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

Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45497

Posted
Posted

That illustrates exactly the problem with twitter.  Cultists and morons take anything tweeted by their god as gospel.  Fuck context or facts or anything.  It's a direct line of bullshit directly into their stupid veins.  Who needs any other medium to inform them of reality?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29401

Posted
Posted
1 hour 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?

 

39 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

It was asked in 2000

Bolverk doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voldemort86

Voldemort86 2259

Posted
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

That illustrates exactly the problem with twitter.  Cultists and morons take anything tweeted by their god as gospel.  Fuck context or facts or anything.  It's a direct line of bullshit directly into their stupid veins.  Who needs any other medium to inform them of reality?

It’s the deranged MAGA cult. The orange baby pouts and whines, brain washed people get upset, and fight / yell / scream / and complain for whatever trump is fighting for.

 

remember, we actually had right wing idiots rooting for other countries to beat the US women’s soccer team because of one woman on the team. Conservatives actually rooted for countries who are more liberal than us! Imagine that!

 

these people are instigators, they’re disrupters, they’re negative and angry all the time.  They don’t give a shit about facts, science, precedent or reason. They just want to win, get their way, shove it everyone else’s face, and scream MAGA while doing it.

 

what a bunch of idiots.

Edited by Voldemort86
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45497

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

It’s the deranged MAGA cult. The orange baby pouts and whines, brain washed people get upset, and fight / yell / scream / and complain for whatever trump is fighting for.

 

remember, we actually had right wing idiots rooting for other countries to beat the US women’s soccer team because of one woman on the team. Conservatives actually rooted for countries who are more liberal than us! Imagine that!

 

these people are instigators, they’re disrupters, they’re negative and angry all the time.  They don’t give a shit about facts, science, precedent or reason. They just want to win, get their way, shove it everyone else’s face, and scream MAGA while doing it.

 

what a bunch of idiots.

And when they catch the car they won’t know what to do. The look on their faces as we all burn to the ground is going to be one of “wha?”  The rest of us will be in a state of “I told you so”, but I’m going to give the T2 thumbs up while going into the liquid metal. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cactusflinthead

cactusflinthead 27594

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

It’s the deranged MAGA cult. The orange baby pouts and whines, brain washed people get upset, and fight / yell / scream / and complain for whatever trump is fighting for.

 

remember, we actually had right wing idiots rooting for other countries to beat the US women’s soccer team because of one woman on the team. Conservatives actually rooted for countries who are more liberal than us! Imagine that!

 

these people are instigators, they’re disrupters, they’re negative and angry all the time.  They don’t give a shit about facts, science, precedent or reason. They just want to win, get their way, shove it everyone else’s face, and scream MAGA while doing it.

 

what a bunch of idiots.

They only come here to laugh at your dumbasses when your heads start spinning after your fever dreams never come true.  I’d welcome Trump’s fall to have Pence be the HMFIC.  All of the crying up to now would be a fart in the wind if Race Bannon banned abortion.   Fondren & Main

Well that's it isn't it? If they throw 19.9 million people off insurance that's a victory?

 

 

Edited by cactusflinthead
Citation of Trumpster
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9905

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, swraith said:

Filling out the long form sounds like a beating. 

It is.  I got it in 2010.  If you like federal dollars in your district and not somebody else’s district, then do it. If you don’t, sweet, I’ll take that cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcar00

dcar00 14035

Posted
Posted

the whole thing is bullshit.  send everyone the long form(i've had to do it 3 times) and there might be a riot to get rid of the whole damn thing.

they need to know how many people live in the house and if they are above 18 or not.  that is fucking it.  don't ask race, don't ask citizenship, don;t ask make or female.  the only reason they need this is to deal with number of reps per state.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted

the response to the withdrawal issue from the administration.

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6186842/7-10-19-US-Reply-MD-Census.pdf

 

they cite one statute, saying that the AG can send any DOJ attorney it wants to any court, as their sole legal support.  of course, that isn't the issue.  it's about withdrawing, not making an appearance.  

 

three paragraphs.  an irrelevant statute.  no case law.  one sentence saying 'we're already working on it so there isn't any delay.'  that's all the defense you want to put up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted

To be fair, there probably isn't much case law on such an issue. I imagine that a district court had very broad discretion to deal with such things. 

And I don't really think that the district court needs them to be of record to sanction them. They are either admitted to practice there or were pro hac and that is sufficient. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted (edited)

Basically rule number one if you’re an attorney is don’t ever represent Trump.

Rule number two is don’t ever represent a government trump controls.

Rule number three is if you violate rule numbers one and two, you’re fucked asshole.

Sucks for the government lawyers drawn into this but they didn’t completely think this thing through. Not surprising since they are not used to this bullshit. Even if trump offers you a million dollar retainer, you turn it down. If you’ve been a government lawyer for 20 plus years and trump wants you to argue something, you resign.  Otherwise, YOU ARE FUCKED. Look at Michael Cohen’s fate for why. 

Everything trump touches turns to shit. And that includes his lawyers and this country. 

Edited by JimmyJames
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1386

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

 

How long until we get a tweet about him being an Obama Judge? How many tweets about Judges doing their job before Roberts says something again? Every tweet hurts the chances Roberts would allow the citizenship question under any justification. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voldemort86

Voldemort86 2259

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

 

Insert retarded trumpkin response here

 

”these judges are paid off”

 

”Obama judge!”

 

” Why are these judges supporting illegals?”

 

”why are they defying the Orange savior Jesus Christ trump?”

