SCOTUS Strikes Down Census Case

[Kathianne]

Roberts joins the liberals:

https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1144254751648993281


Chris Geidner (https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner)‏Verified account @chrisgeidner (https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner)FollowFollow
@chrisgeidner

More




BREAKING: The Supreme Court says that partisan gerrymandering claims are a "political question" that cannot be challenged in court. The 5-4 ideological vote includes a majority decision by Chief Justice Roberts and dissent from Justice Elena Kagan.

7:11 AM - 27 Jun 2019


Robert's primary conclusion and the decision:


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-Eu57dWkAIPjfC.png

[Kathianne]

More:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/dc/supreme-court-census-citizenship-decisoin


The Supreme Court has upheld a decision blocking the Trump administration from adding a citizenship question. The court’s ruling left the administration with broad wiggle room to add the question in the future.

In a complicated decision which was unanimous in some parts and split in others, the court said that it didn’t buy that administration’s stated reason for adding the question to the census, allegedly for Voting Rights Act enforcement.


“Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave for his decision,” Chief Justice John Roberts said, calling the VRA justification a “distraction” and” contrived.”


The decision upheld a lower court’s ruling the the Trump administrations could not add the question to census unless it went through the proper protocols and provided a legitimate reason for doing so.


The decision, however, gave the Commerce Department broad authorities that could allow it to add a citizenship question in the census. Though the administration has claimed that it needs to send the forms to the printer next week, a Census Bureau official testified that by tapping “extraordinary resources” the printing deadline could be pushed back as late as Oct. 31.


Much of Roberts’ opinion gave credence to the arguments the Trump administration made in court, including that it was “reasonable” for Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to overrule the concerns of the Bureau that the question would discourage participation on the survey.


The opinion also said that the Enumeration Clause does not prohibit a citizenship question on the census. Lower courts had found that it had because it risked the accuracy of the census count.

So basically saying they didn't word things correctly. Same types of problem they had with both some immigration and armed services court cases.

[STTAB]

If I were Trump I'd put the question in the census. What is SCOTUS going to do about it?

[jimnyc]

I am no legal guru that will pretend to full understand their analysis on this one. All I can say - is that I see no reason why such a question should be removed and I don't see the political side as much as them I guess, and others.

We had some form of citizenship question on the census for 130 years, and IMO it should never had been removed.

The left will fight anything at all that is even remotely involving illegals. They don't even want accurate numbers. And why do you think some want illegals to have voting rights, and then offer them all kinds of freebies. They would add up to a lot of numbers. Not to mention, how many already vote somehow? :rolleyes:

Oh, and certain locations may not get as much aid if they are counted. :rolleyes:

Here's another article on the decision:

The Latest: Supreme Court blocks census citizenship question

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on the Supreme Court’s final day before its summer break (all times local):

10:45 a.m.

The Supreme Court is forbidding President Donald Trump’s administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census for now. The court says the Trump administration’s explanation for wanting to add the question was “more of a distraction” than an explanation.

It’s unclear whether the administration would have time to provide a fuller account. Census forms are supposed to be printed beginning next week.

The court ruled 5-4 on Thursday, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the four liberals in the relevant part of the outcome.

A lower court found the administration violated federal law in the way it tried to add a question broadly asking about citizenship for the first time since 1950.

The Census Bureau’s own experts have predicted that millions of Hispanics and immigrants would go uncounted if the census asked everyone if he or she is an American citizen.

___

10:10 a.m.

The Supreme Court says federal courts have no role to play in policing political districts drawn for partisan gain. The decision could embolden political line-drawing for partisan gain when state lawmakers undertake the next round of redistricting following the 2020 census.

The justices said by a 5-4 vote Thursday that claims of partisan gerrymandering do not belong in federal court. The court’s conservative, Republican-appointed majority says that voters and elected officials should be the arbiters of what is a political dispute.

The court rejected challenges to Republican-drawn congressional districts in North Carolina and a Democratic district in Maryland.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/news/the-latest-supreme-court-blocks-census-citizenship-question/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am no legal guru that will pretend to full understand their analysis on this one. All I can say - is that I see no reason why such a question should be removed and I don't see the political side as much as them I guess, and others.

We had some form of citizenship question on the census for 130 years, and IMO it should never had been removed.

The left will fight anything at all that is even remotely involving illegals. They don't even want accurate numbers. And why do you think some want illegals to have voting rights, and then offer them all kinds of freebies. They would add up to a lot of numbers. Not to mention, how many already vote somehow? :rolleyes:

Oh, and certain locations may not get as much aid if they are counted. :rolleyes:

Here's another article on the decision:

The Latest: Supreme Court blocks census citizenship question

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on the Supreme Court’s final day before its summer break (all times local):

10:45 a.m.

The Supreme Court is forbidding President Donald Trump’s administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census for now. The court says the Trump administration’s explanation for wanting to add the question was “more of a distraction” than an explanation.

