Jump to content

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

JustBecause

By JustBecause
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 714
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Mojo Hand
Mojo Hand

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

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No, it's not. "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed

hayden_horn
hayden_horn

yeah, so i have some unique insight on this, given that i worked for the 2010 census. immigrant populations, hell, even native spanish speaking citizens, are wary of the census, just as crazy fun

Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Wow.

I did not expect that.

If there isn't some express legal bar to this, I bet he'll give census takers the dual task of getting the census form filled out and, "separately," asking people whether they are citizens for a "separate" report on citizenship.   With the citizenship question being asked before getting to the census form. 

Edited by Mojo Hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13707

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

If there isn't some express legal bar to this, I bet he'll give census takers the dual task of getting the census form filled out and, "separately," asking people whether they are citizens for a "separate" report on citizenship.   With the citizenship question being asked before getting to the census form. 

That's an interesting idea but I would bet that would be struck down as well. I suppose the Commerce dept could send other people around to ask this one question but if you simultaneously ask the citizenship question along with the census, its the same thing.   Its not like the Constitution discusses long form vs short form vs random question asking.

My guess is that there was some level of revolt in the DOJ or Commerce that they wouldn't defy a SCOTUS ruling. Trump may have had a choice to fight his own DOJ publicly or back down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrick Bateman

Patrick Bateman 3966

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

Looks like you're right and he's surrendering:

 

"Hey, Commerce Department, let's figure out how many citizens we have and I want to do it annually, not this bullshit every decade!"

"We already do that, Donald.  It's call the American Community Survey"

"What?  Since when?  This is my damn idea.  From now it will be known as the 'Make America Great Again Survey'"

"So you want us to do the same thing but change the title of it?"

"Fuck right!  It's my idea!!!"

"Okay.  Cool.  Murica."

 

Edited by Patrick Bateman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23699

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

He's such a fucking pussy.  Do it you pussy.  Fucking nut up and DO IT.  At this point I want to see the people who are in charge of stopping this asshole actually do their jobs.  If not, oh well, we had a good run.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 86939

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

"Hey, Commerce Department, let's figure out how many citizens we have and I want to do it annually, not this bullshit every decade!"

"We already do that, Donald.  It's call the American Community Survey"

"What?  Since when?  This is my damn idea.  From now it will be known as the 'Make America Great Again Survey'"

"So you want us to do the same thing but change the title of it?"

"Fuck right!  It's my idea!!!"

"Okay.  Cool.  Murcia."

 

Murcia murcia murcia!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31987

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

No one knows anything! Tune in at 5 pm to see whether laws mean anything! 

It’s fucking exhausting having a reality tv star as a president 

Thats the fucking truth, Ruth.

If I had to guess, Barr backed off support for the EO idea because after looking into it, he realized it was probably a loser and would wind up imposing hard limits on executive authority.

IF it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31987

Posted
Posted
4 hours 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.  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. 

Not to belabor this, but being a legal matter, technicalities matter.  The Supreme Court did not consider whether an Executive Order could supplant the whole constitutionally mandated and congressionally delegated and regulated census process.  So issuing an EO to that effect does not really violate the Supreme Court's ruling, or  the district court's ruling.  The spirit, sure, but we know how far talking about the spirit of the law will get you in court.

Presidents have been using executive orders to end run congress and the courts for decades.  Usually not so blatantly as Trump in this instance (or the Muslim ban).  Granted, because there is a pretty comprehensive constitutional, legislative, and administrative scheme here, I think there is about zero room for the President to interject himself by Executive Order.  BUT NO ONE HAS EVER DECIDED THAT BEFORE.

In a lot of cases testing the scope of an injunction, to avoid an advisory opinion, you have to do what the injunction appears to enjoin, get held in contempt, or not, and take it up to a higher court.  I'm not really sure how Trump, or Barr, or anyone else could obtain review of the EO course of action any other way.  You can't just go back to court and say, "Ok Mr. Judge, we're going to do this, whaddaya think?"  Meaning, you can't move for a modification of an injunction over conduct no one pled, or previously argued, or was previously considered by the court, and that you haven't even done yet.

The EO question kind of presents some interesting, or at least semi-serious, separation of powers questions that I think are easily resolved against the executive.  But maybe all separation of powers cases are constitutional crises.  I don't find that label at all helpful.

