The opinion (from a San Fran judge) actually includes this sentence:

“[T]he citizenship question on the 2020 Census is fundamentally counterproductive to the goal of obtaining accurate citizenship data about the public."


Link

Yeah, why would you want to count the citizens when you're counting the citizens?


I'm telling you- I hope to live to see the shit come down when the good people of this nation have had enough. I do. I hope to see it. Myself, I am fed the fuck up with this nonsense.

The courts in the 9th Circuit need padding on their walls.

Another case to be appealed to SCOTUS?

Why do we ignore this tactic?

Have a conservative group in a conservative circuit sue to REQUIRE a citizenship question.
Have a conservative group in a conservative circuit sue to REQUIRE building a wall.
Have a conservative group in a conservative circuit sue to REQUIRE proof of citizenship to vote.

If the left uses the courts to impose their will, why don't we do the same?

BTW...The Supreme Court agreed to hear this case on an expedited basis. I believe it will hear arguments in April. A decision should be rendered in time to get the question on the census if the administration prevails. We just have to hope that Roberts doesn't decide to fuck us in order to preserve the Court's reputation.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
The opinion (from a San Fran judge) actually includes this sentence:

“[T]he citizenship question on the 2020 Census is fundamentally counterproductive to the goal of obtaining accurate citizenship data about the public."


Link

Anyone want to ague these judges represent the best and brightest of the legal world? I believe my 11 year old hound demonstrates more logic than this judge.

the democrats that infest the 9th Circus went through a laws school where a requirement for graduation was a lobotomy

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
the democrats that infest the 9th Circus went through a laws school where a requirement for graduation was a lobotomy

The 9th knows exactly what it is doing, they are intelligent. They may be communist-like, hate the constitution, and care not for America, but they are not stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
The opinion (from a San Fran judge) actually includes this sentence:

“[T]he citizenship question on the 2020 Census is fundamentally counterproductive to the goal of obtaining accurate citizenship data about the public."


Link

Anyone want to ague these judges represent the best and brightest of the legal world? I believe my 11 year old hound demonstrates more logic than this judge.

Yes, but above all else we must remember that there are no Obama judges or Bush judges or Clinton judges. They are just judges as Chief Justice Roberts so emphatically reminded us.

And it is just simply counting people.

Not about number of Representatives or Federal Funds, right? right?

Does the Constitution make the distinction between Citizens and people simply occupying the country? Not being a smart ass. Can you have Constutional rights as a non citizen? Whether here legally, or non-legally? How would a textualist Judge see it?

Unfortunately, the census apportionment count uses both citizens and non-citizens.

https://www.census.gov/populat...nment/about/faq.html

You've heard about women traveling to the US to give birth? I can see future times where many people will travel (and probably at someone else's expense) to the US during the census to skew the counts.

Then why is legal to ask citizenship status on 4473 forms when purchasing a firearm?

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
the democrats that infest the 9th Circus went through a laws school where a requirement for graduation was a lobotomy

The 9th knows exactly what it is doing, they are intelligent. They may be communist-like, hate the constitution, and care not for America, but they are not stupid.

I think you're giving them way too much credit. They can still be America hating, constitution shredding garbage while still being dumb as hell. The language in this judge's decision tends to support that contention very well.

If House seats were apportioned strictly by number of citizens and not total population, the Libs would not be pushing to kill the Electroal College.. there wouldn't be any point.

Isn't this ruling in conflict with another recent ruling in a different Federal circuit or Federal Appeals court?

Chief Justice Roberts shot down Census citizenship question, but it’s not dead yet
Comments

Dept. of Commerce gets a do-over on its rationale, and may end up back before SCOTUS.



On the morning of June 28, 2012, CNN and Fox News initially told viewers that the Supreme Court had struck down the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, not yet realizing that the court had saved it as a tax. Fox’s Shannon Bream declared that the mandate was “gone” and for six minutes a CNN chyron blared, “Individual Mandate Struck Down.”

The Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Commerce v. New York, the census case, was similarly easy to misread at first glance. Although it does keep the citizenship question off the census, at least for now, the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts actually hands the government a clean win on all the substantive issues.

First, the court held that a citizenship question is constitutional, despite being unnecessary to the “enumeration.” Then it said that Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, complied with the federal law governing administration of the census. And then the court affirmed that Secretary Ross was allowed to overrule career scientists who advised him to gather citizenship data from administrative records instead of from the census. (The scientists feared that asking the question would cause many immigrants to avoid responding to the census.)



Why, then, did the government lose? The answer, quite simply, is that the court found that Secretary Ross had lied—or more gently, dissembled. Secretary Ross claimed the Justice Department told him that improved citizenship data would help the agency enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was because of that DOJ request—and only that request—that the question was added, Secretary Ross said. But the chief justice, together with the four-justice liberal bloc, determined that this VRA rationale was a pretext concocted after Ross had already made up his mind. The record, the chief said, showed that the VRA rationale was “contrived.”

The record shows that the Secretary began taking steps to reinstate a citizenship question about a week into his tenure, but it contains no hint that he was considering VRA enforcement in connection with that project…The Director initially attempted to elicit requests for citizenship data from the Department of Homeland Security and DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, neither of which is responsible for enforcing the VRA…it was not until the Secretary contacted the Attorney General directly that DOJ’s Civil Rights Division expressed interest in acquiring census-based citizenship data to better enforce the VRA.

Because Secretary Ross failed to “offer genuine justifications for [an] important decision[],” the majority affirmed the lower court’s judgment remanding the matter to the Commerce Department.

This question of sincerity was what divided the chief and the other conservatives. Justice Thomas agreed that Ross needed to offer a rational explanation for adding the question but, once satisfied that Ross had done so, he would have declined to evaluate whether his explanation was sincere. “Our only role in this case is to decide whether the Secretary complied with the law and gave a reasoned explanation for his decision,” Justice Thomas wrote, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. “The Court correctly answers these questions in the affirmative. That ought to end our inquiry.”

But Chief Justice Roberts said that a deeper inquiry was needed because “accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose” of judicial review. “Unlike a typical case in which an agency may have both stated and unstated reasons for a decision,” the chief wrote, “here the VRA enforcement rationale—the sole stated reason—seems to have been contrived.” The chief justice sought to strike a balance between the judiciary’s need for honesty and the executive branch’s authority to act politically, and arrived at a compromise: an agency decision may be “influenced by political considerations or prompted by an Administration’s priorities,” but it must also explain itself in a way that is consistent with “what the record reveals about the agency’s priorities and decisionmaking process.” As Jennifer Nou, a University of Chicago law professor, puts it, “you have to tell us the truth, but not the whole truth.”

Secretary Ross’s explanation was a “distraction” that contained no truth, the court concluded.

https://legalinsurrection.com/...ut-its-not-dead-yet/

ignore the judge and keep going

quote:

First, the court held that a citizenship question is constitutional

And is that not the courts job and should it have not ended there?

This is troubling in that the judicial branch now wants to know reasons why the executive branch does something that is within their constitutional authority to make sure it is acceptable to their point of view. The potential for abuse with such is enormous. To me this would be akin to the court saying yes the citizens have a constitutional right to own a firearm as long as we approve of their reasons why.