Does it make the leather Cheerio more palatable?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhap's because the "middle" doesn't say that race has something to do with "it"? Or maybe the middle thinks its the middle when it isn't. Wouldn't "mainstream" be the middle? Is the mainstream press drowned out? Who is claiming to be the middle? Do Pelosi or Schumer claim to be extremists? Are they being drowned out? Do Ilhan Omar or Ocasio-Cortez, or Rashida Tlaib claim to be extremists? I thought they claim to represent the great working class regular people. Are they drowned out? Does Bernie Sanders claim to be an extremist? He claims to represent what most of the people want and need. Isn't most of the people the middle? Is he drowned out?

Are you the middle?

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?

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


schooled again by The Great Gazoo

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.

Oh good, Jeff’s predictions are ALWAYS so fun to follow. Should we go back and review some?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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.

There is no legal reason that Trump cannot add the citizenship Q to the census. It is constitutional. Even this Court says so. And it has been done in many past census forms. Even the UN recommends it--much as I don't care for the UN.

The Chief Justice's objection is mainly about a possible discrepancy of motive. Which is not a question of constitutionality.

And the process IS political, contrary to what you say. To that end, the leftists' objection is mostly about the possible loss of funds and the number of congressional Representatives some states could lose if some illegals chose not to take the census. So it is very political. And why should a greater amount of federal funds be allotted because of illegals residing in states that refuse to help deport them? And why should a greater number of Representatives be allotted because of aliens--who are not here legally and are denied the right to vote for those Representatives? And even that "problem" can be avoided by the aliens honestly filling out a census with the citizenship Q. The idea that a demographic question should not be added to the census because some people might be afraid that the truth could hurt them is a politically biased protection of those who are doing legal, civil, wrong.

There seems to be an attempt, on the one hand, to hide and protect illegals and their status as such, but on the other hand, have them officially recognized as being here. Now that contains a very evident discrepancy of motive.

The arguments in dissent by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh should be read for a fuller picture of what the Court did:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...n-2020-census/

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...

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?

“Number one, you need it for Congress, you need it for Congress, for districting,” Trump said last week. “You need it for appropriations — where are the funds going? How many people are there? Are they citizens or are they not citizens?”

Districting and appropriations decisions are in fact based on the census's raw population numbers, not on any citizen count.

If you really want a population count, do it in the way that enables the most accurate number.
Then if the big concern is how many people reside in the US without being citizens you can easily subtract the number of people with Social Security numbers (all citizens and permitted workers) from the census.

The question is purely a political power play.

Constitutionally, both in Article 1 and the 14th Amendment, the number of Representatives allotted to each state depends either directly on citizenship or on those who have the right to vote (or will have it when they come of age) which is basically the same thing so indirectly on citizenship.

It makes sense that the number of Representatives should be based on those who vote for Representatives. I see no rationale to allotting Representatives on the basis of the number of non-citizens or those who have no right to vote.

Subtracting the number of those in the U.S. who don't have SS numbers would have to be done by state rather than in all the U.S. to be used for Representation purpose. That could be done for apportionment, but would probably be opposed by those who oppose now because they want the number of non-citizens including illegals to influence the number of Representatives since the illegals predominantly live in states that usually vote Democrat. And besides, most illegals don't have SS numbers but would be counted in the census so your plan of counting SS holders would not account for them but would nevertheless influence the number of Representatives.

Here’s the cases that refute your false argument
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964)
Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The first rule of litigation is Don’t piss off the Judge.
Judge Furman isn't letting DOJ lawyers out of the Census case without each lawyer filing a signed and sworn affidavit giving good reasons for withdrawing and promising to remain available to the court.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They do not refute my argument.

Reynolds v. Sims was specifically about "citizen"representation.

Westberrys v. Sanders was specifically about the dilution of the right to vote.

So the above to cases seem to support my argument.

Re Evenwel v. Abbott, the Harvard Law Review writes:

The Supreme Court long held the drawing of legislative districts within the discretionary purview of the states.

In a series of cases in the early 1960s, however, the Court began to recognize malapportionment claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Establishing the principle of “one person, one vote, the Court stated that “the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications.” But in these cases, the Court “carefully left open the question what population” states must equalize to achieve that ideal.

