 is the deadline to get a new judge and new attorneys in a new court to soften the impact of those statements elsewhere.

[Asithappens 974]

Just now, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Maybe this is just what they came up with to get around judicial estoppel.  Have this start a new case to get sued over where they haven't represented June 30 is the deadline to get a new judge and new attorneys in a new court to soften the impact of those statements elsewhere.

Ha. Judicial estoppel.

More like judicial gestapo, am I right?

[TwiceHorn 31283]

4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

What does it matter if the administration ignores court orders telling it not to put the Q on the census?

I guess I look at it differently.  He's trying an end run, it will be judicially reviewed and seems likely to fail.  If he persists then, we have a crisis.

[hayden_horn 11360]

46 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I was referring to the subpoenas.  But see Ex Parte Merryman regarding Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and his complete disregard for court orders.  Things were pretty intense during the FDR administration, also.

so wait.

come on.

your citations are lincoln's civil war and FDR's world war ii?

 i mean, this is not even REMOTELY analogous.

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

so wait.

come on.

your citations are lincoln's civil war and FDR's world war ii?

 i mean, this is not even REMOTELY analogous.

 

that was in my mind too.  we've managed a huge crisis in peace time.  it's impressive, really.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

so wait.

come on.

your citations are lincoln's civil war and FDR's world war ii?

 i mean, this is not even REMOTELY analogous.

 

In terms of the executive jousting with the judicial and legislative branches it is precisely analogous.

I wouldn't want to utter Lincoln's name in the same sentence as the orange shitgibbon, but suspending habeas corpus is a dire matter indeed, much direr than this.

[Pig Bellmont 8692]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I guess I look at it differently.  He's trying an end run, it will be judicially reviewed and seems likely to fail.  If he persists then, we have a crisis.

It takes two open violations of court ordered injunctions upheld by the Supreme Court and *then* it’s a constitutional crisis. Cool. 

[hayden_horn 11360]

Just now, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

that was in my mind too.  we've managed a huge crisis in peace time.  it's impressive, really.

i mean, those were two very real existential crises for this country. 

here we have a state of emergency (i guess?) because thousands of people are at the border seeking asylum.

this is only existential to trump supporters who are white nationalists. 

i honestly cannot entertain any other argument. trump is agitating for this question to please the white nationalists.

[Pig Bellmont 8692]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

trump is agitating for this question to please the white nationalists.

And to disproportionately add GOP representation in Congress 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 minute ago, Pig Bellmont said:

It takes two open violations of court ordered injunctions upheld by the Supreme Court and *then* it’s a constitutional crisis. Cool. 

Correct. It's only a crisis when the Court and the Executive branch reach an impasse. Right now, it's how the system is set up to run. This isn't the first time a President has run afoul of the Judicial branch.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

And to disproportionately add GOP representation in Congress 

Yeah, I think he's doing this to keep hardshell GOPer's beholden to him, lest they bolt.  Not that he needs to.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Correct. It's only a crisis when the Court and the Executive branch reach an impasse. Right now, it's how the system is set up to run. This isn't the first time a President has run afoul of the Judicial branch.

That's pretty much the way I see it.  Violating an injunction to test whether what you are doing is actually a violation is a pretty common legal tactic.

I can see the other viewpoint though.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, I think he's doing this to keep hardshell GOPer's beholden to him, lest they bolt.  Not that he needs to.

No doubt in my mind. I think he knows he'll lose in the end and use it as a talking point during the campaign.

THAT DAMN LIBRUL NANCY PILOSSEY WONT LET US ASK ABOUT CITICENSHIP!

[Asithappens 974]

7 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

It takes two open violations of court ordered injunctions upheld by the Supreme Court and *then* it’s a constitutional crisis. Cool. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

14 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Maybe this is just what they came up with to get around judicial estoppel.  Have this start a new case to get sued over where they haven't represented June 30 is the deadline to get a new judge and new attorneys in a new court to soften the impact of those statements elsewhere.

It's going to go right back to the same courts that issued the injunctions and have denied the attempts to inject new counsel.  They're going to rule that an EO doesn't change anything, Trump lacks that power. It's going to go to the courts of appeal, who are going to affirm, and then the Supreme Court, who I think would also affirm, or deny cert.