What might be a different matter is if Wilbur Ross, without any justification or legal anything, said "fuck you district court, the question is going in."  That is in direct violation of the district court's injunction, as approved by the Supreme Court.  No wiggle room, no argument just defiance.  Granted, the difference between Ross doing that and Trump issuing an EO that gives Ross apparent authority to do that may be semantic, but it's law, man, it's all semantics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not to belabor this, but being a legal matter, technicalities matter.  The Supreme Court did not consider whether an Executive Order could supplant the whole constitutionally mandated and congressionally delegated and regulated census process.  So issuing an EO to that effect does not really violate the Supreme Court's ruling, or  the district court's ruling.  The spirit, sure, but we know how far talking about the spirit of the law will get you in court.

Presidents have been using executive orders to end run congress and the courts for decades.  Usually not so blatantly as Trump in this instance (or the Muslim ban).  Granted, because there is a pretty comprehensive constitutional, legislative, and administrative scheme here, I think there is about zero room for the President to interject himself by Executive Order.  BUT NO ONE HAS EVER DECIDED THAT BEFORE.

In a lot of cases testing the scope of an injunction, to avoid an advisory opinion, you have to do what the injunction appears to enjoin, get held in contempt, or not, and take it up to a higher court.  I'm not really sure how Trump, or Barr, or anyone else could obtain review of the EO course of action any other way.  You can't just go back to court and say, "Ok Mr. Judge, we're going to do this, whaddaya think?"  Meaning, you can't move for a modification of an injunction over conduct no one pled, or previously argued, or was previously considered by the court, and that you haven't even done yet.

The EO question kind of presents some interesting, or at least semi-serious, separation of powers questions that I think are easily resolved against the executive.  But maybe all separation of powers cases are constitutional crises.  I don't find that label at all helpful.

What might be a different matter is if Wilbur Ross, without any justification or legal anything, said "fuck you district court, the question is going in."  That is in direct violation of the district court's injunction, as approved by the Supreme Court.  No wiggle room, no argument just defiance.  Granted, the difference between Ross doing that and Trump issuing an EO that gives Ross apparent authority to do that may be semantic, but it's law, man, it's all semantics.

What if the executive order had directed the GPO to halt the printing of census forms without the question and to begin printing the forms with the question?  Would that not violate the injunction?   I don't have the terms in front of me, but I thought it was an injunction on adding the question to the form. 

Edit: actually, the GPO might be in the legislative branch, but whoever in the Executive has power of the actual printing of these forms.

Edited by Mojo Hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31987

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

What if the executive order had directed the GPO to halt the printing of census forms without the question and to begin printing the forms with the question?  Would that not violate the injunction?   I don't have the terms in front of me, but I thought it was an injunction on adding the question to the form. 

Edit: actually, the GPO might be in the legislative branch, but whoever in the Executive has power of the actual printing of these forms.

I think any of it implicates the "in concert and participation" aspect of the injunction.  And while it may be paper thin, an Executive Order lends a tad bit of justification or legal authority to whatever gets done, whether in violation or not. 

The actual language of the injunction is:

Quote

Accordingly, and for the reasons stated at length above, the Court vacates Secretary Ross's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire, enjoins Defendants from implementing Secretary Ross's March, 26, 2018 decision or from adding a question to the 2020 census questionnaire without curing the legal defects identified in this Opinion, and remands the matter to the Secretary of Commerce (to the extent that such a "remand" is even necessary) for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Court's Order.

It's hard to suss out exactly who the defendants are, but I think it's Ross and various Commerce officials, not Trump. 

So did the fucker bag it or what?  I see conflicting reports?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34658

Posted
Posted (edited)
Quote

and will instead instruct the Commerce Department to get the data through other means,

you mean like the american community survey, conducted annually, already does?

 

edit: i see patrick bateman has already covered this

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 9918

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

Looks like you're right and he's surrendering:

 

So will the IRS be reporting all of the duplicate SS# filers?  It will be funny to see reps argue against this while demanding Trumps tax returns. 

Smart move. Public schools should also provide a good snap shot of how many illegal children are in the system and if they list one or two contacts. 

This thread should rejoice. Trump lost and the question won’t be asked. You never had an issue with transparency correct?  So should be all for this move by Trump, unless we were being disingenuous? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31987

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, NowThis said:

thread tldr version -- Surly is cool with illegals submitting a census, with no citizenship question, thus inflating the Electoral Votes for specific states.  Yes? 

That's the constitutional scheme.  Illegals,  women, 3/5 humans  . . .  all of em.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

So will the IRS be reporting all of the duplicate SS# filers?  It will be funny to see reps argue against this while demanding Trumps tax returns. 

