JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP FROM ADDING CITIZENSHIP QUESTION TO 2020 CENSUS

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Ok, so I don't understand this ruling.  As I am reading it,  according to the SC, Wilbur Ross (the Trump Administration) has every right to ask the citizenship question on the census, but that the administration has to go back to a lower court so they can justify why they have every right to ask this question?  Am I missing something?
 

 

Their job was to stall so the forms would be printed without the question. This was Roberts (W's gift that keeps on giving) trying to have it both ways at the expense of the country. 

 

His removal from the bench can't come soon enough. The FISA abuse alone should sink him (it won't, but it should).

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Their job was to stall so the forms would be printed without the question. This was Roberts (W's gift that keeps on giving) trying to have it both ways at the expense of the country. 

 

His removal from the bench can't come soon enough. The FISA abuse alone should sink him (it won't, but it should).

I always dismissed the tin foil hat crowd that thinks the "deep state" has something on him, but some of the doozy decisions he has been the fifth vote on over the years makes me rethink my stance. 

[B-Man]

8 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Ok, so I don't understand this ruling.  As I am reading it,  according to the SC, Wilbur Ross (the Trump Administration) has every right to ask the citizenship question on the census, but that the administration has to go back to a lower court so they can justify why they have every right to ask this question?  Am I missing something?
 

 

There were multiple parts to this and multiple votes on those parts.

 

The short of it is that SCOTUS ruled that the question itself is constitutional and does not violate the Census Act, 

 

but they also ruled that the Commerce Department did not give a sufficient explanation during judicial review, therefore, they can’t use the question.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I always dismissed the tin foil hat crowd that thinks the "deep state" has something on him, but some of the doozy decisions he has been the fifth vote on over the years makes me rethink my stance. 

 

I hear you on not wanting to buy into it, but remember the political spying ring operating inside the DOJ-NSD and FBI-CID were put into place for more than just the 2016 election. We know it's been in place since at least 2012, and I surmise from what I've seen that it existed in 2008-2012 and likely under 43 as well. 

 

Roberts is compromised either way you slice it: if they don't have "dirt on him", he still sat back and let the illegal political spying operation be built without objection. Either that silence was borne from him lacking the courage to do his job (possible), or he's compromised and being told how to rule (also possible). 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

There were multiple parts to this and multiple votes on those parts.

 

The short of it is that SCOTUS ruled that the question itself is constitutional and does not violate the Census Act, 

 

but they also ruled that the Commerce Department did not give a sufficient explanation during judicial review, therefore, they can’t use the question.

So what I said is essentially correct. And the second ruling makes NO sense in light of the first ruling. 

[Ralonzo]

The irony of the gerrymander and census rulings is rich.

 

One one hand, the SC cannot interfere in a process that is overtly political, because it's up to you, the people.

 

On the other hand, the SC must interfere in a process that might become political, because **** you, the people.

[MILFHUNTER#518]

17 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Another power grab CHECKED! 

How is trying to get a head count on how many citizens and non citizens reside in this country a "power grab"? And why is it a bad thing to have such information?

[3rdnlng]

19 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

How is trying to get a head count on how many citizens and non citizens reside in this country a "power grab"? And why is it a bad thing to have such information?

Just turn the census over to Kamala Harris. She can count head with the best of them.

[Hedge]

#$%@!

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

 

So  much winning! 

 

Citizenship Question Won’t Be on 2020 Census Forms as U.S. Drops Fight

• The Trump administration said that it would be printing forms for the 2020 census without a question asking about citizenship.
• A Supreme Court decision last week had temporarily blocked the administration’s effort to add the question.

On 6/28/2019 at 7:35 AM, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

How is trying to get a head count on how many citizens and non citizens reside in this country a "power grab"? And why is it a bad thing to have such information?

Read the constitution. What's wrong with staying with the letter of our constitution? 

[DC Tom]

30 minutes ago, Hedge said:

#$%@!

 

 

 

 

It's not like they had a choice.  A census every ten years is a constitutional mandate they can't bypass.

[Buffalo_Gal]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It's not like they had a choice.  A census every ten years is a constitutional mandate they can't bypass.