It’s unclear whether the administration would have time to provide a fuller account. Census forms are supposed to be printed beginning next week.

The court ruled 5-4 on Thursday, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the four liberals in the relevant part of the outcome.

A lower court found the administration violated federal law in the way it tried to add a question broadly asking about citizenship for the first time since 1950.

The Census Bureau’s own experts have predicted that millions of Hispanics and immigrants would go uncounted if the census asked everyone if he or she is an American citizen.

___

10:10 a.m.

The Supreme Court says federal courts have no role to play in policing political districts drawn for partisan gain. The decision could embolden political line-drawing for partisan gain when state lawmakers undertake the next round of redistricting following the 2020 census.

The justices said by a 5-4 vote Thursday that claims of partisan gerrymandering do not belong in federal court. The court’s conservative, Republican-appointed majority says that voters and elected officials should be the arbiters of what is a political dispute.

The court rejected challenges to Republican-drawn congressional districts in North Carolina and a Democratic district in Maryland.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/news/the-latest-supreme-court-blocks-census-citizenship-question/

FKK the damn court, it is just wrong as can so easily be seen. The adding of the census question is an attempt to get the damn truth...
If the SCOTUS, was correct in this, then the demands of proof of residency, to attend school in certain districts, to access certain other things, along with demands of residency in the state when seeking driver licenses, etc, are therefore illegal/invalid.. I can not now go back to thew state I moved from three years go and buy a gun --without my having to have it shipped back to me by way of a license certified arms dealer in my new home state.
There is a law that I must prove residency when buying a gun. According to the new census ruling ascertaining that proof of residency from me is unconstitutional! This logic is not flawed.
Why this damn exception, other than it prevents --TRUTH....????!!!!
Problem in this damn country now, is that the ffing dems have geared everything towards letting them lie, steal, cheat and even destroy people to keep or increase their power-- the GD SUPREME COURT should address that nation destroying issue instead of its obama appointed traitors on its bench joining to cover for the dem corrupt and openly traitorous party as they did about the unconstitutional obamacare shit.--Tyr

[STTAB]

Here's a question.

Why was this even made public anyway? Should have just added the question without telling anyone.

[pete311]

If I were Trump I'd put the question in the census. What is SCOTUS going to do about it?

Why do you favor dictatorship?

[pete311]

Here's a question.

Why was this even made public anyway? Should have just added the question without telling anyone.

You like to act smart and then post something idiotic like this.

[FakeNewsSux]

Why do you favor dictatorship?

i'm just spitballing here but maybe because it worked for Obama with DACA?

[pete311]

i'm just spitballing here but maybe because it worked for Obama with DACA?

SCOTUS ruled against DACA?

[STTAB]

Why do you favor dictatorship?

Oh I very much oppose the current idiocracy we live in where dumb fuck gets a vote. I've made myself quite clear on that point.

However, ignoring a SCOTUS ruling =/= dictatorship.



In the likely event that you simply are ignorant of history let me tell you in 1807 Thoma Jefferson himself ignored a Supreme Court ruling.

Abraham Lincoln defied a Supreme Court ruling

Franklin Roosevelt defied a Supreme Court ruling.

Those are but three examples , and all three of Presidents who are generally rated as top Presidents, not dictators.

[STTAB]

You like to act smart and then post something idiotic like this.

Allow me to, once again, correct you. I don't act smart. I AM smart.

And your comment did nothing to address the question. Why announce something like this months ahead of time, rather than simply printing the census with the question in it on the scheduled printing date. Seems like an unforced error to me.

[pete311]

Allow me to, once again, correct you. I don't act smart. I AM smart.

And your comment did nothing to address the question. Why announce something like this months ahead of time, rather than simply printing the census with the question in it on the scheduled printing date. Seems like an unforced error to me.

An unforced error if you are a snake, yes. You think something like that just goes unnoticed until publication? Someone is going to blow that whistle. Internet smart guy, yeah, I get it.

[STTAB]

An unforced error if you are a snake, yes. You think something like that just goes unnoticed until publication? Someone is going to blow that whistle. Internet smart guy, yeah, I get it.

Probably so dumb dumb, but that wasn't what I was questioning. I was questioning why Trump himself had to Tweet "Hey all you wetbacks, yeah we're gonna ask if you beaners are citizens or not in the next census"

Damn

[Elessar]

Sheesh!

Just leave it in there. A person has the option of not answering the damn question.

It is a choice, period.

Why all of the hub-bub? Yeah, Trump should not have announced it, but
not aware of the whiny push-back it would receive.

[STTAB]

Sheesh!

Just leave it in there. A person has the option of not answering the damn question.

It is a choice, period.

Why all of the hub-bub? Yeah, Trump should not have announced it, but
not aware of the whiny push-back it would receive.

Oh , I disagree. I think Trump does stuff like that KNOWING that the left will explode in righteous anger.