Smart move. Public schools should also provide a good snap shot of how many illegal children are in the system and if they list one or two contacts. 

This thread should rejoice. Trump lost and the question won’t be asked. You never had an issue with transparency correct?  So should be all for this move by Trump, unless we were being disingenuous? 

There were always two issues:   asking the question, which would cause undercounting, and using the results of the question for redistricting.   The first issue is resolved, and it's good news. The second issue is a future battle yet to be resolved.  Collecting the citizenship data via the specified, non-census means is a first step towards that second issue, but I don't have a problem with it per se as long as it doesn't fuck up the census.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19441

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

So will the IRS be reporting all of the duplicate SS# filers?  It will be funny to see reps argue against this while demanding Trumps tax returns. 

Smart move. Public schools should also provide a good snap shot of how many illegal children are in the system and if they list one or two contacts. 

This thread should rejoice. Trump lost and the question won’t be asked. You never had an issue with transparency correct?  So should be all for this move by Trump, unless we were being disingenuous? 

Do you think illegals file for Social Security benefits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 86939

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's the constitutional scheme.  Illegals,  women, 3/5 humans  . . .  all of em.

Strict Constructionalists: you can’t redefine the 2nd amendment, it’s not a living document. Original intent!

also strict Constructionalists: just because it says persons doesn’t mean ILLEGALS!!!1!11 It’s not literally ALL persons. Geez, you have to read into it. 

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106618

Posted
Posted
thread tldr version -- Surly is cool with illegals submitting a census, with no citizenship question, thus inflating the Electoral Votes for specific states.  Yes? 

That's the constitutional scheme.  Illegals,  women, 3/5 humans  . . .  all of em.

Nowthis asks a question that reveals complete and total ignorance of the constitution...and gets bitchslapped by citation to the constitution.

Pretty solid trumpkin moment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 30230

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, NowThis said:

thread tldr version -- Surly is cool with illegals submitting a census, with no citizenship question, thus inflating the Electoral Votes for specific states.  Yes? 

It's cute that you think EVs are distributed equitably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NowThis

NowThis 931

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, bolverk said:

It's cute that you think EVs are distributed equitably.

i don't

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 


Nowthis asks a question that reveals complete and total ignorance of the constitution...and gets bitchslapped by citation to the constitution.

Pretty solid trumpkin moment.

 

not really. 

Look, sometimes the right wing is right.  The citizenship question should be on there IMO.  Others have different opinions, the courts rule in one direction, fine.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NowThis

NowThis 931

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Even if it results in an undercount of people in this country?

a census always undercounts people . Aside from allocation of resources, the game both sides are playing is the EV.  Granted, TX and CA probably cancel each other out but we still have FL and NY. It's marginal, the effect on the POTUS election but still there.  In principle though, since the Census does affect POTUS and HoR, it should only be for citizens.  Other agencies can count the people for food banks and other government efforts, but the Census should be sacred. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26773

Posted
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, NowThis said:

thread tldr version -- Surly is cool with illegals submitting a census, with no citizenship question, thus inflating the Electoral Votes for specific states.  Yes? 

Your president jerked you around and then chickened out when his bluff was called again. Will you get the message this time?

 

He won't

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voldemort86

Voldemort86 2259

Posted
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, NowThis said:

thread tldr version -- Surly is cool with illegals submitting a census, with no citizenship question, thus inflating the Electoral Votes for specific states.  Yes? 

I’m against it because I don’t like the timing of it and the backstory. We also know the republicans TRUE motivation for pushing this. It’s the intent that pisses me off. 

The reality is that the “census question” hasn’t been asked since the 1950’s. The ( THANKFULLY) recently deceased GOP gerrymander guru Thomas Hofeller explicitly stated in his hard drive that was recovered by common cause, a voting rights non profit organization that asking this question will BOOST non Hispanic white voting power. This guy is the same asshat who drew the infamous North Carolina congressional map. Republicans typically win 10 of 13 congressional seats in that state without much trouble, despite the popular vote in North Carolina being nearly even every year. He also designed the shit show Pennsylvania map where Republicans had roughly 12 of 16 seats despite usually losing the popular vote there. He also helped Paul Ryan draw the map in Wisconsin where republicans win 65% of the seats with roughly 45% of the votes. 

