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

[Huckleberry 34407]

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

Is it your position that immigrants aren't people? That's the only way to get around the text of the 14th Amendment. Or does plain text only matter sometimes?

[CO Horn 172]

6 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

That is my opinion?  It’s in the Fucking Constitution. You want to play the intent of the Founding Fathers game. Ok, so the 2nd Amendment is now fair game. Am I allowed to surmise their intent with regards to the right to bear arms?

[Brisketexan 106618]

Is it your position that immigrants aren't people? That's the only way to get around the text of the 14th Amendment. Or does plain text only matter sometimes?

The amount of self-pantsing that these supposed strict constitutionalists do, repeatedly, with respect to....the constitution....well, I find it funny. Like ha-ha funny.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

The right generally doesn't give a shit about principle when it comes to reading the constitution or statutes.   Their supposed affinity for strict constructionism was always outcome-determinative, in that many of the results they wanted followed from that approach.  When it doesn't, they usually find some excuse to reach the result they want anyway. 

Edited July 12, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I very seriously doubt that Trump ever really understood what was going on or what was at stake here.  

I do wonder who came up with this idea?  Kinda doubt it was Ross, too.

Google Hofeller (if you don’t know) When he died, his daughter turned his hard drive over to the plaintiff’s revealing the discriminatory purpose and meetings supporting adding the Q that the government (deliberately?) failed to disclose in the lawsuit 

[CO Horn 172]

Never mind. I stand corrected. Illegal immigration has never existed in the past. Mea culpa. 

[Voldemort86 2259]

34 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

The right generally doesn't give a shit about principle when it comes to reading the constitution or statutes.   Their supposed affinity for strict constructionism was always outcome-determinative, in that many of the results they wanted followed from that approach.  When it doesn't, they usually find some excuse to reach the result they want anyway. 

I like how conservatives were so vocal about the national deficit while Obama was in office. Even trump’s orange ass tweeted about it.

 

now with trump in office? They don’t bring it up or think about it at all.

[High Plains Drifter 11161]

 

6 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

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

 

 

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hey libertarians!  You want to weigh in on this?!!?

 

 

Some staffer came up with this bullshit as a way for DOTARD to save face. Today, he gets to to "hereby order". Nobody will do shit, and In a week or less he'll forget and it'll be some new bullshit.

[retread 2951]

And in a few weeks, the Dept of Commerce will release some very R friendly statistics showing citizens in each state.

Bill Barr will sprinkle some holy water on the binders and declare them 100% accurate.

[Js1 86939]

15 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

 

Some staffer came up with this bullshit as a way for DOTARD to save face. Today, he gets to to "hereby order". Nobody will do shit, and In a week or less he'll forget and it'll be some new bullshit.

This was the equivalent of him verbalizing the WHY NOT DONE tweet. 

I hereby order the Dept of Commerce to DO SOMETHING

[Blotto 23974]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

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

Murica thanks you for your service

[TwiceHorn 31987]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Google Hofeller (if you don’t know) When he died, his daughter turned his hard drive over to the plaintiff’s revealing the discriminatory purpose and meetings supporting adding the Q that the government (deliberately?) failed to disclose in the lawsuit 

Yeah I know who he is.  He planted the idea with someone, like Bannon maybe?  Priebus?  Manafort? Roger Stone? Someone sort of sophisticated on this kind of fuckery.  He  didn't communicate it to Trump or Ross directly, I don't believe.  

[scottsins 2039]

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. 

 

1. You realize that non-citizen /= illegals, right? It would also include legal permanent residents, etc.

 

2. Lol. You think that the Supreme Court needs to issue an opinion to establish the meaning of the word “persons”? It’s plain text. IDGAF what the makeup of the court is...that’s a 7-2 deviation at worst.

 

ETA: handguns and assault style weapons didn’t exist when the framers wrote the 2nd Amendment. I assume you are cool with stating that it just covers muskets?

[TwiceHorn 31987]

2 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

The right generally doesn't give a shit about principle when it comes to reading the constitution or statutes.   Their supposed affinity for strict constructionism was always outcome-determinative, in that many of the results they wanted followed from that approach.  When it doesn't, they usually find some excuse to reach the result they want anyway. 

