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

[Biff Tannen 45,497]

1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

welp

 

[Chad Fuck 17,566]

14 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

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. 

This.  @Ghost of LL had a good explanation of losing credibility before the Court upthread.

[retread 2,951]

I guess there's an unlimited supply of fresh lawyers to argue new rationales until they get the answer they want.

[Jive Turkey 12,568]

2 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Quote

The chief justice defended the constitutionality of the citizenship question, and implied that even if the motives for adding it were partisan, that might be acceptable—only the administration’s dishonesty was unlawful.

That raises the question of whether a renewed Trump-administration push to add the question might ultimately be successful. Mark Joseph Stern has argued that any rationale the Trump administration could come up with now would by definition be pretextual, but I am not so sure Roberts will see it that way, and his conservative colleagues were willing to back the Trump administration even when they knew it was lying.

The Supreme Court has seen lower moments in its history, such as its rewriting of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect corporations rather than the former slaves it was designed to enfranchise. It has countenanced greater evils, such as when it concluded that black people could never be citizens and when it gave its constitutional imprimatur to Jim Crow. But it has never been more pathetic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/trumps-census-case-confession/593488/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_term=2019-07-08T19%3A24%3A06&fbclid=IwAR3y4fU_0oZdz2ryljaA5heUD5cZE33QqNDqpWjfnE4sXhaqQB4d2J4Kh6o

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,414]

5 minutes ago, retread said:

I guess there's an unlimited supply of fresh lawyers to argue new rationales until they get the answer they want.

Will a judge let the DOJ present a new argument and perhaps even contradict previous arguments as long as their are new lawyers up to bat? I get that you want to give the DOJ the benefit of the doubt but doesn't seem right that you an keep presenting new arguments by switching lawyers.

[bolverk 29,401]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Will a judge let the DOJ present a new argument and perhaps even contradict previous arguments as long as their are new lawyers up to bat? I get that you want to give the DOJ the benefit of the doubt but doesn't seem right that you an keep presenting new arguments by switching lawyers.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Will a judge let the DOJ present a new argument and perhaps even contradict previous arguments as long as their are new lawyers up to bat? I get that you want to give the DOJ the benefit of the doubt but doesn't seem right that you an keep presenting new arguments by switching lawyers.

A good legal team will bring 800 lawyers to a hearing and rotate sentence by sentence so they can’t be caught in contradiction.  

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Love it

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

Awesome. 

[retread 2,951]

This whole episode of the Cheeto Show seems like a shitty way to run a country.

Edited July 9, 2019 by retread

[bolverk 29,401]

3 minutes ago, retread said:

This whole episode of the Cheeto Show seems like a shitty way to run a country.

#ettd

[Steamboat1874 4,032]

Fuck it

Every person against those assclowns should just not check any of those boxes if that question is added.

 

That would be well over 50% of census responders.

Then what would they do?

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

4 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

This.  @Ghost of LL had a good explanation of losing credibility before the Court upthread.

Well, there's the abstract notion of credibility that no lawyer in his right mind wants to sacrifice.  You can lose credibility with a court without doing anything that will actually get you in trouble with the court or with the bar or criminal authorities.

There's also the duty of candor to the court, violation of which, while not the same as perjury, is a violation of legal ethics and can subject the lawyer to court sanctions (fines, contempt citations and imprisonment for short terms, disbarment from that particular court, etc.) and also to professional sanctions from the bar (probation, suspension, general disbarment).  In short, it's not a good thing professionally or any other way.  But unlike perjury, has no criminal penalties attached, in most cases.

I suspect that the original lawyers made some kind of protest to the office of professional responsibility and/or threatened or attempted to resign.

Also, a new batch of lawyers has less "institutional" knowledge of the case and probably fewer qualms (out of ignorance) about feeding the court whatever the administration shitgibbons feed them, no matter how implausible or contradictory to prior representations.

There seems to be a bit of deference to government attorneys in federal district courts for a variety of reasons, mostly that the judge and the DOJ lawyers are both arms of the government and have the same basic employer.  Changing out the personnel makes it somewhat more likely that individual lawyers receive that deference because they can't possibly know all the bullshit the prior lawyers fed the court at the behest of the client and may contradict it inadvertently.