[hayden_horn 11360]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In terms of the executive jousting with the judicial and legislative branches it is precisely analogous.

I wouldn't want to utter Lincoln's name in the same sentence as the orange shitgibbon, but suspending habeas corpus is a dire matter indeed, much direr than this.

no.

no, absolutely not.

lincoln was dealing with a country tearing itself apart. i mean, that actually happened. half the country fucking left, and that left washington dc at their mercy. 

it was an incredible time, and while his decision was (rightfully) controversial, and i'm not sure i want to hash out whether or not i actually support it (i don't), but we cannot compare a census question court decision and injunction with the country dissolving and major disruptions and riots along transport and communications lines.

same with FDR.

those were times of war!

no, i realize trump is engaged in a culture war for the existential identity of america as white america (hint: it never really was white america, but whatever), to please his base...

but none of that is actually comparable to extraordinary decisions made during two of the biggest wars in our domestic history as well as global history.

not even remotely close, despite how much of a legal cataract you want to use to view the situations.

Edited July 11, 2019 by hayden_horn

[Mojo Hand 4580]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I guess I look at it differently.  He's trying an end run, it will be judicially reviewed and seems likely to fail.  If he persists then, we have a crisis.

That's what he's doing.  He's persisting after failing judicial review.   Seriously, wtf dude? 

[Pig Bellmont 8692]

But we’re not in a constitutional crisis

[TwiceHorn 31283]

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

no.

no, absolutely not.

lincoln was dealing with a country tearing itself apart. i mean, that actually happened. half the country fucking left, and that left washington dc at their mercy. 

it was an incredible time, and while his decision was (rightfully) controversial, and i'm not sure i want to hash out whether or not i actually support it (i don't), but we cannot compare a census question court decision and injunction with the country dissolving and major disruptions and riots along transport and communications lines.

same with FDR.

those were times of war!

no, i realize trump is engaged in a culture war for the existential identity of america as white america (hint: it never really was white america, but whatever), to please his base...

but none of that is actually comparable to extraordinary decisions made during two of the biggest wars in our domestic history as well as global history.

not even remotely close, despite how much of a legal cataract you want to use to view the situations.

I am viewing it through a legal cataract.  I am also not referring to what FDR did during the war, but rather the jousting with the judicial branch over New Deal things.

Edited July 11, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[hayden_horn 11360]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I am viewing it through a legal cataract.  I am also not referring to what FDR did during the war, but rather the jousting with the judicial branch over New Deal things.

oh, so something that happened during the greatest economic crisis our country has ever faced.

right.

totally analogous to today.

seriously. stop and think about what is happening, who is trying to effect this thing that is happening, and the ramifications of success. 

[Anastasis 23394]

20 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Paging @Anastasis

What's your question?  Thread is not in my participated list and haven't really been tracking the developments.

Looks like Trump taking "executive action" in attempt to circumvent SCOTUS?

Yeah, I am very strongly opposed.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

Why am I viewing this through a legal cataract?  Because it's the only interesting thing to me.

That Trump is an asshole and the worst person to hold high office in the US is beyond debate.  That's boring as fuck.

Discussing the legal posture of it and whether he can succeed is the only thing of interest.

Screaming about him violating court orders has no meaning anymore.  It's expected.

 

For me, it has come down to whether the country will survive Trump (I believe it will, but I could be wrong) because of institutions provided by the Constitution.  

Edited July 11, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[hayden_horn 11360]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why am I viewing this through a legal cataract?  Because it's the only interesting thing to me.

That Trump is an asshole and the worst person to hold high office in the US is beyond debate.  That's boring as fuck.

Discussing the legal posture of it and whether he can succeed is the only thing of interest.

Screaming about him violating court orders has no meaning anymore.  It's expected.

 

For me, it has come down to whether the country will survive Trump (I believe it will, but I could be wrong) because of institutions provided by the Constitution.  

how about the precedent this might set?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

28 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

And to disproportionately add GOP representation in Congress 

Yep. This is what it is mostly about. He wants to shrink representation in Northeastern and Western states. He's willing to also shrink Texas and Florida to do that. 

Although I do believe that the Trump admin would illegally use census forms for ICE raids, that is just the icing on the cake. In reality, he doesn't want immigrants to respond at all. 

