Someone forgot to tell Trump

[spence]

Anyone here pondering why the conservative SCOTUS ruled against the question if it's so freaking obvious?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Anyone here pondering why the conservative SCOTUS ruled against the question if it's so freaking obvious?

There's nothing to ponder. It was a stupid decision. Worse, it further threatens our supposed separation of powers. The question should be does the executive branch have the power to place a question on the census, and is the question somehow unconstitutional.

The Chief Justice, who ruled against the citizenship question, said that it was not substantively invalid--that is, it was not unconstitutional. But he ruled on some notion of reasonableness or conflicting motivation. When Judges take on the power of deciding whether a law is "reasonable," or is invalid because stated reasons which in themselves are not unconstitutional seem to conflict, rather than if the law is constitutional, they're assuming legislative power instead of the judicial power to determine constitutionality.

I agree with Justice Thomas in his dissent "For the first time ever, the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency's otherwise adequate rationale."
"This conclusion is extraordinary," he wrote. "The court engages in an unauthorized inquiry into evidence not properly before us to reach an unsupported conclusion."

The idiocy of the ruling is represented by Breyer's usual spacey, irrelevancy--"In short, the secretary's decision to add a citizenship question created a severe risk of harmful consequences, yet he did not adequately consider whether the question was necessary or whether it was an appropriate means of achieving his stated goal," Again, where is the issue of constitutionality in Breyer's opinion? He rules strictly on his personal opinion about an unsupported, conjectured, and irrelevent supposed severe risk or if, in his opinion, the question was necessary or appropriate?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by spence

Anyone here pondering why the conservative SCOTUS ruled against the question if it's so freaking obvious?

There's nothing to ponder. It was a stupid decision


schooled again by The Great Gazoo

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

There's nothing to ponder. It was a stupid decision


schooled again by The Great Gazoo

So you've been reduced to a cartoon. And, ironically, the Great Gazoo seems to be a lot smarter than you. I mean, you were adamant about giving the impression that adding the census question is somehow a rejection of how the census has been done for 241 years, even though citizenship questions were part of the census almost from the beginning, certainly in periods from 1820 to 1950 and pretty standard from 1890 to 1950, and on the long form from 1970 to 2000.

So, for you adding the citizenship Q would be a deviation that somehow destroys what the census has been until now. Yup, you're a genius of the historical context that you mentioned.

Maybe you can think of a really smart cartoon character for yourself.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So you've been reduced to a cartoon. And, ironically, the Great Gazoo seems to be a lot smarter than you. I mean, you were adamant about giving the impression that adding the census question is somehow a rejection of how the census has been done for 241 years, even though citizenship questions were part of the census almost from the beginning, certainly in periods from 1820 to 1950 and pretty standard from 1890 to 1950, and on the long form from 1970 to 2000.

So, for you adding the citizenship Q would be a deviation that somehow destroys what the census has been until now. Yup, you're a genius of the historical context that you mentioned.

Maybe you can think of a really smart cartoon character for yourself.

as spence said
"They were caught lying about it. This isn't rocket science." and you dont care .... but you'll try to cover that fact up... Like anything do it in the open and legitimately... your good ..

yet you admit "it is very political." but it bad because the ball didn't bounce to your side.. where is the empirical evidence that any amount of illegal immigration has determined funding or representation I can say it hasn't but statistically very doubtful

2018 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the United States, down from a peak of 12.2 million in 2007 in a country of 329,129,348

now if all 10 million were in 1 state and all filled out the census then maybe that argument would hold water

And your historical examples were they on the census based on a Lie
very doubtful .....

Like the detention centers if indefinite detention is the Trump's administration policy .... I am good with that but His Administration must own everything that comes with that choice ... medical treatment food hygiene housing and other basic human needs ...

but Trump nor his administration or his supporters wish to own that side of the coin... and that's the issue I have ... but please feel free like most here to dumb it down to TDS or simple Hate...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

as spence said
"They were caught lying about it. This isn't rocket science." and you dont care .... but you'll try to cover that fact up... Like anything do it in the open and legitimately... your good ..