As for the census , you are wrong . It is against federal law to not answer questions on a census or to lie.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/question345.htm

[Kathianne]

Those DOJ attorneys that were all leaving? Judge says, "No, you can't." Interesting.

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/07/09/patently-deficient-federal-judge-blocks-doj-lawyers-withdrawing-case-involving-census-citizenship-question/


“Patently Deficient”: Federal Judge Blocks DOJ Lawyers From Withdrawing From Case Involving Census Citizenship Question

ALLAHPUNDITPosted at 8:41 pm on July 9, 2019


How much of a mess has the White House made of this census dispute? So much that the Justice Department lawyers who’ve been handling the case for months are now trying to walk away from it en masse…


…and the courts won’t let them. It’s a federal judge who’s insisting for the moment that Trump’s A-team at the DOJ remain on the job, arguing his side.

At least until they give him a good reason why they shouldn’t. Can they? From today’s order denying the lawyers’ motion to withdraw:


...

If they objected to continuing on with the case due to ethical reasons, it makes sense that they wouldn’t want to state that in their motion to withdraw and risk embarrassing Trump and the department. But the federal judge who issued today’s order has called their bluff. Either they have to get back to work or they have to openly admit their ethical misgivings about what they’re being asked to do, which will be an unholy PR clusterfark for the White House and the DOJ. What are they going to do?


To give you a sense of just how messy this has gotten, read this story about the many times federal officials have contradicted their own stated reasoning for wanting to add the citizenship question to the census. Remember, it’s supposed to be about the Voting Rights Act, but figures like Ken Cuccinelli have admitted at times that the information might be used in immigration enforcement. And Trump himself admitted just a few days ago that it might be used for redistricting, perhaps to try to exclude illegals from the count in apportioning House districts. My takeaway from John Roberts’s opinion in the SCOTUS ruling was that he was straining for ways to give Trump the green light to do this but, as a matter of basic judicial integrity, couldn’t allow the administration to lie baldfaced to the Court about what its motives were. Now you have the president all but confessing that the Voting Rights Act rationale wasn’t the real reason for asking about citizenship on the census. If this case comes back to SCOTUS, Roberts may feel obliged to rule against Trump purely because it would embarrass the Court at this point to reward the administration with a win after lying so brazenly.


Trump may “win” anyway, though, if not in court than by making enough of a fuss about this that some illegals will refuse to answer the census questionnaire, leading to an undercount of the population in blue districts with large illegal populations. He might still win in court too, with POTUS reportedly considering an executive order to include the question on the census and begin printing. Again, though, that would operate as a sort of middle finger to SCOTUS, ignoring Roberts’s demand for a clearer rationale for including the question and ordering the government to proceed with it anyway on Trump’s say-so. If SCOTUS tries to stop him, then we’re in constitutional crisis territory. But first, we wait to see what the DOJ will do about today’s “get back to work” order.

[Noir]

the federal judge who issued today’s order has called their bluff. Either they have to get back to work or they have to openly admit their ethical misgivings about what they’re being asked to do...

Outstanding move, and Fairplay on Roberts.

[STTAB]

Those DOJ attorneys that were all leaving? Judge says, "No, you can't." Interesting.

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/07/09/patently-deficient-federal-judge-blocks-doj-lawyers-withdrawing-case-involving-census-citizenship-question/



I sure would like to know how a federal judge can tell the government who may or may not represent their case in court. I know you disagree, but these courts need to be smacked down, they are over reaching.

[Kathianne]

I sure would like to know how a federal judge can tell the government who may or may not represent their case in court. I know you disagree, but these courts need to be smacked down, they are over reaching.

They have to explain why, he did allow 2 to go.

11 attorneys leaving at once-at the end of an appeal-smacks of a big problem. The judge is saying, tell us the problem.

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/research/when-an-attorney-must-or-may-withdraw-mid-case.html

[STTAB]

They have to explain why, he did allow 2 to go.

11 attorneys leaving at once-at the end of an appeal-smacks of a big problem. The judge is saying, tell us the problem.

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/research/when-an-attorney-must-or-may-withdraw-mid-case.html

The problem seems obvious, These lawyers are half assing it because they are putting their political ideology above their client, who is in this case the USG.

[Kathianne]

The problem seems obvious, These lawyers are half assing it because they are putting their political ideology above their client, who is in this case the USG.
Which seems to be why the judge has said, "No."

[pete311]

I sure would like to know how a federal judge can tell the government who may or may not represent their case in court. I know you disagree, but these courts need to be smacked down, they are over reaching.

No, you are simply in favor of dictatorship. Anything Trump wants.

[STTAB]

No, you are simply in favor of dictatorship. Anything Trump wants.

Get over yourself, Trump is the worst dictator in the history of the world, if he's trying to be a dictator.

[SassyLady]

I refused to answer the 2010 census ... any of it. They threatened and blustered.....I said 1 permanent resident and 3 boarders. Gave no names, no gender, no age, no occupation info.