Really any school of constitutional interpretation theory comes out like this.  It breaks down at some level and becomes an ad hoc decision.

But, I kind of admire those who try to stick to such a theory until it breaks down.  And, I think for statutory construction, ignoring legislative intent as long as possible (textualism) is a great idea.  Scalia was the only justice that was really doctrinaire about anything and he could spin like a mofo.  Somehow, rightwingers latched onto that like it was some universal feature of right wing scholarship/constitutional law.  It does have a tendency to preserve the status quo.  Hell, even Scalia advocated both textualism and originalism, which get to cross-purposes pretty quickly.

I mean, say what you will about National Socialism, it's an ethos.

Edited July 12, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Voldemort86 2259]

1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

 

Some staffer came up with this bullshit as a way for DOTARD to save face. Today, he gets to to "hereby order". Nobody will do shit, and In a week or less he'll forget and it'll be some new bullshit.

# MAGA

gonna win gonna win so big that you’ll be tired of winning. 

# only the best people. 

The wall will be big, beautiful, aesthetically pleasing, strong, and built my first year in office. 

 

 

 

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

4 minutes ago, scottsins said:

 

1. You realize that non-citizen /= illegals, right? It would also include legal permanent residents, etc.

2. Lol. You think that the Supreme Court needs to issue an opinion to establish the meaning of the word “persons”? It’s plain text. IDGAF what the makeup of the court is...that’s a 7-2 deviation at worst.

 

I think the Supreme Court should decide if flooding your state with illegal immigrants should be rewarded with house seats and federal dollars. I don’t believe that was the founder’s intent.  You do.

 You believe their intent was to include citizens of England and France.  Let the Supreme Court decide on the disenfranchise issue. 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5854]

And chickensandwich is still standing! 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Really any school of constitutional interpretation theory comes out like this.  It breaks down at some level and becomes an ad hoc decision.

But, I kind of admire those who try to stick to such a theory until it breaks down.  And, I think for statutory construction, ignoring legislative intent as long as possible (textualism) is a great idea.  

I mean, say what you will about National Socialism, it's an ethos.

I don't think there are too many who stick with an interpretative principle until it breaks down; I think they mostly stick to it until it doesn't deliver the result they want.   And I think that's true of judges across the ideological spectrum.   The issue, to me, is that the right has uniquely claimed a mantle of righteousness in their analytical approach while delegitimizing the other side with a phony "judicial activism" narrative.   I'm watching this Obamacare case in the Fifth Circuit and just shaking my head.

[Captainant 28386]

15 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

I think the Supreme Court should decide if flooding your state with illegal immigrants should be rewarded with house seats and federal dollars. I don’t believe that was the founder’s intent.  You do.

 You believe their intent was to include citizens of England and France.  Let the Supreme Court decide on the disenfranchise issue. 

They literally counted slaves for congressional apportionment. The census is intended to get the most accurate count possible of people residing in the US, immigration and citizenship status aside. Its not *supposed* to be a tool for political hacks to goose congressional seats to be biased against brown people. 

[hobbes2702 13351]

4 hours 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? 

Well that is what the constitution says.

[CO Horn 172]

27 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

I think the Supreme Court should decide if flooding your state with illegal immigrants should be rewarded with house seats and federal dollars. I don’t believe that was the founder’s intent.  You do.

 You believe their intent was to include citizens of England and France.  Let the Supreme Court decide on the disenfranchise issue. 

I stated this earlier in the thread. You are asking the Supreme Court to rule that the Constitution in unconstitutional? 

[hobbes2702 13351]

33 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

I think the Supreme Court should decide if flooding your state with illegal immigrants should be rewarded with house seats and federal dollars. I don’t believe that was the founder’s intent.  You do.

 You believe their intent was to include citizens of England and France.  Let the Supreme Court decide on the disenfranchise issue. 

What do you think “persons” means?

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah I know who he is.  He planted the idea with someone, like Bannon maybe?  Priebus?  Manafort? Roger Stone? Someone sort of sophisticated on this kind of fuckery.  He  didn't communicate it to Trump or Ross directly, I don't believe.  

Something, maybe the district court decision, said it was being worked on within weeks of the inauguration between Ross and kobach, if I remember correctly. 

