Is Chief Justice Roberts a Player?

[Harpy Eagle]

It is one thing to have been a wishy-washy, middle of the road crowd-pleaser like like Justice Kennedy, but Chief Justice Roberts seems to be playing his own Game of Thrones without any discernible judicial philosophy. First, he plays word games to uphold the ACA in order to preserve a campaign issue against President Obama, then he denies President Trump a perfectly legitimate question about Citizenship for the 2020 Census.

Where is he coming from? The answer that comes to mind is that he wants to be a political player, playing both sides against each other (a la James Comey). In a way, this may be more disturbing than an unyielding adherence to one's personal judicial philosophy.

Comments?

Roberts made a legally sound decision. There was no compelling reason by the current Admin given for adding the question at this late date.

Sure there is a compelling reason for the question....

You tards want them to count along with getting their votes...

The Constitution says that everyone is to be counted, not just citizens. Feel free to amend the Constitution if you disagree with it.

You are full of shit....

Show us where it says illegals should be counted....

14th Amendment Section 2...

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

 

[Deno]

It is one thing to have been a wishy-washy, middle of the road crowd-pleaser like like Justice Kennedy, but Chief Justice Roberts seems to be playing his own Game of Thrones without any discernible judicial philosophy. First, he plays word games to uphold the ACA in order to preserve a campaign issue against President Obama, then he denies President Trump a perfectly legitimate question about Citizenship for the 2020 Census.

Where is he coming from? The answer that comes to mind is that he wants to be a political player, playing both sides against each other (a la James Comey). In a way, this may be more disturbing than an unyielding adherence to one's personal judicial philosophy.

Comments?

Roberts made a legally sound decision. There was no compelling reason by the current Admin given for adding the question at this late date.

Sure there is a compelling reason for the question....

You tards want them to count along with getting their votes...

The Constitution says that everyone is to be counted, not just citizens. Feel free to amend the Constitution if you disagree with it.

You are full of shit....

Show us where it says illegals should be counted....

14th Amendment Section 2...

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

It doesn’t say shit about counting illegals Tard....

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Roberts made a legally sound decision. There was no compelling reason by the current Admin given for adding the question at this late date.

Sure there is a compelling reason for the question....

You tards want them to count along with getting their votes...

The Constitution says that everyone is to be counted, not just citizens. Feel free to amend the Constitution if you disagree with it.

You are full of shit....

Show us where it says illegals should be counted....

14th Amendment Section 2...

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

It doesn’t say shit about counting illegals Tard....

Illegals are part of the "whole number of persons in each state".

Perhaps if you go back and get your GED you will learn what the word "whole" means.

just a thought

 

[jwoodie]

The Constitution says that everyone is to be counted, not just citizens. Feel free to amend the Constitution if you disagree with it.

So all other questions (race, family composition, etc.) are unconstitutional?

No, how did you come up to that stupid conclusion.

Even SCOTUS did not say the citizenship question was unconstitutional

Sorry, I didn't realize you were replying to Deno.

Now, back to the topic of this thread: Do you think Robert's ACA decision was motivated by something other than legitimate jurisprudence?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Constitution says that everyone is to be counted, not just citizens. Feel free to amend the Constitution if you disagree with it.

So all other questions (race, family composition, etc.) are unconstitutional?

No, how did you come up to that stupid conclusion.

Even SCOTUS did not say the citizenship question was unconstitutional

Sorry, I didn't realize you were replying to Deno.

Now, back to the topic of this thread...

The topic of the thread was the SCOTUS ruling. I find it to be the correct ruling. You do not.

where do we go from here?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The stated reason for adding the question was for the Justice Dept to be able enforce the voting rights act.

The CB is forbidden by law to give any specific data to anyone, all that can be obtained is the aggregated data that is published. This has been upheld by multiple court decisions as other governmental agencies have sued the CB for information.

Given that there can be nothing but aggregated data given to the DOJ, how does the question help them enforce the act?

 

[bendog]

I was thinking the "is Roberts a player" thing. He is not a player in any sense except he wants to protect the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and any respect it has with citizens.

But in terms of being a play or sending any signal, it's very unlikely the citizenship question and the gerrymandering question were both decided at the same time.

Roberts is continuing the defference towards administrative agencies and states deciding their districts, but he's also saying the courts are not anyone's bitch either. Defference doesn't mean they will allow people to hide facts by refusing to disclose what they were legally supposed to disclose.

 

[Deno]

Sure there is a compelling reason for the question....

You tards want them to count along with getting their votes...

The Constitution says that everyone is to be counted, not just citizens. Feel free to amend the Constitution if you disagree with it.

You are full of shit....

Show us where it says illegals should be counted....

14th Amendment Section 2...

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

It doesn’t say shit about counting illegals Tard....

Illegals are part of the "whole number of persons in each state".

