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.

We lost but we won, in fact we've won bigger than before. Why didn't we just do this in the first place? Because they're taking your jobs.

This is not true. Secretary Ross did take the step. From a March 27, 2018 Reuters article: A question about citizenship status will be included on the 2020 Census to help enforce the Voting Rights Act, federal officials said on Monday . . . Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross decided to add the question to the count after a Department of Justice request based on the desire for better enforcement of the voting law, the U.S. Department of Commerce said in a statement.
"Secretary Ross determined that obtaining complete and accurate information to meet this legitimate government purpose outweighed the limited potential adverse impacts," it said.

Regardless of what Ross may have said, or implied before, that does not make his stated rationale arbitrary or capricious. See Justice Thomas dissent.

The minority opinion loses
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm proud to be a citizen. You're proud to be a citizen. The only people who are not proud to be citizens are the ones who are fighting us all the way about the word citizen," he said. What inspirational words from the Dear leader
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The dissent makes valid points. They are put on the record. And they can be used in future arguments, as they have been.

Ross gave an explanation. It was not an unconstitutional reason. It was a valid reason. Roberts admitted as much. But he claimed that it seemed to conflict with previous things Ross had said or did. Why should it have to comport with what he said or implied previously?

So you're not inspired. Thanks for telling us. Good to know.

Because if you don't follow the rule of law, you lose.

Like when you misrepresent the facts to the Court, or present alternative facts. Or use Giuliani’s truth isn’t truth argument. Or your "client" admits that your premise was false.

He stated a legitimate reason for including a valid, constitutional, question. Whether he had not stated this reason previously or not, or whether the DOJ request was later and more important may all "seem" inconsistent is not relevant. What was relevant is the validity and constitutionality of his reason. Roberts did not say the reason was not valid or unconstitutional. Quite the contrary.

He lost.

"The evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation (Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross) gave for his decision," Roberts wrote. "The sole stated reason seems to have been contrived."

If the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation then the reason is invalid. Full stop.

In terms of the Court, the decision was not final. It was remanded back to the lower court for further investigation. Of course, that was one of the tactics for opposing the inclusion in court, to prolong the matter till it was too late to insert the Q.

In my opinion, and that of the minority, it was a terrible decision in terms of further disturbing the balance of power in the branches of government. As well, it was stupid in terms of past practices in both the making of a census and being contrary to the traditional Court practice of giving deference to agency decisions and reasons.

But that latter might be a silver lining--if it could help to soften the power of the federal administrative agencies. And especially if it could in some little way help to the achieve the dissolution of most of those agencies.

"Seems" is not valid substantive legal evidence. I suppose that is why it was remanded to the lower court for further investigation.

Although from some of your past posts, for you, "seems" seems to be synonymous with "conclusive" or with "fact."

Has anyone noticed that the Court's decision and reasoning was not based on the Constitution? It was based on administrative law.

Does anyone see the danger of the Supreme Court deciding on administrative law rather than on the Constitution? Does anyone see the much wider scope the Court has when it does so? Does anyone see some, not negligible, erosion of the Constitution itself?

Administrative agencies, as they are designed, are unconstitutional to begin with. When Roosevelt created some new ones, that had wider scope than the old ones, even he saw the danger of agencies with executive, legislative, and judicial power all wrapped up into one. So he began the process that led to the Administrative Procedure Act. But he didn't foresee the growth of agencies from the few he created to the hundreds that now exist. There is no way that the Supreme Court could function if it had to deal with the legality of the thousands of pages of regulations that these agencies produce every year. Therefor, much deference is given to agency decision. And, therefor, much injustice has been done to thousands of Americans by agency decisions that have been allowed. It's a double whammy--unconstitutional agencies plus the plenary power of each agency.

What is particularly noxious in this current decision, beyond ruling on the administrative decision of an unconstitutional agency, is that the regulation in question was not harmful to the citizens of this country. It was a regulation that actually conforms to Constitutional purposes for the census. But the Court thought it "seemed" to violate administrative law.

So a vague administrative law (capricious and reasonable) of an unconstitutional agency, is enforced to deny what is a perfectly legitimate constitutional mandate because it had possibly, (not substantively proven) been trespassed.

I understand the partisan thinking on both sides. The Dems are all happy because it stops something Trump wants. The Repubs are dismayed because their guy "loses."

But does anyone see the continual, creeping, loss of the power of the Constitution? The creeping gain in either the growth of administrative power, or the Court's ability to decide on that administrative power rather than on the Constitution.

The Constitution is the guardian of our individual rights against government abridging them. Administrative agencies are about the governmental taking of power from individuals and transferring it to government. Administrative law is a replacement of Constitutional law.

I think that was the point that the dissenters, "minority", was making...but they don't count...they lost....the Constitution lost :kewl: don't expect the left to care

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

“Nobody ever talks about Article 2. It gives me all these rights that nobody’s ever seen before. So no obstruction, no collusion. Just look at Article 2.” — Donald J. Trump, 45th president of the United States.
I find this scary, you think he’s funny, just joking or some other comment normalizing Trump and worry about anything that hinders him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he's pretty amusing...you are just several.. or more steps... behind his wit...

you'd think he'd be impeached by now given all we know...I mean...all we were told...by the dummies in the press and opposition party and spencepredictions....and the endless meaningless wordage you provide:smash: keep it up..I'm sure you'll trip him up eventually

This is another part of Article 2
Article 2, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

need more of this in America

AURORA, Colo. (CBS4)– Hundreds of protesters gathered in Aurora on Friday evening to march to the ICE detention facility where illegal and undocumented immigrants are being housed. They also removed the U.S. flag, replaced it with a Mexican flag, and spray painted graffiti on a Blue Lives Matter flag before it was seen flying upside down on the flag pole.