If I had the opportunity, I would probably piss on this guy’s grave and kick the stone down. Minority majority rule should piss most people off in my opinion. It’s not right that you “win” by getting less than 50% of the vote. Lawmakers shouldn’t have the power to grotesquely hand pick their voters.

i know gerrymandering is a thing and both parties do it, but republicans lean on it so heavily that it’s disgusting. The census question will enable republicans and shady as hell Trump to draw the nastiest, shittiest, most crooked maps possible. No matter what happens, thankfully Hofeller is gone and he won’t be around to draw them. I suspect that hot wheels Abbott and bathroom Goeb would’ve given him a call to draw Texas’s map for 2020.

Edited by Voldemort86
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106618

Posted
Posted
a census always undercounts people . Aside from allocation of resources, the game both sides are playing is the EV.  Granted, TX and CA probably cancel each other out but we still have FL and NY. It's marginal, the effect on the POTUS election but still there.  In principle though, since the Census does affect POTUS and HoR, it should only be for citizens.  Other agencies can count the people for food banks and other government efforts, but the Census should be sacred. 

Cool. Then amend the constitution to make it that way.

And good luck with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 26176

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

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. 

Same here.  Which is why I've been furiously jacking off. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CO Horn

CO Horn 172

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, NowThis said:

a census always undercounts people . Aside from allocation of resources, the game both sides are playing is the EV.  Granted, TX and CA probably cancel each other out but we still have FL and NY. It's marginal, the effect on the POTUS election but still there.  In principle though, since the Census does affect POTUS and HoR, it should only be for citizens.  Other agencies can count the people for food banks and other government efforts, but the Census should be sacred. 

So you want to only allow citizens to be included in the census counts in determining representation, in direct violation of the Constitution. Fucking fantastic!  Can we add a question asking how many guns you own, legally and illegally, while we’re at It?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NowThis

NowThis 931

Posted
Posted
Just now, CO Horn said:

So you want to only allow citizens to be included in the census counts in determining representation, in direct violation of the Constitution. Fucking fantastic!  Can we add a question asking how many guns you own, legally and illegally, while we’re at It?

yes, just count citizens. kthxbi.   

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 9918

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, CO Horn said:

So you want to only allow citizens to be included in the census counts in determining representation, in direct violation of the Constitution. Fucking fantastic!  Can we add a question asking how many guns you own, legally and illegally, while we’re at It?

That is your opinion and needs to be taken to the Supreme Court as illegal immigrants and asylum seekers didn’t exists at the time. Agree to disagree. 

 

IRS Admits It Encourages Illegals To Steal Social Security Numbers For Taxes

This time, he was talking about illegal immigrants, and about the IRS turning a blind eye. Or maybe worse. The IRS actually wantsillegal immigrants to illegally use Social Security numbers, he suggested. IRS Commissioner John Koskinen made the surprising statement in response to a question from Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., at a Senate Finance Committee meeting. The question was a touchy one. Gee, is the IRS collaborating with taxpayers who file tax returns using fraudulent information? It wasn’t put exactly that way. According to Senator Coats:

What we learned is that … the IRS continues to process tax returns with false W-2 information and issue refunds as if they were routine tax returns, and say that’s not really our job. We also learned the IRS ignores notifications from the Social Security Administration that a name does not match a Social Security number, and you use your own system to determine whether a number is valid.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/04/13/irs-admits-it-encourages-illegals-to-steal-social-security-numbers-for-taxes/#423653784c04

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19441

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

That is your opinion and needs to be taken to the Supreme Court as illegal immigrants and asylum seekers didn’t exists at the time. Agree to disagree. 

 

IRS Admits It Encourages Illegals To Steal Social Security Numbers For Taxes

This time, he was talking about illegal immigrants, and about the IRS turning a blind eye. Or maybe worse. The IRS actually wantsillegal immigrants to illegally use Social Security numbers, he suggested. IRS Commissioner John Koskinen made the surprising statement in response to a question from Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., at a Senate Finance Committee meeting. The question was a touchy one. Gee, is the IRS collaborating with taxpayers who file tax returns using fraudulent information? It wasn’t put exactly that way. According to Senator Coats:

What we learned is that … the IRS continues to process tax returns with false W-2 information and issue refunds as if they were routine tax returns, and say that’s not really our job. We also learned the IRS ignores notifications from the Social Security Administration that a name does not match a Social Security number, and you use your own system to determine whether a number is valid.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/04/13/irs-admits-it-encourages-illegals-to-steal-social-security-numbers-for-taxes/#423653784c04

Paying taxes for Social Security and Medicare benefits you'll never see to own the conservatives?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...