Census citizenship question

gut Senior Member

18,369 posts 115 reps Joined Nov 2009

Wed, Jun 26, 2019 11:54 AM

I suppose the SCOTUS will answer this tomorrow. But I don't really understand why it should be unconstitutional, especially when I think we had it in the past.

I have a few pretty big concerns with this. Just because people are here illegally doesn't change the fact that we need the systems and resources for the true population. But that also involves the allocation of federal funds, and that doesn't seem right if you're going to be a sanctuary state and thwart immigration law. I kind of feel like if those people don't complete the census because of the citizenship question, then maybe less federal funds will force states and cities to actually do something about the problem.

More concerning is, without a citizenship question (and I'm not sure it changes this), 20M illegals or whatever it is get counted in the allocation of electoral votes....which includes proportionate representation in the House. I don't know if it would make much of a difference, but I suspect there a disproportionate number of illegals in CA, TX, FL, IL and NY. Probably AR, NV and NM.

Spock Senior Member

5,271 posts 9 reps Joined Jul 2013

Wed, Jun 26, 2019 6:17 PM

I dont understand why people get all butt hurt about this stuff. Are we a country or not?

gut Senior Member

18,369 posts 115 reps Joined Nov 2009

Thu, Jun 27, 2019 4:23 PM

So Roberts again sides with the 4 liberal justices, whom I don't think have ever made a decision based on the actual Constitution.

And his reasoning for doing so is basically "the question is valid, however Trump's motivations for adding the question may be unconsitutional, therefore it warrants more examination".

Let me get this straight - you just handed down a ruling based on what the President's actual motivations might be?!? Seems the 4 conservative justices agreed. This goes way beyond legislating from the bench. This is basically a SCOTUS veto of constitutional powers granted to the POTUS.

In a dissenting opinion, Thomas wrote that, "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."

majorspark Senior Member

5,459 posts 38 reps Joined Nov 2009

Thu, Jun 27, 2019 4:38 PM

posted by gut
Let me get this straight - you just handed down a ruling based on what the President's actual motivations might be?!?

I can't recall until recently judges making rulings not on the perceived Constitutionality but on their discernment of the President's heart.

CenterBHSFan 333 - I'm only half evil

7,259 posts 50 reps Joined Nov 2009

Fri, Jun 28, 2019 6:21 AM

So what can be done to address the issue of SCOTUS being soothsayers?

gut Senior Member

18,369 posts 115 reps Joined Nov 2009

Fri, Jun 28, 2019 11:01 AM

posted by CenterBHSFan
So what can be done to address the issue of SCOTUS being soothsayers?

Stopping appointing SJW's to the bench.

From the looks of things so far, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh appear to rule based on the law and not political agendas. I always laugh when people say the court has a conservative majority when Roberts has for years voted with the liberals on most social issues.

ptown_trojans_1 Moderator

8,788 posts 20 reps Joined Nov 2009

Fri, Jun 28, 2019 11:07 AM

Figures the folks on here did not like the ruling.

The court would have approved the question if the reason was legit to add it. Instead the Commerce Dept came in and said from Day 1 they wanted to add it and it was surrounded by political reason/ overtones. They then tried to shoe horn a reason why like the Voting Rights Act protection to add the question, which made no sense. The court simply did not buy that argument.

If the Commerce Dept would have made a more compelling case I think the question would have stood. That was how I read it.

gut Senior Member

18,369 posts 115 reps Joined Nov 2009

Fri, Jun 28, 2019 11:18 AM

posted by ptown_trojans_1
If the Commerce Dept would have made a more compelling case I think the question would have stood. That was how I read it.

Look at Thomas' dissent. It's spot on.

It's deliberate overreach and the justification is an attempt to sidestep precedent because there's not enough time to re-visit it. They effectively blocked the question from being on the 2020 census without blocking the question.

Why in the world the Administration need to prove it's intent/sincerity to the court in to include a question that has been on like 90% of the censuses? The purpose and validity of the question was self-evident.

ptown_trojans_1 Moderator

8,788 posts 20 reps Joined Nov 2009

Fri, Jun 28, 2019 11:45 AM

posted by gut
Look at Thomas' dissent. It's spot on.

It's deliberate overreach and the justification is an attempt to sidestep precedent because there's not enough time to re-visit it. They effectively blocked the question from being on the 2020 census without blocking the question.