One thing the court can absolutely do is sanction the government procedurally by striking pleadings or entering a default judgment, etc., effectively ending the case.  Seems highly appropriate here, but the court may have to wait for more shenanigans to justify it.

[RPM 26,229]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's also the duty of candor to the court, violation of which, while not the same as perjury, is a violation of legal ethics and can subject the lawyer to court sanctions (fines, contempt citations and imprisonment for short terms, disbarment from that particular court, etc.) and also to professional sanctions from the bar (probation, suspension, general disbarment).  In short, it's not a good thing professionally or any other way.  But unlike perjury, has no criminal penalties attached, in most cases.

Ethics? 

[HenryJames 65,890]

 

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, there's the abstract notion of credibility that no lawyer in his right mind wants to sacrifice.  You can lose credibility with a court without doing anything that will actually get you in trouble with the court or with the bar or criminal authorities.

There's also the duty of candor to the court, violation of which, while not the same as perjury, is a violation of legal ethics and can subject the lawyer to court sanctions (fines, contempt citations and imprisonment for short terms, disbarment from that particular court, etc.) and also to professional sanctions from the bar (probation, suspension, general disbarment).  In short, it's not a good thing professionally or any other way.  But unlike perjury, has no criminal penalties attached, in most cases.

I suspect that the original lawyers made some kind of protest to the office of professional responsibility and/or threatened or attempted to resign.

Also, a new batch of lawyers has less "institutional" knowledge of the case and probably fewer qualms (out of ignorance) about feeding the court whatever the administration shitgibbons feed them, no matter how implausible or contradictory to prior representations.

There seems to be a bit of deference to government attorneys in federal district courts for a variety of reasons, mostly that the judge and the DOJ lawyers are both arms of the government and have the same basic employer.  Changing out the personnel makes it somewhat more likely that individual lawyers receive that deference because they can't possibly know all the bullshit the prior lawyers fed the court at the behest of the client and may contradict it inadvertently.

One thing the court can absolutely do is sanction the government procedurally by striking pleadings or entering a default judgment, etc., effectively ending the case.  Seems highly appropriate here, but the court may have to wait for more shenanigans to justify it.

I should perhaps elaborate a little.  You lose credibility with the court by constantly shifting legal positions as the advantage perhaps dictates.  At some point, though, that becomes lying or misrepresenting facts, as when your position shift is 180 degrees without some explanation ("new shit has come to light!")

You can be mistaken about facts or things once or twice, and, by candidly bringing your mistake to the court's attention lose little or no credibility.  But after a while, a long stream of mistakes starts to look like a tendency to be loose with the facts, or an outright liar.  If you are just loose with the facts, you lose credibility, if you are a liar, you get sanctioned, by the court and/or by the bar (usually by the court first, then the bar comes along).  The line can be blurry at times, which is why the deference to government attorneys comes into play.

[High Plains Drifter 10,977]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

 

Time for the consumer protection attorneys to finally earn their pay. Its not like they've been actually protecting consumers or anything lately.

[HornOnTheBayou 8,881]

5 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Time for the consumer protection attorneys to finally earn their pay. Its not like they've been actually protecting consumers or anything lately.

Yes they have. Who do you think has been slaying the seedy payday loan industry?

[swraith 336]

It would appear Trump and Barr are going to push this a lot farther.

At this point, what is the question in front of Judge Hazel?  Did Robert's decision basically say "start over"?

[immortal13 4,059]

3 hours ago, Steamboat1874 said:

Fuck it

Every person against those assclowns should just not check any of those boxes if that question is added.

 

That would be well over 50% of census responders.

Then what would they do?

You should organize this

[Chad Fuck 17,566]

11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I should perhaps elaborate a little.  You lose credibility with the court by constantly shifting legal positions as the advantage perhaps dictates.  At some point, though, that becomes lying or misrepresenting facts, as when your position shift is 180 degrees without some explanation ("new shit has come to light!")