Justice Roberts did not characterize it as a lie. The motivation appeared to be mixed. But none of the mix was illegitimate. Justice Thomas recognized that in his dissent. Now were going to have investigations about motivation. That can go nowhere in a definite, provable manner, but it can drag out enough to defeat the inclusion. Which is the purpose. The motivation for defeating the inclusion is AS STATED--to secure federal funding (based on number of illegals), and to secure more Representatives (based on number of illegals).

yet you admit "it is very political." but it bad because the ball didn't bounce to your side.. where is the empirical evidence that any amount of illegal immigration has determined funding or representation I can say it hasn't but statistically very doubtful

Those opposing the inclusion have specifically stated that some would be afraid to answer the question for fear of deportation and that would affect the number of Representatives allotted to a state. So the opposers don't believe you.

And your historical examples were they on the census based on a Lie
very doubtful .....

So you don't know . . . and you don't care. The reasons given for including the Q are legitimate.

Like the detention centers if indefinite detention is the Trump's administration policy .... I am good with that but His Administration must own everything that comes with that choice ... medical treatment food hygiene housing and other basic human needs ...

but Trump nor his administration or his supporters wish to own that side of the coin... and that's the issue I have ... but please feel free like most here to dumb it down to TDS or simple Hate...

Your detention center bit is spin, not on topic, another argument that should be argued in another thread.

What is your motivation for opposing the citizenship Q?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your detention center bit is spin, not on topic, another argument that should be argued in another thread.

What is your motivation for opposing the citizenship Q?

It was suggested on false pretense or in everyone else's world except Trump and his supporters is called a lie , untruth , misleading ect ect

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

It was suggested on false pretense

like Obamacare

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

It was suggested on false pretense or in everyone else's world except Trump and his supporters is called a lie , untruth , misleading ect ect

The Court did not refer to the Secretary's reasoning as a lie. Nor did it say that the possible discrepancy between the stated VRA reasoning and any other pretext that was "suggested" by the Secretary's desires before the stated reason for the citizenship Q was a lie, nor that any of the possible other pretexts were lies. What Roberts said is "What was provided here was more of a distraction."

And Justice Thomas, in his dissent, totally eviscerated Roberts' opinion. What the Secretary claimed was the reason for re-instating the citizenship Q was not considered to be a lie, nor to be untrue. It was remanded to the lower Court in order to determine that--which, of course, short of an admission, cannot be proved.

It's not what Trump supporters are characterizing the Secretary's motivation to be that is unfounded, it is you TDS folks that must immediately, presumptuously, make anything that Trump says out to be a lie. You folks are not about reasonable, rational discussion, rather you prefer to simply make extreme accusations--racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, lying, treason . . . and leave it at that, leave it as being the truth merely by saying so.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Anyone here pondering why the conservative SCOTUS ruled against the question if it's so freaking obvious?

it's not like it was unanimous

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/u...eme-court.html

Supreme Court Leaves Census Question on Citizenship in Doubt

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed his own partial dissent.

“To put the point bluntly,” he wrote, “the federal judiciary has no authority to stick its nose into the question whether it is good policy to include a citizenship question on the census or whether the reasons given by Secretary Ross for that decision were his only reasons or his real reasons.”

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

it's not like it was unanimous

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/u...eme-court.html

Supreme Court Leaves Census Question on Citizenship in Doubt

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed his own partial dissent.

“To put the point bluntly,” he wrote, “the federal judiciary has no authority to stick its nose into the question whether it is good policy to include a citizenship question on the census or whether the reasons given by Secretary Ross for that decision were his only reasons or his real reasons.”

This is a silly remark from an otherwise very smart person. The Administration has the legal obligation to ensure requests like this are justified. They were caught lying about it. This isn't rocket science.

What's better is that in sending the case back down Roberts opened it up to consider the issue that not only did the Admin lie about the justification, but that the entire motive was for political manipulation of a non-political process. Of this the evidence is clear.

It's DOA.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This is a silly remark from an otherwise very smart person.

.

it was a pointed dissenting comment by a very serious individual...