Last Term, in Evenwel v. Abbott, a unanimous Court again declined to provide an answer, stating only that “a State may draw its legislative districts based on total population,” without reaching the question whether it must. Given this ambiguity, if a state moves to equalize both total population and voter population, then the Court will likely have to weigh nondilution of votes against other values, such as geographic regularity and continuity of communities of interest. Further, if the residential demography of noncitizen immigrants renders such a compromise unworkable, then states may increasingly face a choice between the two measures of equality — and the Court’s precedents indicate important reasons for deference to states as they assess the relevant political tradeoffs.

It ends with: If forced to address the question that Evenwel — and, as some argue, the Constitution— left open, the Court should heed that warning by deferring to states, rather than selecting a political theory to foist upon them.

This view supports the precedent that states can decide how to define their methods of apportionment. For full article see: https://harvardlawreview.org/2016/11/evenwel-v-abbott/

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

like Obamacare

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.

yeah but it's so much easier for them to scream at the padded wall...LIE!!...regarding pretty much everything

The federal census counts all household residents in the USA, not citizens.
Your confusing states responsibilities with what the census is charged with doing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What the Judge did say: "A change in counsel does not create a clean slate for a party to proceed as if prior representations made to the Court were not in fact made."
Will the new lawyers claim that the prior ones misrepresented the facts to the Court? Or will they present alternative facts? Or Giuliani’s truth isn’t truth?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I responded to your list of 3 cases which dealt with state responsibilities. Are you confused?

I've only been able to comment on what was said. Not what might be said. You seem to have a different Nostradamus-like approach, except you conjecture rather than predict, but your usual sarcastic tone (sort of Trump-like) has the air of affirmation in the form of pointed questions. Is your success rate as high as Nostradamus's is reputed to be?

Time will tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh please not the you can keep your doctor thing again. For the record i kept mine...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had not given an honest explanation for his decision to make a major change in the census... as i said in trump world thats not a lie.. that business as unusual
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're putting words in Roberts mouth. That is not honest. He did not say that Ross had not given an honest explanation. He said “seems to have been contrived”. That is a conjecture not a declaration. What he did declare was "What was provided here was more of a distraction."

What he meant by "contrived" and "distraction" is unclear. Nor is the word "seems" a proper one to make a decision in law. Justice Thomas clarified the issue 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."

Thomas makes a clear declaration, Roberts wiggles and squirms into conjecture. And you come to the conclusion that Ross lied. Of course you would. There is no other possibility for you.

Why some feel the need to grant Agencies or Trump powers that are not constitutional and that the same people screamed bloody murder about when attempted by Obama is comical at best.

Under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, responsible officials must, at the time a decision is made, offer a nonarbitrary, non-capricious explanation for choosing their strategy for carrying out their statutory authority. This requires at least that the proposed administrative action be a rational way of carrying out the mission Congress has assigned the executive, and that the rationale be clearly explained at the time of an agency decision. In the case of the citizenship question, the Department of Commerce failed to take this step, which is why a 2020 citizenship question is now on hold.

The executive branch now has an obvious logic problem: It must generate a non-pretextual agency explanation to justify an action to which it already committed itself without any such explanation. The Justice Department’s public flailing-about for a new rationale looks like the very definition of “arbitrary and capricious.” But whether or not such a rationale can now be found and belatedly attached to the census question, a presidential order cannot make the job easier.

For one thing, a presidential order cannot expand the secretary’s zone of legal discretion to determine the contents of the census. Just as important, an executive order cannot relieve the commerce secretary of his obligation to proceed based on a nonarbitrary rationale rooted in his statutory mission. “The president wants me to ask this question” would not be an adequate reason. Nothing in the statute empowers presidential whim.

In 1838 the Supreme Court decided:
When Congress “impose[s] upon any executive officer any duty [Congress] may think proper which is not repugnant to any rights secured and protected by the Constitution … in such cases, the duty and responsibility grow out of and are subject to the control of the law, and not to the direction of the President.”

The spectacle of the executive order fits the president’s yearning to appear the ever-muscular leader overleaping bureaucratic niceties on the way to policy triumphs. But law can trump myth. The secretary of commerce can satisfy the “arbitrary and capricious” test only with non-pretextual reasoning to support a citizenship question as a rational strategy for making the census useful. Any order purporting to relieve him of that obligation will simply expose the president’s weakness.