WWTBAM Bored

Chief Justice Roberts joined Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan to conclude that when the government lies to a court about its reason for doing something, the court is justified in rejecting that reason and sending the decision back to the agency that made it. The citizenship question was remanded on the ground that Wilbur Ross's proffered reason for adding it was pretextual (i.e., a lie). --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Chief Justice Roberts joined Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan to conclude that when the government lies to a court about its reason for doing something, the court is justified in rejecting that reason and sending the decision back to the agency that made it. The citizenship question was remanded on the ground that Wilbur Ross's proffered reason for adding it was pretextual (i.e., a lie). --Bob

Unfortunately, the court allowed the legislative gerrymandering to stand by the predictable 5-4 split. Overall, on the term, the Court's decisions weren't as bad as they could have been, with Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh at times siding with the liberals on particular cases. The big test will come if they take up any abortion cases next term.

You can read the decision here.

The Supreme Court didn't decide yet whether a citizenship question is legal. The lower court may decide that Ross violated Commerce Dept. procedures and must go through the approval process again. Or it may rule that Ross's real reason, to reduce the count in minority and Democratic regions, is illegal. A ruling like that would surely be appealed.

But as Bob mentioned, this decision isn't really about the Census, but rather what happens when a government agency gives a bogus reason for its actions. It's relevant to Congress's effort to obtain Trump's tax returns, for instance. Secretary Mnuchin has claimed that Congress's real reason is political, not legislative like they said.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Chief Justice Roberts joined Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan to conclude that when the government lies to a court about its reason for doing something, the court is justified in rejecting that reason and sending the decision back to the agency that made it. The citizenship question was remanded on the ground that Wilbur Ross's proffered reason for adding it was pretextual (i.e., a lie). --Bob

Unfortunately, the court allowed the legislative gerrymandering to stand by the predictable 5-4 split. Overall, on the term, the Court's decisions weren't as bad as they could have been, with Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh at times siding with the liberals on particular cases. The big test will come if they take up any abortion cases next term.

I have to agree with the Court on this. Unfortunately, the Constitution gives states too much latitude in how they conduct elections for national offices. We need an amendment to standardize things.

jarnon wrote:You can read the decision here.

The Supreme Court didn't decide yet whether a citizenship question is legal. The lower court may decide that Ross violated Commerce Dept. procedures and must go through the approval process again. Or it may rule that Ross's real reason, to reduce the count in minority and Democratic regions, is illegal. A ruling like that would surely be appealed.

But as Bob mentioned, this decision isn't really about the Census, but rather what happens when a government agency gives a bogus reason for its actions. It's relevant to Congress's effort to obtain Trump's tax returns, for instance. Secretary Mnuchin has claimed that Congress's real reason is political, not legislative like they said.

I hope Wilbur Ross has his tail between his legs. Being called a liar by the SCOTUS isn't a little thing.

Bob Juch wrote: I have to agree with the Court on this. Unfortunately, the Constitution gives states too much latitude in how they conduct elections for national offices. We need an amendment to standardize things.

Which is another reason the Electoral College is needed. A strict national popular vote would allow states to skew results based on how the run their elections.

Bob Juch wrote: We need an amendment to standardize things.

The chances of such an amendment are about the same as the chances of Flock getting the apology he's been demanding of me.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: I have to agree with the Court on this. Unfortunately, the Constitution gives states too much latitude in how they conduct elections for national offices. We need an amendment to standardize things.

Which is another reason the Electoral College is needed. A strict national popular vote would allow states to skew results based on how the run their elections.

No it doesn't. It would give states incentives to be sure that all eligible citizens actually vote. --Bob

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: I have to agree with the Court on this. Unfortunately, the Constitution gives states too much latitude in how they conduct elections for national offices. We need an amendment to standardize things.

Which is another reason the Electoral College is needed. A strict national popular vote would allow states to skew results based on how the run their elections.

Not if the same amendment standardized things.

BackInTex wrote: A strict national popular vote would allow states to skew results based on how the run their elections.

By "skewing results," I assume that BiT is referring to the various state practices of voter suppression designed to depress minority vote, making it easier for white Republicans to remain in office.

And now Donny wants a do-over. He wants to delay the date of the Census (which he can't do, because it's written into legislation) so he can try again to explain the reason for including a citizenship question, now that the Supreme Court has found that his Administration lied to the courts the first time around. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:And now Donny wants a do-over. He wants to delay the date of the Census (which he can't do, because it's written into legislation) so he can try again to explain the reason for including a citizenship question, now that the Supreme Court has found that his Administration lied to the courts the first time around. --Bob

The Justice Department now says it won't ask citizenship questions on the census and has ordered printing to proceed without the citizenship question.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/politics ... index.html

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:And now Donny wants a do-over. He wants to delay the date of the Census (which he can't do, because it's written into legislation) so he can try again to explain the reason for including a citizenship question, now that the Supreme Court has found that his Administration lied to the courts the first time around. --Bob

The Justice Department now says it won't ask citizenship questions on the census and has ordered printing to proceed without the citizenship question.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/politics ... index.html

Dumbest thing ever, aside from offering free medical to illegal aliens.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:And now Donny wants a do-over. He wants to delay the date of the Census (which he can't do, because it's written into legislation) so he can try again to explain the reason for including a citizenship question, now that the Supreme Court has found that his Administration lied to the courts the first time around. --Bob

The Justice Department now says it won't ask citizenship questions on the census and has ordered printing to proceed without the citizenship question.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/politics ... index.html

Dumbest thing ever, aside from offering free medical to illegal aliens.