But does it mandate the month/day it must begin? IOW couldn't they have waited to print for a lower court decision as long as the census was out by 12/31/2020?

(I don't know, I am asking.)

Edited July 2, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[DC Tom]

44 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

But does it mandate the month/day it must begin? IOW couldn't they have waited to print for a lower court decision as long as the census was out by 12/31/2020?

(I don't know, I am asking.)

 

It does not.  But th ed Census Bureau still has to take in to account how long it takes to do the preliminary work, and work backwards from there to get a "no later than" date.

 

 

Which seems to be...now.  Not unreasonable, given how the government works.

[Buffalo_Gal]

So is this a "not so fast" or does Trump have something up his sleeve?

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146245459268263938

 

since it is mobile, these are his tweets

 

A very sad time for America when the Supreme Court of the United States won’t allow a question of “Is this person a Citizen of the United States?” to be asked on the #2020 Census! Going on for a long time. I have asked the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice....

 

....to do whatever is necessary to bring this most vital of questions, and this very important case, to a successful conclusion. USA! USA! USA!

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

Let’s just count the entire world. It’ll be easier. This is definitely a government that has turned its back on the people they serve. 

[MILFHUNTER#518]

14 hours ago, Tiberius said:

 

So  much winning! 

 

Citizenship Question Won’t Be on 2020 Census Forms as U.S. Drops Fight

• The Trump administration said that it would be printing forms for the 2020 census without a question asking about citizenship.
• A Supreme Court decision last week had temporarily blocked the administration’s effort to add the question.

Read the constitution. What's wrong with staying with the letter of our constitution? 

Where in the constitution does it say we are prohibited from asking if they are a citizen or not? Is it not the purpose of the census to determine how many people, ie. citizens are residing in our republic?

 

Dems only oppose this question because many of  the deep blue districts, i.e NYC, San Francisco, etc are flooded with illegals and they want them counted in the census to expand congressional districts to add seats and to justify increased federal funding to said districts.

 

But you already know this, of course...

Edited July 3, 2019 by MILFHUNTER#518

[row_33]

4 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

Where in the constitution does it say we are prohibited from asking if they are a citizen or not? Is it not the purpose of the census to determine how many people, ie. citizens are residing in our republic?

 

Dems only oppose this question because many of  the deep blue districts, i.e NYC, San Francisco, etc are flooded with illegals and they want them counted in the census to expand congressional districts to add seats and to justify increased federal funding to said districts.

 

But you already know this, of course...

 

SCOTUS has invented whatever it wants from the Constitution since it was founded.

 

 

[Tiberius]

27 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

Where in the constitution does it say we are prohibited from asking if they are a citizen or not? Is it not the purpose of the census to determine how many people, ie. citizens are residing in our republic?

 

Dems only oppose this question because many of  the deep blue districts, i.e NYC, San Francisco, etc are flooded with illegals and they want them counted in the census to expand congressional districts to add seats and to justify increased federal funding to said districts.

 

But you already know this, of course...

 "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each States ..."

 

persons...We have to live under the constitution and so do you. 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Tiberius

[MILFHUNTER#518]

35 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each States ..."

 

persons...We have to live under the constitution and so do you. 

Oh so now you are an originalist all of a sudden LOL.

 

The supreme court ruled the question constitutional,  it will be added in due time. Should be interesting to see how he goes about it knowing they have already started printing the census without it.

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

Oh so now you are an originalist all of a sudden LOL.

 

The supreme court ruled the question constitutional,  it will be added in due time. Should be interesting to see how he goes about it knowing they have already started printing the census without it.

In 2030? By then the demographics will already have been baked in. 

[MILFHUNTER#518]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

In 2030? By then the demographics will already have been baked in. 

 

https://nypost.com/2019/07/02/trump-wants-successful-conclusion-to-census-citizenship-question-case/

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

 

https://nypost.com/2019/07/02/trump-wants-successful-conclusion-to-census-citizenship-question-case/

Well, if the Supreme Court calls them out for lying to them about this, what's to stop them from simply ignoring the law and the constitution? 

 

Trump has has no respect for the constitution 

[row_33]

1 hour ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

Oh so now you are an originalist all of a sudden LOL.