 

”why won’t they give me a victory so that I can scream MAGA on twitter at my friends this summer?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 9798

Posted
Posted
On 7/9/2019 at 9:33 PM, Voldemort86 said:

It’s the deranged MAGA cult. The orange baby pouts and whines, brain washed people get upset, and fight / yell / scream / and complain for whatever trump is fighting for.

 

remember, we actually had right wing idiots rooting for other countries to beat the US women’s soccer team because of one woman on the team. Conservatives actually rooted for countries who are more liberal than us! Imagine that!

 

these people are instigators, they’re disrupters, they’re negative and angry all the time.  They don’t give a shit about facts, science, precedent or reason. They just want to win, get their way, shove it everyone else’s face, and scream MAGA while doing it.

 

what a bunch of idiots.

Does someone want to tell him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

So what the fuck? Trump can just ignore the courts? Honestly, what happens if he violates the injunctions?

I'm guessing that the injunctions are against the DOC and Ross, and those in active concert or participation.  So if they follow the EO, they're in contempt most likely, which would get appealed and then we get some law on presidential power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8692

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm guessing that the injunctions are against the DOC and Ross, and those in active concert or participation.  So if they follow the EO, they're in contempt most likely, which would get appealed and then we get some law on presidential power.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/census.pdf

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.

This is the opinion upheld by the Supreme Court. - notwithstanding that discovery will be reopened to examine the equal protection issues. 

But let’s not pretend an Executive Order meets the qualifications around the injunction. Trump’s assumed actions will openly violate this and other federal injunctions in place. Then what? If court orders don’t mean anything we are in a legitimate constitutional crisis

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/census.pdf

 

 

This is the opinion upheld by the Supreme Court. - notwithstanding that discovery will be reopened to examine the equal protection issues. 

But let’s not pretend an Executive Order meets the qualifications around the injunction. Trump’s assumed actions will openly violate this and other federal injunctions in place. Then what? If court orders don’t mean anything we are in a legitimate constitutional crisis

I'm not sure I would go so far as to say constitutional crisis.  But it will present a fairly juicy question of presidential power.  And I'm a bit wary of how that comes out at the Supreme Court, not because they're pro-Trump, I just don't know how they come out on presidential power.  I'm going to re-read the Shane article posted above.  All of the presidents since Clinton have been pretty pro-executive and I don't recall a bunch of discussion on justices' views on that.  It's not a clearly partisan issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45497

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not sure I would go so far as to say constitutional crisis.  But it will present a fairly juicy question of presidential power.  And I'm a bit wary of how that comes out at the Supreme Court, not because they're pro-Trump, I just don't know how they come out on presidential power.  I'm going to re-read the Shane article posted above.  All of the presidents since Clinton have been pretty pro-executive and I don't recall a bunch of discussion on justices' views on that.  It's not a clearly partisan issue.

I'll obviously defer to you as a lawyer, but how would this not be a constitutional crisis?  The president ignoring the supreme court?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Our President refuses to comply with congressional subpoenas and refuses to comply with court orders. We are in an open dictatorship with no actual checks on authority. 

That's not really a new thing.  It's a little more conspicuous under the current administration, but it ain't new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8692

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's not really a new thing.  It's a little more conspicuous under the current administration, but it ain't new.

Name me another instance where the courts issued an injunction upheld by the Supreme Court and the president issued an executive order to do the thing anyways. 

I’ll wait 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted
Just now, Biff Tannen said:

I'll obviously defer to you as a lawyer, but how would this not be a constitutional crisis?  The president ignoring the supreme court?  

The Supreme Court only affirms, reverses, or vacates a lower court, very rarely "orders" anything.  In this case, it affirmed the district court, so its injunction remains in place.  Trump's actions, more accurately those of the DOC and Ross, would be in violation of a district court injunction/order, not the Supreme Court's.  That would subject them to contempt, which would be appealed and then we get an answer as to how far can Executive Orders really go.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Name me another instance where the courts issued an injunction upheld by the Supreme Court and the president issued an executive order to do the thing anyways. 

I’ll wait 

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.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted

I'm not saying "it's fine."  I'm just explaining how this shit goes and trying to counter a bit of the hysteria.  Having a jackleg president that has no conception of subtlety or nuance and a pro-executive AG does make this kind of dangerous.  Barr's threat is not that he's really pro-Trump, it's that he's a Cheney-style neocon pro-executive-power guy with a lunatic for a boss that will give him some opportunities to expand executive power.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 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

Oh I don't disagree that it's presidential overreach at all.  So have been a goodly number of the 1,000 plus EOs over the last 30 years or so.

 

First, I think the idea that the Supremes left it open for Rossco to come up with a new justification is  an overstatement of what they said.  They affirmed the injunction and remanded for further proceedings (still some unanswered questions, like equal protection), which doesn't really mean "try again."  Six of the justices agreed that the Secretary of Commerce did not have unlimited discretion, and acknowledging that the Secretary could advance a legitimate reason for such a question doesn't mean he can do so in this case.**    I don't read that really as an invitation to do it over.  And there are some timing issues in the statute that I don't think they can meet.

I don't think that the President can validly substitute his judgment for that of the Secretary under any circumstances.

In other words, I think this is going to be another giant judicial fail for Trump.  So maybe that tempers my hysteria a bit. 

**("to the extent such a 'remand' is even necessary" are the magic words here).

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Asithappens

Asithappens 974

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In other words, I think this is going to be another giant judicial fail for Trump.  So maybe that tempers my hysteria a bit. 

Another giant judicial fail?

I guess Trump has had some judicial setbacks, but in the big scheme of things he hasn't failed at all with all the crap he's done.

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...