Edited July 11, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[TwiceHorn 31283]

6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

how about the precedent this might set?

Once it gets set, I'll freak out.  As stated, I am assuming that the institutions will operate to halt this.  And the only way you can discuss the precedent that *might* get set is through legal cataracts (nice term, btw).

 

Analogizing it to other things, and applying terms like "constitutional crisis" is fun, but it's of no moment, really.

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

16 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

But we’re not in a constitutional crisis

We are in a Twitter Constitutional Crisis. Oh my.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Yep. This is what it is mostly about. He wants to shrink representation in Northeastern and Western states. He's willing to also shrink Texas and Florida to do that. 

Although I do believe that the Trump admin would illegally use census forms for ICE raids, that is just the icing on the cake. In reality, he doesn't want immigrants to respond at all. 

Well the other thing, and the reason I think Barr has gotten behind this, is an attempt to expand executive power.  To make EOs powerful.  And this is where I think it falls apart and ultimately damages the grasping office of the President, long term.

Edited July 11, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why am I viewing this through a legal cataract?  Because it's the only interesting thing to me.

That Trump is an asshole and the worst person to hold high office in the US is beyond debate.  That's boring as fuck.

Discussing the legal posture of it and whether he can succeed is the only thing of interest.

Screaming about him violating court orders has no meaning anymore.  It's expected.

 

For me, it has come down to whether the country will survive Trump (I believe it will, but I could be wrong) because of institutions provided by the Constitution.  

FWIW, I appreciate your take.

[Pig Bellmont 8692]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

We are in a Twitter Constitutional Crisis. Oh my.

Care to point out any part of the quoted text that is incorrect? 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

Fyi: this is all political theatre by the trump admin. Immigration is a hot button issue that motivates his mouth breathers. Keeping immigration in the news, even if they lose a fight or look stupid or ignore the SC, is still a win for this admin. Sad but true. Elections have consequences. Our consequence of electing a lying NY real estate developer who confessed to sexual assault is that we get to witness these types of embarrassing episodes. Suck it up, turn off Fox News, and vote this guy out of office

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 minute ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Care to point out any part of the quoted text that is incorrect? 

You realize that's the opinion of one guy on Twitter, right?

Let it play out. I have faith in our Court.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

Trump doesn't really care about this outcome because he will ultimately spin it in his favor:

1. He finds a way to place the citizenship question on the census.  He's a hero to the voters that hate illegal immigrants and/or Hispanics and they need to reward him with another 4 years.

2. He doesn't find a way to place the question on the census.  He's a hero to the voters that hate illegal immigrants and/or Hispanics and they need to vote him back into office to fight. 

 

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13547]

The leader of the democratic, free world possibly passing a point of no return in becoming a de facto authoritarian state absent any existensial crisis?

 

BOOORRRING!

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Once it gets set, I'll freak out.  As stated, I am assuming that the institutions will operate to halt this.  And the only way you can discuss the precedent that *might* get set is through legal cataracts.

 

The law only has meaning if we all want it to. Society is a delicate thing.  Personally, I think Trump could violate the order, print out the forms with the question, and send them out, and our law enforcement apparatus would do nothing about it. Maybe local and state PDs would do something, but that would be a very dangerous situation. 

In fact, if it were to happen, I think the census would occur, and all the legal wrangling would occur at census certification and reapportionment. At that point, the results either get tossed out or we are going to be looking at states actually seceding from the union. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

You realize that's the opinion of one guy on Twitter, right?

Let it play out. I have faith in our Court.

I think I do (have faith in the courts).  I hope I'm not wrong.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

The law only has meaning if we all want it to. Society is a delicate thing.  Personally, I think Trump could violate the order, print out the forms with the question, and send them out, and our law enforcement apparatus would do nothing about it. Maybe local and state PDs would do something, but that would be a very dangerous situation. 

In fact, if it were to happen, I think the census would occur, and all the legal wrangling would occur at census certification and reapportionment. At that point, the results either get tossed out or we are going to be looking at states actually seceding from the union. 

Yeah, that's where it gets really hairy.  Hope it doesn't come to that.

It is truly amazing that this retard (sorry) can blunder about like this and cause such havoc.  You'd think it would require more intention to do this.