You can be mistaken about facts or things once or twice, and, by candidly bringing your mistake to the court's attention lose little or no credibility.  But after a while, a long stream of mistakes starts to look like a tendency to be loose with the facts, or an outright liar.  If you are just loose with the facts, you lose credibility, if you are a liar, you get sanctioned, by the court and/or by the bar (usually by the court first, then the bar comes along).  The line can be blurry at times, which is why the deference to government attorneys comes into play.

All true.  

In this case, what is happening is very transparent.  The Trump Admin wanted a citizenship question to increase the power of white male voters, and diminish the power of anyone else.  But they couldn't say that, so they made up some lie.  They were caught in the lie, but SCOTUS left the door cracked just wide enough by essentially saying, "If there had been another reason, say, not this great big lie you were telling, then maybe it would be OK."  

No one wants to be the lawyer who who has to argue "We really meant this other lie that we came up with after you busted us on that other lie."  Least of all the ones who had to argue the first lie.  

Shame on the Supremes for leaving the door cracked for such shenanigans at all.  

 

[SquishMitten 10,401]

12 hours ago, Steamboat1874 said:

Fuck it

Every person against those assclowns should just not check any of those boxes if that question is added.

 

That would be well over 50% of census responders.

Then what would they do?

You know exactly what they would do. Trump and Fox News would claim it means 50% of respondents aren’t US citizens. 

[Pig Bellmont 8,692]

lololol

[David Dennison 18,659]

Johnny Sack thinks they're doing a great job.

[Chad Fuck 17,566]

23 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

lololol

Just came to post this.  Funny as hell. 

 

[Pig Bellmont 8,692]

The three page opinion is worse. Those attorneys are going to get sanctioned 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Ha ha!

Suck on that you prevaricating mother fuckers!

[Voldemort86 2,259]

What’s the significance of this?

[hobbes2702 12,846]

49 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

lololol

Can any of the Surly lawyers explain more on what this means moving forward for both the lawyers and the case?

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

Lololol

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

6 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Can any of the Surly lawyers explain more on what this means moving forward for both the lawyers and the case?

The admin needs to prepare its anus. 

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Can any of the Surly lawyers explain more on what this means moving forward for both the lawyers and the case?

Its a little unclear at the moment.  I think there may be a pending sanctions motion against the government/attorneys, which means they can't withdraw to avoid sanctions, except the ones that quit entirely.

Alternatively, or addtionally, the plaintiffs opposed the motion because it would "undo" all the litle side deals and understandings they have with current counsel, and, unstated, makes it harder for new counsel to claim ignorance of prior representations to the court and the opposing party.  In other words, it's denied because it would fuck things up and slow them down.

[Ghost of LL 15,492]

7 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

The admin needs to prepare its anus. 

Yep.  They're going to get sanctioned.  

The Court went out of its way to note that the Government has "insis[ted]" since the outset of the litigation that time was of the essence because they needed to get Census forms printed no later than June 30.  And now the Government is saying that it can re-do the entire thing after that date.  And its lawyers are saying that they can do a complete line change on the litigation team without delaying proceedings.

The Court said "bullshit."

Those lawyers lied to the Court.  And the Court's not going to let them out of it that easily.

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

8 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

All true.  

In this case, what is happening is very transparent.  The Trump Admin wanted a citizenship question to increase the power of white male voters, and diminish the power of anyone else.  But they couldn't say that, so they made up some lie.  They were caught in the lie, but SCOTUS left the door cracked just wide enough by essentially saying, "If there had been another reason, say, not this great big lie you were telling, then maybe it would be OK."  

No one wants to be the lawyer who who has to argue "We really meant this other lie that we came up with after you busted us on that other lie."  Least of all the ones who had to argue the first lie.  

Shame on the Supremes for leaving the door cracked for such shenanigans at all.  

 

Yeah, in the usual "pretext" litigation, the thing for which it's a pretext is unlawful, e.g  discrimination.  In this case, it was too, but there are other possibilities that would be legal.  But it strikes me that the timing scheme precludes a "do over" with better lies.

[Gil Bang 25,898]

so in this case, what kind of sanctions would one expect?

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

Here's the opinion. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/census-doj.pdf  It starts out with, the DOJ has stated no reason for withdrawal and just assumes that there will be no disruption to the case.  Then goes on to note pending motions and the potential for disruption.  Apparently, the Plaintiffs have not filed a motion for sanctions, but have stated that they intend to.