Why in the world the Administration need to prove it's intent/sincerity to the court in to include a question that has been on like 90% of the censuses? The purpose and validity of the question was self-evident.

Apparently not and the Court did not buy the argument put forth by the Administration.

I don't see it as overreach. The question is currently not on the census and the Administration had to prove that the addition of the question would help the Voting Rights Act and not be a hindrance. In that narrow view, the Administration failed to prove their case. I see the whole issue as a fuck up by the Administration.

gut Senior Member

18,369 posts 115 reps Joined Nov 2009

Fri, Jun 28, 2019 12:08 PM

posted by ptown_trojans_1
Apparently not and the Court did not buy the argument put forth by the Administration.

It was a 5-4 decision, with 4 liberals deciding very predictably.

You're being quite obtuse. This is clearly the SCOTUS pushing a social agenda and not deciding on the rule of law. It's beyond ridiculous that the Administration would have to PROVE it's intent to add a question that has been acceptable many, many times.

Do you really think the SCOTUS should be able to block the Executive Branch from doing something the executive branch has done many times because SCOTUS can't be convinced of the intent? Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to say a question - that has been asked many times before - is only acceptable if the "intent" is pure? So the court can strike down anything now not based on the merit or law, but on what it decides your intent is? That's the definition of overreach.

Again, look at Clarence Thomas' dissent. You seem to be deliberately refusing to acknowledge it. He spells it out very clearly and plainly. Then look at some of the other consenting opinions. This ruling was not based on law. Even if you accept that the only motivation was political, then in blocking it you implicitly acknowledge there's also a political advantage to NOT allowing it. That makes the ruling purely political.

like_that 1st Team All-PWN

29,228 posts 321 reps Joined Apr 2010

Fri, Jun 28, 2019 12:17 PM

posted by ptown_trojans_1
Figures the folks on here did not like the ruling.

The court would have approved the question if the reason was legit to add it. Instead the Commerce Dept came in and said from Day 1 they wanted to add it and it was surrounded by political reason/ overtones. They then tried to shoe horn a reason why like the Voting Rights Act protection to add the question, which made no sense. The court simply did not buy that argument.

If the Commerce Dept would have made a more compelling case I think the question would have stood. That was how I read it.

This is not the SCOTUS' job, wtf...

wkfan Senior Member

1,850 posts 13 reps Joined Nov 2009

Mon, Jul 8, 2019 12:28 PM

posted by gut
Stopping appointing SJW's to the bench.

From the looks of things so far, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh appear to rule based on the law and not political agendas. I always laugh when people say the court has a conservative majority when Roberts has for years voted with the liberals on most social issues.

Please tell me WTF ANY of the SCOTUS justices have ANY 'leanings' either conservative or liberal?!?!

They were appointed to uphold the Constitution of The United States.......

Zunardo Senior Member

815 posts 15 reps Joined Nov 2010

Mon, Jul 8, 2019 12:59 PM

If they're not allowed to ask me if I'm a citizen on the census, they shouldn't be able to ask anything else about me.

gut Senior Member

18,369 posts 115 reps Joined Nov 2009

Mon, Jul 8, 2019 1:57 PM

posted by wkfan
Please tell me WTF ANY of the SCOTUS justices have ANY 'leanings' either conservative or liberal?!?!

They were appointed to uphold the Constitution of The United States.......

That's how it's supposed to work. But at some point, appointees became political. Once you get judges who start looking at intent and context at the expense of how the law is actually worded, then you can appoint judges who lean toward your political view.

Oddly enough, it seems Kavanaugh and Gorsuch so far seem to be apolitical constructionists (which, IMO, is how it should work).

QuakerOats Senior Member

11,701 posts 66 reps Joined Nov 2009

Mon, Jul 8, 2019 2:02 PM

The ruling helps preserve about 18 electoral votes for the libs. Period.

Spock Senior Member

5,271 posts 9 reps Joined Jul 2013

Thu, Jul 11, 2019 8:08 PM

looks like we are going to get a question. It would be nice to know who is exactly in this country.

QuakerOats Senior Member

11,701 posts 66 reps Joined Nov 2009

Fri, Jul 12, 2019 10:38 AM

posted by Spock
looks like we are going to get a question. It would be nice to know who is exactly in this country.

racist

Census citizenship question

Login

Register