Edited July 11, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Huckleberry 32703]

44 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I guess I look at it differently.  He's trying an end run, it will be judicially reviewed and seems likely to fail.  If he persists then, we have a crisis.

So if he does it again then it's a crisis.

I mean do you seriously think this is the last "end run" that will be attempted?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I think I do (have faith in the courts).  I hope I'm not wrong.

I have faith in our courts to make fair decisions.  Judges can't do anything physically though.  I don't have faith in our executive branch or our law enforcement organizations to enforce rulings that run counter to their politics. 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Trump doesn't really care about this outcome because he will ultimately spin it in his favor:

1. He finds a way to place the citizenship question on the census.  He's a hero to the voters that hate illegal immigrants and/or Hispanics and they need to reward him with another 4 years.

2. He doesn't find a way to place the question on the census.  He's a hero to the voters that hate illegal immigrants and/or Hispanics and they need to vote him back into office to fight.

That's my take too. The problem is that he is scorching the earth to do it. Whatever standing he has with Roberts and the Court is getting burned up.

Trump is a fool to think Roberts isn't the most powerful man in the US right now.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

I have faith in our courts to make fair decisions.  Judges can't do anything physically though.  I don't have faith in our executive branch or our law enforcement organizations to enforce rulings that run counter to their politics. 

Ultimately, Congress has oversight. Perhaps they will NUT UP and do something.

 

 

Nah...who am I kidding.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

I have faith in our courts to make fair decisions.  Judges can't do anything physically though.  I don't have faith in our executive branch or our law enforcement organizations to enforce rulings that run counter to their politics. 

That's a good point.  Here's the deal though, I think if it weren't for Barr's well-known penchant for executive power and the opportunity this presents to expand it, everyone around Trump would have told him to stand down.  I think if/when they lose this, they will stand down.

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

That's my take too. The problem is that he is scorching the earth to do it. Whatever standing he has with Roberts and the Court is getting burned up.

Trump is a fool to think Roberts isn't the most powerful man in the US right now.

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Ultimately, Congress has oversight. Perhaps they will NUT UP and do something.

 

 

Nah...who am I kidding.

haha, see post above

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Trump is a fool to think Roberts isn't the most powerful man in the US right now.

but that power goes to zero if RGB loses her grip on the mortal coil.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

but that power goes to zero if RGB loses her grip on the mortal coil.

I'm not so sure about that. The end of the last SCOTUS session showed some interesting results. Roberts & Gorsuch joined the Liberals on some key decisions this year:

 

 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

haha, see post above

That made me chuckle. Niiiiice.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why am I viewing this through a legal cataract?  Because it's the only interesting thing to me.

That Trump is an asshole and the worst person to hold high office in the US is beyond debate.  That's boring as fuck.

Discussing the legal posture of it and whether he can succeed is the only thing of interest.

Screaming about him violating court orders has no meaning anymore.  It's expected.

 

For me, it has come down to whether the country will survive Trump (I believe it will, but I could be wrong) because of institutions provided by the Constitution.  

Also, running the legal traps on this keeps my head from exploding.  The rest of you do you.

I seek refuge in what I know. I have no other tools with which to reconcile it. 

Edited July 11, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I don't see how it isn't a constitutional crisis if he ignores the Supreme Court's decision upholding the injunction against his administration.  The legal way to justify the question would be by going back to court to get the injunction lifted before printing the form with the question.   Ordering the form to be printed with the question, if that is what he does, would put the Court in the position of having to uphold the administration's action based on whatever bullshit rationale is in the EO, or wag a finger but say it's too late to remove the question, or else risk the loss of its power with respect to the Executive.   That's a crisis. 

We've had a few situations along those lines.   FDR threatened court-packing, but at least he was threatening a legal, constitutional approach, and he couldn't do it without congressional support.    This is more akin to Marbury v. Madison or the Andrew Jackson "let him enforce it" case, but if I'm not mistaken both cases avoided issuing court orders under threat of non-compliance; here the Court could be forced to excuse non-compliance with an existing order.  Either way, those examples arguably presented constitutional crises too, which is why they are such well-known and well-studied situations. 

Edited July 11, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

23 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I don't see how it isn't a constitutional crisis if he ignores the Supreme Court's decision upholding the injunction against his administration. 

When that happens, we'll discuss it. Right now, it's just posturing.