 

The supreme court ruled the question constitutional,  it will be added in due time. Should be interesting to see how he goes about it knowing they have already started printing the census without it.

 

your country founded itself on the concept of a moral people submitting to a republic of laws

 

when emotionalism and being "a tool" are the only intellectual resources of people like Tibs, it cannot hold, fortunately they are only about 10% of the population

 

 

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

 "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each States ..."

 

persons...We have to live under the constitution and so do you. 

 

That does not prohibit ASKING THEM QUESTIONS, you unmitigated loon.

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

That does not prohibit ASKING THEM QUESTIONS, you unmitigated loon.

Then they shouldn't have had to lie to the Supreme Court about it then. 

 

But, since it's a naked power grab, they had to. 

 

 

Tom ?

50 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

your country founded itself on the concept of a moral people submitting to a republic of laws

 

when emotionalism and being "a tool" are the only intellectual resources of people like Tibs, it cannot hold, fortunately they are only about 10% of the population

 

 

That's mean of you Row 

[row_33]

31 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

That does not prohibit ASKING THEM QUESTIONS, you unmitigated loon.

 

incorrigible knucklehead is a good one as well

 

probably described them as such on their kindergarten report card

[Deranged Rhino]

 

24 hour rule seems to work almost every time. 

[SoCal Deek]

Why not just call it a ‘questionnaire’ and send it out anyway? Screw the swamp!

[Koko78]

Eh, *****'em. Put the question in the census and let the liberal judges try to order the Executive Branch to violate the Constitution by not conducting the census.

[Hedge]

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Buffalo_Gal]

29 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Why would anyone think counting illegals for representation is a normal thing to do? They are here ILLEGALLY. The only thing they should count for is deportation numbers. 

[row_33]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Why would anyone think counting illegals for representation is a normal thing to do? They are here ILLEGALLY. The only thing they should count for is deportation numbers. 

 

They are angrily determined to call all common sense and natural barriers as evil and punishing.

 

 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Why would anyone think counting illegals for representation is a normal thing to do? They are here ILLEGALLY. The only thing they should count for is deportation numbers. 

 

14th Amendment says otherwise.  Representation is based on "the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.,"

 

Of course, it also strongly implies that determining such eligibility is the right of the states', and allows for an abridgement of representation in proportion to the abridgement of voting rights.  The 14th is a pretty weird amendment.

[row_33]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

14th Amendment says otherwise.  Representation is based on "the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.,"

 

Of course, it also strongly implies that determining such eligibility is the right of the states', and allows for an abridgement of representation in proportion to the abridgement of voting rights.  The 14th is a pretty weird amendment.

 

They don’t need no stinking Amendment to go with their emotions and feelings of the week

 

[Koko78]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

14th Amendment says otherwise.  Representation is based on "the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.,"

 

Of course, it also strongly implies that determining such eligibility is the right of the states', and allows for an abridgement of representation in proportion to the abridgement of voting rights.  The 14th is a pretty weird amendment.

 

So under the SWJ code, using the term "Indians" in the text of the 14th Amendment invalidates the entire provision, because the language is not inclusive and is hateful.

 

Am I doing this right?

[DC Tom]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

So under the SWJ code, using the term "Indians" in the text of the 14th Amendment invalidates the entire provision, because the language is not inclusive and is hateful.

 

Am I doing this right?

 

No.  You're overdoing it.  Just scream "The Constitution and voting rights are racist!!!" and tell all your friends they have to choose between their MAGA hats or you.

[row_33]

1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

 

So under the SWJ code, using the term "Indians" in the text of the 14th Amendment invalidates the entire provision, because the language is not inclusive and is hateful.

 

Am I doing this right?

 

You will never win with them 

 

They just want to argue and will twist everything around to keep it going

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

14th Amendment says otherwise.  Representation is based on "the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.,"

 

Of course, it also strongly implies that determining such eligibility is the right of the states', and allows for an abridgement of representation in proportion to the abridgement of voting rights.  The 14th is a pretty weird amendment.

Cool image!

Full text (from wiki):
 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 

Section 2. 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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
 

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
 

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
 

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

[row_33]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Cool image!

Full text (from wiki):
 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 

Section 2. 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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
 

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
 

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
 

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

 

They will do whatever the heck they want to