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.