[Bookman 4754]

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

What do you think “persons” means?

White, landowning males, obviously.

[JimmyJames 12271]

If trump supports something I oppose it. I’ve seen enough of this complete  scumbag to know that 99 percent of the time if I follow this axiom, I will be making both the right and moral choice. 

When trump was elected I said I’d give him a chance. I look back on that statement I made with both horror and shame. He’s a narcissistic demented evil person.

To not completely oppose him or equivocate  means you are partly that way as well. 

[henrygandorf 29219]

surly - hey, can you please do one thing for me?  i need you to count the marbles on the floor.  i know there are a lot, and they're scattered everywhere, so please do your best to let me know exactly how many marbles are on the floor.  thanks.

chicken sandwich - how did these marbles get in here?  you shouldn't have this many marbles, and they shouldn't be on the floor.  you could slip on them, and they hurt your feet if you step on them.

surly - yeah, just count the fucking marbles please.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

30 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

surly - hey, can you please do one thing for me?  i need you to count the marbles on the floor.  i know there are a lot, and they're scattered everywhere, so please do your best to let me know exactly how many marbles are on the floor.  thanks.

chicken sandwich - how did these marbles get in here?  you shouldn't have this many marbles, and they shouldn't be on the floor.  you could slip on them, and they hurt your feet if you step on them.

surly - yeah, just count the fucking marbles please.

I don't know how clearly he'd be able to talk once he shoved all the marbles up his nose. 

[Voldemort86 2259]

So is this bullshit finally dead?

 

don’t want the MAGA cult to use the census information to their advantage in redistricting. 

[Bateshorn 9989]

8 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

I think the Supreme Court should decide if flooding your state with illegal immigrants should be rewarded with house seats and federal dollars. I don’t believe that was the founder’s intent.  You do.

 You believe their intent was to include citizens of England and France.  Let the Supreme Court decide on the disenfranchise issue. 

Not only did the Founders consider this,  it’s literally the 4th paragraph of the Constitution.  They meant count everybody,  and cut up the legislative districts by that count.  Except slaves.  Only count 3/5 of them.

[Pam Cummings 9823]

Everyone born in the US gets a social security number. Couldn't you just count those up?

 

Unless the citizenship question is an obviously thinly veiled attempt at suppressing votes....

 

[Js1 86939]

People working in the US on visas or work permits also get them. Then the whole gets them once they become green card holders. What about foreign born spouses who petition from abroad once they come in with a green card? Foreign parents of USC Citizens over 21 who petition from Abroad? 

 

[Pam Cummings 9823]

15 minutes ago, Js1 said:

People working in the US on visas or work permits also get them. Then the whole gets them once they become green card holders. What about foreign born spouses who petition from abroad once they come in with a green card? Foreign parents of USC Citizens over 21 who petition from Abroad? 

 

Would there really be no way to differentiate between the ones issued to people born here and the ones issued for work visas?

[horncyclist 1391]

2 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Would there really be no way to differentiate between the ones issued to people born here and the ones issued for work visas?

You'd also have to account for former presidents born in Kenya who stole a SS # to forge a birth certificate. Lot of challenges.

[Js1 86939]

25 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Would there really be no way to differentiate between the ones issued to people born here and the ones issued for work visas?

How do you account for the fact that someone who came here to work in 1999 and left in 2007 still has a social security number? It sticks to them for life.  Or the guy who came in to the U.S. to work in 2004 and got his green card in 2009.  The number stays the same. 

It will take a huge amount of coordination between the SSA and USCIS and CBP to figure it out. 

[Js1 86939]

And also all those agencies are run by incompetent retarded Trump lackeys.  So good luck with that! 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I think we should make a master list of all of this data, with every single person in America accounted for.    It will be a great start towards a federal gun registry. 

[Asithappens 978]

14 hours ago, NowThis said:

 In principle though, since the Census does affect POTUS and HoR, it should only be for citizens.  

I frankly don't understand this mentality.

The census is also used to distribute government funds and undercounting people will negatively affect some states. Hint: one of those affected would be Texas. Big time.

 

[Js1 86939]

14 hours ago, NowThis said:

 In principle though, since the Census does affect POTUS and HoR, it should only be for citizens.  

