Justice Roberts second guesses policy making decision on census, violates separation of powers

[Crepitus]

Except that legislative power had nothing to do with anything here.

Uhhh. Yes. It does.

It is the Congress legislative power to determine if a census question on citizenship is legal. And POTUS's power to sign or veto it. Not the SCOTUS's.

You're kidding right?

It is scotus's job to determine constitutionality, no one else's.

Really creep? And just where did the courts derive such extraordinary power? I know you have never read the Constitution, but it provides no such authority to the court.

Seriously?

The power of judicial review has been the purview of the court since the early 1800s. See Marbury v. Madison.

 

[MAGAman]

You couldn't destroy anything except a golden corral buffet.

Their Chocolate Bugger Fountain is legendary.

 

[MAGAman]

Seriously?

The power of judicial review has been the purview of the court since the early 1800s. See Marbury v. Madison.

Judicial review is a review of the adherence to the constitution and legislation of the action they're reviewing, not the wisdom or political nature of it.

 

[johnwk]

Republicans fucked themselves on this by using any excuse to justify the question and acting as if the idea of a deliberate under-count of the census never occurred to them. No one likes to be bullshitted to their face.

Excuse? It’s the only question pertinent to the purpose of the census. Not how many bathrooms my house has, not how many cars I have, not the size of my tv and not whether I have cable or satellite. Those are bullshit questions.

Additionally, how can the 2nd Section of the 14th Amendment be carried out without distinguishing citizens from non-citizens?

JWK

 

[Crepitus]

Seriously?

The power of judicial review has been the purview of the court since the early 1800s. See Marbury v. Madison.

Judicial review is a review of the adherence to the constitution and legislation of the action they're reviewing, not the wisdom or political nature of it.

I'm aware of that. You should read the post i was responding too before replying.

 

[Lewdog]

Republicans fucked themselves on this by using any excuse to justify the question and acting as if the idea of a deliberate under-count of the census never occurred to them. No one likes to be bullshitted to their face.

No they fucked themselves when Wilbur Ross got busted for lying. He said the DoJ asked him to put the citizenship question on the census, when in fact there was proof that Ross asked the DoJ to make the request to him.

I swear the Trump cabinet is like the Keystone cops, and goes to show you that most rich people are rich because they were born into it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Skewing the results defeats the purpose of the census. It's just another example of republicans targeting democracy itself because they think it is against them.

It defeats the goals of your evil party.

The purpose of the census is to determine representation. Illegals are not citizens and have no representation outside of the consulate of their governments.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It appears with all the noise about the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision.

Except that legislative power had nothing to do with anything here.

Oh, but it does. Congress delegated almost unlimited power to Executive Office with regard to the census. Additionally, this is a policy making decision, and our courts are not there to second guess policy making decisions.

JWK

Purposely trying to make the census inaccurate is NOT just a policy making decision. Well, it is, but it is illegal as hell. The Census is mandated every ten years.

I'm not sure why there is such a big fuss over asking the question this year. Our illegal population is actually shrinking they say and the question doesn't ask if you are here illegally. Is this more shrieking by the Never Trumpers?

Shrinking?

Ohh, lie some more. Obamugabe gets hard when you lie....

 

[Wry Catcher]

It appears with all the noise about the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision.

In regard to this assumption of power Justice Stone reminds us that:

”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)


Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:


”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”

And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.



And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violate the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction by interfering with a legitimate question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...uestion/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8f8de0049215

From the Link:

President Trump just explained why he thinks we need a citizenship question on the census. But in doing so, he seems to have said the quiet part out loud — and conceivably could have undercut the Justice Department’s legal case.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said you need the census citizenship question “for many reasons.”

“Number one, you need it for Congress — you need it for Congress for districting,” he said Friday. “You need it for appropriations — where are the funds going? How many people are there? Are they citizens? Are they not citizens? You need it for many reasons.”

 

[Uncensored2008]

Seriously?

The power of judicial review has been the purview of the court since the early 1800s. See Marbury v. Madison.

So then you were stating a falsehood that judicial review is the "job" of the SCOTUS, and in fact John Marshall USURPED the power with ZERO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY?

He simply declared himself arbiter and got away with it.

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

 

[Uncensored2008]

Seriously?

The power of judicial review has been the purview of the court since the early 1800s. See Marbury v. Madison.

Judicial review is a review of the adherence to the constitution and legislation of the action they're reviewing, not the wisdom or political nature of it.

From those who wrote the DOI and Constitution;

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

 

[occupied]

Skewing the results defeats the purpose of the census. It's just another example of republicans targeting democracy itself because they think it is against them.

It defeats the goals of your evil party.

The purpose of the census is to determine representation. Illegals are not citizens and have no representation outside of the consulate of their governments.

So you are making the argument that they should not be counted? So why the Question then?

 

[Crepitus]

Seriously?

The power of judicial review has been the purview of the court since the early 1800s. See Marbury v. Madison.