Perhaps if you go back and get your GED you will learn what the word "whole" means.

just a thought

Just a thought.

Perhaps you should pull your head out of your ass.

So a dumb ass Tard like you assumes it means counting illegals.

Do you really think James Madison, George and the others

we’re talking about non-citizens that are here illegally

determining the Representation and the taxes apportioned

to the states?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Constitution says that everyone is to be counted, not just citizens. Feel free to amend the Constitution if you disagree with it.

You are full of shit....

Show us where it says illegals should be counted....

14th Amendment Section 2...

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

It doesn’t say shit about counting illegals Tard....

Illegals are part of the "whole number of persons in each state".

Perhaps if you go back and get your GED you will learn what the word "whole" means.

just a thought

So a dumb ass Tard like you assumes it means counting illegals.

Do you really think James Madison, George and the others

we’re talking about non-citizens that are here illegally

determining the Representation and the taxes apportioned

to the states?

The words are what the words are. It is not my job to assume anything about them.

Also, the 14th was added on July 9, 1868.

Pretty sure George and James did not have much to do with it!

Once again, get your GED and you might learn a bit about our countries history as well.

 

[bendog]

You are full of shit....

Show us where it says illegals should be counted....

14th Amendment Section 2...

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

It doesn’t say shit about counting illegals Tard....

Illegals are part of the "whole number of persons in each state".

Perhaps if you go back and get your GED you will learn what the word "whole" means.

just a thought

So a dumb ass Tard like you assumes it means counting illegals.

Do you really think James Madison, George and the others

we’re talking about non-citizens that are here illegally

determining the Representation and the taxes apportioned

to the states?

The words are what the words are. It is not my job to assume anything about them.

Also, the 14th was added on July 9, 1868.

Pretty sure George and James did not have much to do with it!

Once again, get your GED and you might learn a bit about our countries history as well.

And the Founders did want an accurate count of slaves too.

 

[Deno]

You are full of shit....

Show us where it says illegals should be counted....

14th Amendment Section 2...

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

It doesn’t say shit about counting illegals Tard....

Illegals are part of the "whole number of persons in each state".

Perhaps if you go back and get your GED you will learn what the word "whole" means.

just a thought

So a dumb ass Tard like you assumes it means counting illegals.

Do you really think James Madison, George and the others

we’re talking about non-citizens that are here illegally

determining the Representation and the taxes apportioned

to the states?

The words are what the words are. It is not my job to assume anything about them.

Also, the 14th was added on July 9, 1868.

Pretty sure George and James did not have much to do with it!

Once again, get your GED and you might learn a bit about our countries history as well.

I am sure you are an idiot and you are wrong...

It's you that doesn't know your history.

James Maddison wrote the orginal draft...

It was modified by 55 delegates and Washington was involved....

You Tards prove your ignorance over and over.

Answer me this Tard....

If it doesn’t matter whether they are legal or not....

What’s wrong with the citizenship question?

 

[Deno]

You are full of shit....

Show us where it says illegals should be counted....

14th Amendment Section 2...

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

It doesn’t say shit about counting illegals Tard....

Illegals are part of the "whole number of persons in each state".

Perhaps if you go back and get your GED you will learn what the word "whole" means.

just a thought

So a dumb ass Tard like you assumes it means counting illegals.

Do you really think James Madison, George and the others

we’re talking about non-citizens that are here illegally

determining the Representation and the taxes apportioned

to the states?

The words are what the words are. It is not my job to assume anything about them.

Also, the 14th was added on July 9, 1868.

Pretty sure George and James did not have much to do with it!

Once again, get your GED and you might learn a bit about our countries history as well.

Where you at Tard?

Out on goggle trying to get your shit straight.

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

Roberts made a legally sound decision. There was no compelling reason by the current Admin given for adding the question at this late date.

The correct test is "rational basis," not "compelling reason." Otherwise, the Court can second guess every single decision made by the Executive Branch. Roberts seems to have sidestepped this test by finding that the government's explanation was "insufficient."

P.S. "At this late date" is (or should be) an irrelevant factor. The Court is not in charge of the U.S. Printing Office.

There was not rational basis given for it either.

and it is not just about the printing, the printing is the least of the concerns.

Things like the census are planned down to the most precise detail to get maximum response rates and the most accurate responses to the wording of the questions. They have been planning and laying out the next census since the last one ended.

Throwing in an extra question is far more complicated than it might be worth. Even Ross admits that it would decrease response rates and response rates play a huge part in accuracy of the data.

Didn't woody have this same conversation yesterday? And Roberts found the govt's stated reason was a pretext. He was not unclear.

I might have missed that one. Either way, this was the correct ruling based upon the laws and not partisan sheep herd mentality.

