Someone forgot to tell Trump

[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?

[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...

[Sea Dangles]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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/

[Pete F.]

“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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Pete F.]

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

[Pete F.]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

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/

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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/

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The federal census counts all household residents in the USA, not citizens.

And the federal census has always had demographic questions, not just a raw count as you stated in a previous post. And most past forms had citizenship questions.

Your confusing states responsibilities with what the census is charged with doing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[Pete F.]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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'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?

[Pete F.]

Time will tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

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.

[wdmso]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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

[Pete F.]

He lost.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He lost.

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.

[detbuch]

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

“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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.;1170144
I find this scary, you think he’s funny, just joking or some other comment normalizing Trump and worry about anything that hinders him.
[size=1

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

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 keep it up..I'm sure you'll trip him up eventually

[Pete F.]

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

[scottw]

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.