[Pam Cummings 9823]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

How do you account for the fact that someone who came here to work in 1999 and left in 2007 still has a social security number? It sticks to them for life.  Or the guy who came in to the U.S. to work in 2004 and got his green card in 2009.  The number stays the same. 

It will take a huge amount of coordination between the SSA and USCIS and CBP to figure it out. 

I see that there may be some issues, but i just have a hard time believing that the US government doesn't already have a pretty good count on who is a citizen and who isn't.

 

At the very least, the resources are there to figure it out without this whole crap about adding a question to the census.

[achooloco 1086]

12 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

I think the Supreme Court should decide if flooding your state with illegal immigrants should be rewarded with house seats and federal dollars. I don’t believe that was the founder’s intent.  You do.

 You believe their intent was to include citizens of England and France.  Let the Supreme Court decide on the disenfranchise issue. 

Negged here bc you had a string of sensible non troll posts then post this stupid dumb fuck shit. 

[retread 2951]

The chaos of compiling numbers from lots of sources will be fertile ground for shenanigans by this crooked WH.

[NowThis 931]

27 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

I frankly don't understand this mentality.

The census is also used to distribute government funds and undercounting people will negatively affect some states. Hint: one of those affected would be Texas. Big time.

 

other counting mechanisms can accomplish the task for government fund distributions.  I dont' get the mentality of "we are all going to die if the Census doesn't count non-citizens!!!". It's overly alarmist and immature. Relax people. 

[Captainant 28386]

15 minutes ago, retread said:

The chaos of compiling numbers from lots of sources will be fertile ground for shenanigans by this crooked WH.

The good news is that since they're using pre-existing sources, the public should be able to drive accountability via FOIA at least. 

[Huckleberry 34407]

15 hours 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. 

"In principle"?

The Constitution is the principle, you numbskull. IT SAYS COUNT ALL WHOLE PERSONS.

Arguing that amputees shouldn't be counted is literally a more logical argument than saying immigrants and non-citizens shouldn't be counted. 

THAT'S WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU DOLT.

[Asithappens 978]

6 minutes ago, NowThis said:

other counting mechanisms can accomplish the task for government fund distributions.  I dont' get the mentality of "we are all going to die if the Census doesn't count non-citizens!!!". It's overly alarmist and immature. Relax people. 

Jesus, this sounds stupid.

"Other counting mechanisms"?

We have the census. Use it. 

[Js1 86939]

Alarmist and immature - bitching about the Census not asking about citizenship 

Normal and mature - using the Census AS DESIGNED to count all persons AS STATED to determine representation and allocation of federal funds.

I swear to God, the next Trumpist who tells me "you can't interpret the Constitution, it's a living document, you have to go by Framer's original intent" is getting a kick to the nads for being a fucking idiot and intentionally trolling. 

[NowThis 931]

11 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

"In principle"?

The Constitution is the principle, you numbskull. IT SAYS COUNT ALL WHOLE PERSONS.

Arguing that amputees shouldn't be counted is literally a more logical argument than saying immigrants and non-citizens shouldn't be counted. 

THAT'S WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU DOLT.

idiot, it's up to interpretation as is everything in the constitution you idiot. 

[NowThis 931]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Alarmist and immature - bitching about the Census not asking about citizenship 

Normal and mature - using the Census AS DESIGNED to count all persons AS STATED to determine representation and allocation of federal funds.

I swear to God, the next Trumpist who tells me "you can't interpret the Constitution, it's a living document, you have to go by Framer's original intent" is getting a kick to the nads for being a fucking idiot and intentionally trolling. 

it's up to interpretation dude. Constitutional law has been debated for a couple centuries at least, no? Surly liberals have the true answer i guess, so we really need to have all 9 SCOTUS read this board daily, no? 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

The Birther in the WH relying on government bureaucracies to determine if everyone in the country is a citizen sounds like a good idea.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/opinion/ice-raids.html

 

 

"I called to get a new passport, and they told me to go to immigration,” Ms. Nuetzi said. “But why would I go to immigration? I’m not an immigrant. Then I called Homeland Security and the woman on the other end of the line started laughing at me.”

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

lulz at the last paragraph of that article