So then you were stating a falsehood that judicial review is the "job" of the SCOTUS, and in fact John Marshall USURPED the power with ZERO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY?

He simply declared himself arbiter and got away with it.

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

I am aware you don't like it. That doesn't change the fact that it is.

 

[danielpalos]

It appears with all the noise about the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision.

In regard to this assumption of power Justice Stone reminds us that:

”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)


Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:


”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”

And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.



And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violate the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction by interfering with a legitimate question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.

they have jurisdiction over law and equity.

 

[johnwk]

It appears with all the noise about the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision.

In regard to this assumption of power Justice Stone reminds us that:

”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)


Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:


”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”

And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.



And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violate the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction by interfering with a legitimate question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...uestion/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8f8de0049215

From the Link:

President Trump just explained why he thinks we need a citizenship question on the census. But in doing so, he seems to have said the quiet part out loud — and conceivably could have undercut the Justice Department’s legal case.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said you need the census citizenship question “for many reasons.”

“Number one, you need it for Congress — you need it for Congress for districting,” he said Friday. “You need it for appropriations — where are the funds going? How many people are there? Are they citizens? Are they not citizens? You need it for many reasons.”

And then the question is needed to carry out the 2nd Section of the 14th Amendment . . . distinguishing citizens from non-citizens.

JWK

 

[Uncensored2008]

Skewing the results defeats the purpose of the census. It's just another example of republicans targeting democracy itself because they think it is against them.

It defeats the goals of your evil party.

The purpose of the census is to determine representation. Illegals are not citizens and have no representation outside of the consulate of their governments.

So you are making the argument that they should not be counted? So why the Question then?

I am stating the fact that they must not be considered for representation. California is not afforded 15 more congressional seats because they invited 10 million criminals into the country illegally.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Seriously?

The power of judicial review has been the purview of the court since the early 1800s. See Marbury v. Madison.

So then you were stating a falsehood that judicial review is the "job" of the SCOTUS, and in fact John Marshall USURPED the power with ZERO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY?

He simply declared himself arbiter and got away with it.

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

I am aware you don't like it. That doesn't change the fact that it is.

Again, there is no constitutional basis, it is not their "job."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It appears with all the noise about the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision.

In regard to this assumption of power Justice Stone reminds us that:

”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)


Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:


”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”

And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.



And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violate the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction by interfering with a legitimate question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.

Nonsense.

The decision has nothing to do with determining the constitutionality of an act of Congress.

The Supreme Court has the authority to review policies implemented by the executive and determine if the rationale for those policies is valid.

‘The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, said the court "cannot ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given" by the Trump administration.

"The reasoned explanation requirement of administrative law, after all, is meant to ensure that agencies offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public," the opinion continued. "Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise. If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case."

The complicated decision comes more than a year after Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Census Bureau, overruled the unanimous advice of Census Bureau experts and approved the addition of the question. Ross said the citizenship data was needed for enforcement of the Voting Right Act.

The chief justice simply couldn't swallow that claim. The evidence in the record, he said, shows that explanation to be "a pretext." Or, put another way, a sham. And Roberts said accepting the explanation would require the court to have "a naivete from which ordinary citizens are free."’

Trump Threatens Census Delay After Supreme Court Leaves Citizenship Question Blocked

It’s abundantly clear that the ‘citizenship question’ was proposed in bad faith, an effort on the part of a partisan Trump administration hostile to voting rights seeking to give Republicans a political advantage by undercounting Hispanic residents to the detriment of states with large Hispanic populations perceived to be likely Democratic voters.

The unwarranted criticism by conservatives of Roberts’ opinion has nothing to do with a ‘concern’ for separation of powers and everything to do with the right’s fear, bigotry, and hate directed at immigrants – Hispanic immigrants in particular.

 

[Lewdog]

I think a lot of people only believe that when an area is appropriated more money depending on the population, that the funds are all for social welfare programs, when in fact a lot of that appropriated money goes for projects that are for the well-being of the community. For example the number of first responders and the equipment funds they need doesn't change based on only U.S. citizens, they need to be able to handle the entire population of their community. If there is an emergency they don't ask if the person calling for help is an illegal immigrant or not, and then not show up to put out the fire or come to try and save their life... they do it for ANY member in their community and they need to have the funding and needs to handle those total numbers.

Trump and his cronies only care about trying to take away members of the House of Representatives from large Democrat states, which then will also allow redistricting under his watch that they can try to Gerrymander into their back pocket.

 

[occupied]

Skewing the results defeats the purpose of the census. It's just another example of republicans targeting democracy itself because they think it is against them.

It defeats the goals of your evil party.

The purpose of the census is to determine representation. Illegals are not citizens and have no representation outside of the consulate of their governments.

So you are making the argument that they should not be counted? So why the Question then?

I am stating the fact that they must not be considered for representation. California is not afforded 15 more congressional seats because they invited 10 million criminals into the country illegally.

Well at least you are telling the truth about why republicans want the Question.