But on the last page, it gets wild.  The attorneys may seek to withdraw again, but only with an affidavit saying why and an agreement to remain subject to the jurisdiction of the court for imposition of sanctions.  And, must agree to be present at the request of the court for any hearing (as in when the new lawyers are finna contradict the old ones).

 

[swraith 336]

Well that is certainly entertaining. Does this prevent the other/new government lawyers from joining the case?

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

7 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

so in this case, what kind of sanctions would one expect?

If an individual lied to the court, that individual could be fined, ordered to pay a portion of plaintiff's attorneys fees, or disbarred from the court for a time, or a combination.  If it's sort of a group lie, or a lie that may have originated with the client/government, then the same type of thing, payable by each lawyer and the government "jointly and severally," or procedural sanctions that would end or hamper the government's case, i.e. no evidence will be admitted of another motive for the question, striking their pleadings so they can't defend, or entry of a default judgment against the government.  Or some combination.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's the opinion. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/census-doj.pdf  It starts out with, the DOJ has stated no reason for withdrawal and just assumes that there will be no disruption to the case.  Then goes on to note pending motions and the potential for disruption.  Apparently, the Plaintiffs have not filed a motion for sanctions, but have stated that they intend to.

But on the last page, it gets wild.  The attorneys may seek to withdraw again, but only with an affidavit saying why and an agreement to remain subject to the jurisdiction of the court for imposition of sanctions.  And, must agree to be present at the request of the court for any hearing (as in when the new lawyers are finna contradict the old ones).

 

It sounds like he won't let them leave without going on record that they are withdrawing because they cannot ethically support the arguments the administration is now going to make. 

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

2 minutes ago, swraith said:

Well that is certainly entertaining. Does this prevent the other/new government lawyers from joining the case?

Don't think so.  They're just added to the list unless they need to be added pro hac vice.

For context, in most civil cases, withdrawal is permitted as long as new counsel are entering an appearance,  unless it's right in the middle of something (trial, for example) that would be delayed by new lawyers.  The DOJ simply assumed that because new lawyers coming in, the withdrawal was automatic and they didn't need to really support it.

In normal civil cases, lawyers withdraw usually because of fee disputes, or client bitching (which is also usually a fee dispute), or sometimes because the client is a liar or isn't following advice.  None of that is ever stated in the motion to withdraw, unless it's sealed.  So it's not terribly unusual for a motion to withdraw not to state reasons or to state something akin to "irreconcilable differences" in a divorce.  Requiring an attorney to state reasons under oath is a pretty big departure.  And I suppose intended to let those who may have a legitimate reason that they are willing to state, to withdraw.

[tx 3 putt 76,395]

 

Those lawyers lied to the Court.  And the Court's not going to let them out of it that easily.

It’s about damn time someone calls out the trump machine on their constant bs 

[Pig Bellmont 8,692]

 

Well that is certainly entertaining. Does this prevent the other/new government lawyers from joining the case?

 No rules against entering your appearance. 

[Dolemite 143]

Citizenship question was on the 2000 census and was taken off for the 2010 census. 

Why is putting it back on  such a big deal?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

 

Citizenship question was on the 2000 census and was taken off for the 2010 census. 

Why is putting it back on  such a big deal?

FACT CHECK: Has Citizenship Been A Standard Census Question?

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597436512/fact-check-has-citizenship-been-a-standard-census-question

[Voldemort86 2,259]

32 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

Citizenship question was on the 2000 census and was taken off for the 2010 census. 

Why is putting it back on  such a big deal?

Conservatives don’t like facts and science. 

 

The census question hasn’t been asked since the 1950’s. Slaves and other entities who are not citizens have historically been counted.

[Dolemite 143]

It was asked in 2000

[Voldemort86 2,259]

Just now, Dolemite said:

It was asked in 2000

Nope

[Dolemite 143]

Here is the form.

https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/2000_long_form.pdf

[Captainant 27,464]

2 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

Here is the form.

https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/2000_long_form.pdf

The vast majority of census respondents were sent the short form. See: the NPR fact check above. 

[Dolemite 143]

It would be just like our government to have two census forms. Fucking losers.