Conducting the census in the same way it's been conducted since at least 1960 is the dumbest thing ever?

How about lying to a federal court about your reasons for making the change? Lying so brazenly that even Chief Justice Roberts couldn't stomach it. --Bob

Donald J. Trump wrote:The News Reports about the Department of Commerce dropping its quest to put the Citizenship Question on the Census is incorrect or, to state it differently, FAKE! We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question.

They probably reassured Trump that they're still trying to get the citizenship question on the Census, even though it's hard to imagine how that could happen now. Another example of subordinates telling him what he wants to hear.

jarnon wrote:

Donald J. Trump wrote:The News Reports about the Department of Commerce dropping its quest to put the Citizenship Question on the Census is incorrect or, to state it differently, FAKE! We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question.

They probably reassured Trump that they're still trying to get the citizenship question on the Census, even though it's hard to imagine how that could happen now. Another example of subordinates telling him what he wants to hear.

Or another example of the media reporting what it wants us to think.

BackInTex wrote:

jarnon wrote:

Donald J. Trump wrote:The News Reports about the Department of Commerce dropping its quest to put the Citizenship Question on the Census is incorrect or, to state it differently, FAKE! We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question.

They probably reassured Trump that they're still trying to get the citizenship question on the Census, even though it's hard to imagine how that could happen now. Another example of subordinates telling him what he wants to hear.

Or another example of the media reporting what it wants us to think.

The article that SSS linked has quotes from Wilbur Ross and a Justice Dept. lawyer.

jarnon wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

jarnon wrote:They probably reassured Trump that they're still trying to get the citizenship question on the Census, even though it's hard to imagine how that could happen now. Another example of subordinates telling him what he wants to hear.

Or another example of the media reporting what it wants us to think.

The article that SSS linked has quotes from Wilbur Ross and a Justice Dept. lawyer.

That doesn't mean the context of the quotes, or the timing and sequence of when who said what, is accurately reflected. It is CNN so anything with a slight bent against Trump, Republicans, conservatives,or Christians must be suspect.

BackInTex wrote:

jarnon wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
Or another example of the media reporting what it wants us to think.

The article that SSS linked has quotes from Wilbur Ross and a Justice Dept. lawyer.

That doesn't mean the context of the quotes, or the timing and sequence of when who said what, is accurately reflected. It is CNN so anything with a slight bent against Trump, Republicans, conservatives,or Christians must be suspect.

Ignore what Donny says. Watch what he does.

The statements were made in the context of the still-pending case, by government lawyers to plaintiffs' lawyers. If those statements -- that the printing process has already started -- were false, they're in a world of hurt. --Bob

The Justice Department has assigned an entirely new team of lawyers to the effort to evade the Supreme Court's ruling and argue that they didn't really mean it when they said the printing process had to begin by June 30. That almost certainly means that none of the lawyers involved were willing to sign their names to briefs stating that when the government cited that deadline, it was lying.

The courts will not look kindly on Donny's attempt to get a do-over. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:The Justice Department has assigned an entirely new team of lawyers to the effort to evade the Supreme Court's ruling and argue that they didn't really mean it when they said the printing process had to begin by June 30. That almost certainly means that none of the lawyers involved were willing to sign their names to briefs stating that when the government cited that deadline, it was lying.

The courts will not look kindly on Donny's attempt to get a do-over. --Bob

The judge has turned down the Justice Department's request to replace the lawyers assigned to the case. Until I saw that news item, I had completely forgotten that the judge's permission would be required. --Bob

I don't usually get involved with political discussion but to me this seems like more of a legal one.

Can Trump make an executive order to overrule the Supreme Court and add a citizenship question to the census?

I am baffled by the announcement that he is going to make a statement about that today.

christie1111 wrote:I don't usually get involved with political discussion but to me this seems like more of a legal one.

Can Trump make an executive order to overrule the Supreme Court and add a citizenship question to the census?

I am baffled by the announcement that he is going to make a statement about that today.

Trump thought he could make an executive order to overrule the 14th amendment (anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen). Not everything Trump thinks, even if he really believes it, is true.

jarnon wrote:

christie1111 wrote:I don't usually get involved with political discussion but to me this seems like more of a legal one.

Can Trump make an executive order to overrule the Supreme Court and add a citizenship question to the census?

I am baffled by the announcement that he is going to make a statement about that today.

Trump thought he could make an executive order to overrule the 14th amendment (anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen). Not everything Trump thinks, even if he really believes it, is true.

FIrst, Trump has been known to blow hot and cold on issues and back down on occasion (usually when his staff raises all kinds of heck). And he gets pleasure out of working the press and the Democrats in a tizzy about what he might do.

But if he does issue this order, it's a direct violation of a Supreme Court order. I'm sure his lawyers have given it some sort of spin so he can claim he's not really going against the order, but that's what it amounts to. And if that doesn't meet the definition of an impeachable offense, I don't know what does.

christie1111 wrote:I don't usually get involved with political discussion but to me this seems like more of a legal one.

Can Trump make an executive order to overrule the Supreme Court and add a citizenship question to the census?

I am baffled by the announcement that he is going to make a statement about that today.

I don't think the statutes governing the composition of the census give him that authority, but I have no idea how (if at all) Donny thinks he can pull this off. --Bob