I think I was wrong and Woody is not just doing a do over. I apologize Woody. But here's the thing on Robert's reasoning.
Roberts and his conservative colleagues parted ways in the fifth and final – and ultimately dispositive – part of the court’s opinion. The district court had also ruled that Ross’ rationale for including the citizenship question – that the Department of Justice had asked for the data to better enforce federal voting-rights laws – was a pretext for its actual reasoning, and here Roberts, in an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, agreed. “The evidence showed,” Roberts wrote, that Ross “was determined to reinstate a citizenship question from the time he entered office; instructed his staff to make it happen; waited while Commerce officials explored whether another agency would request census-based citizenship data; subsequently contacted the Attorney General himself to ask if DOJ would make the request; and adopted the Voting Rights Act rationale late in the process.” Taking that evidence in its entirety, Roberts determined, “we share the District Court’s conviction that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of DOJ’s request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the” Voting Rights Act.

Roberts acknowledged that courts should be “deferential” when reviewing an agency’s action, but he countered – citing Judge Henry Friendly, for whom he clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit – that “we are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.” And here, when “the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave for his decision,” judicial review calls for “something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case.” “In these unusual circumstances,” Roberts concluded, the district court was therefore correct to send the case back to the Department of Commerce for it to provide a better explanation. “Reasoned decisionmaking,” Roberts emphasized, “calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction.”
Opinion analysis: Court orders do-over on citizenship question in census case (Updated) - SCOTUSblog

Roberts is an idiot and so are the other liberal lunatics sitting on the Supreme Court.

The Court's job is to determine if cases are in violation of the Constitution.or supported by the Constitution. No law is being broken in asking on a Census if you are a citizen. It is at the sole discretion of the Executive branch if they want to ask a question which is designed to give an accurate accounting of citizens responding to the Census and the Congress should support this accuracy so they can write laws which are fair to citizens and not subverted by those who are in this country illegally.

The Census is mandatory and the accuracy of information obtained by the Census should support equal justice for all. Not using the information to unjustly represent illegal aliens at the expense of citizens.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am sure you are an idiot and you are wrong...

It's you that doesn't know your history.

James Maddison wrote the orginal draft...

It was modified by 55 delegates and Washington was involved....

You Tards prove your ignorance over and over.

James Madison died 30 years before the 14th was ratified, I am sure he did not write the original draft of the amendment.

 

[jwoodie]

The topic of the thread was the SCOTUS ruling.

No, it was whether Roberts was making decisions based on some judicial philosophy or whether he had ulterior motives. That is why I also referred to his ACA decision. Do you think that was correct, too?

 

[justoffal]

It is one thing to have been a wishy-washy, middle of the road crowd-pleaser like like Justice Kennedy, but Chief Justice Roberts seems to be playing his own Game of Thrones without any discernible judicial philosophy. First, he plays word games to uphold the ACA in order to preserve a campaign issue against President Obama, then he denies President Trump a perfectly legitimate question about Citizenship for the 2020 Census.

Where is he coming from? The answer that comes to mind is that he wants to be a political player, playing both sides against each other (a la James Comey). In a way, this may be more disturbing than an unyielding adherence to one's personal judicial philosophy.

Comments?

Personally? I think someone found some skeletons in his closet.

He's gay.... It's very obvious.
There was some prattle about
A trist that someone had footage of.
Next thing you know....we have Obamacare.

Jo

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The topic of the thread was the SCOTUS ruling.

No, it was whether Roberts was making decisions based on some judicial philosophy or whether he had ulterior motives. That is why I also referred to his ACA decision. Do you think that was correct, too?

No, I disagreed with that one. But it seems consistent with his judicial philosophy

 

[jwoodie]

No, I disagreed with that one. But it seems consistent with his judicial philosophy

..which is?

 

[Oldstyle]

It is one thing to have been a wishy-washy, middle of the road crowd-pleaser like like Justice Kennedy, but Chief Justice Roberts seems to be playing his own Game of Thrones without any discernible judicial philosophy. First, he plays word games to uphold the ACA in order to preserve a campaign issue against President Obama, then he denies President Trump a perfectly legitimate question about Citizenship for the 2020 Census.

Where is he coming from? The answer that comes to mind is that he wants to be a political player, playing both sides against each other (a la James Comey). In a way, this may be more disturbing than an unyielding adherence to one's personal judicial philosophy.

Comments?

Roberts made a legally sound decision. There was no compelling reason by the current Admin given for adding the question at this late date.

No compelling reason? Do you know what the census is used for? It's how they decide how many Congressional seats the different States receive...the more people counted in the census in your State...the more Congressional seats you get. Why do you think California has so many seats in Congress? That's the reason Democrats don't want that question too be on the census! They don't want those illegals to be excluded from the counts because that will almost certainly cost them seats in Congress!

 

[jwoodie]

James Madison died 30 years before the 14th was ratified, I am sure he did not write the original draft of the amendment.

What does the 14th Amendment have to do with the census?