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

[Dana7360]

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.

trump and his cohorts lied to the court about why they are trying to do this. It has nothing to do with what you posted. It has nothing to do with the voting rights law as the trump administration lied about to the court.

There is only one reason why trump tried to do this. To cheat. To deny blue states their rightful representation in congress and to deny proper funding to blue states.

The truth was exposed on a hard drive from the dead man who came up with this scheme.

At least one conservative judge on the Supreme Court doesn't like to be lied to.

trump shouldn't have sent his lawyers and cohorts to the court to lie. If he had been honest maybe things would have worked out differently but he lied. So now you have to deal with the consequences of your actions.

If you don't like it, stop voting for people who are incapable of telling truth.

All that to

S

A

Y

Blue states are well fare whores?

.

All that to say that red states are the welfare states.

Blue states aren't.

You knew that but made that ridiculous post anyway.

 

[Dekster]

My only real problem with the ruling is that Roberts stated that it might be legal for other reasons, just not the one given. It is legal or not. The reason should not matter.

The intent behind this question matters a great deal. They intended to make the census results inaccurate.

No they intended to make it more accurate. That is what scared the dems so much--America seeing real data. Without the question, this becomes the Climate Change Model Census.

 

[Dekster]

My only real problem with the ruling is that Roberts stated that it might be legal for other reasons, just not the one given. It is legal or not. The reason should not matter.

Wrong.

Policies enacted by the executive in bad faith are not valid, the ‘citizenship question’ being one such example.

The purpose of the ‘question’ was to intimidate Hispanic residents and exploit their fear of a Trump administration hostile to immigrants and immigration, where lawful permanent resident aliens and those undocumented seeking asylum would not participate in the census fearful of punitive actions by the Trump administration.

The intent of the ‘question,’ therefore, was to disadvantage blue states with regard to Congressional representation and allocation of Federal funds and programs predicated on a state’s population determined by the census.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution says nothing about counting only citizens, nor does it authorize the exclusion of persons from the census because of their immigration status, or a lack thereof.

The purpose of the census is to count the people. It is not to allocate funds, but at least you backhandedly acknowledge that this is about blue greed.

 

[Dekster]

My only real problem with the ruling is that Roberts stated that it might be legal for other reasons, just not the one given. It is legal or not. The reason should not matter.

The Administrative Procedure Act says the reason does matter, and sets forth criteria for establishing reasons, asking for comment from potentially-aggrieved parties, etc. Roberts said using a phony pretext doesn't comply with the Act.

If the Admin had been honest from the start (that's a pretty good one, isn't it?), it would likely not have run afoul of the USSC. It compounded the error by insisting time was of the essence - to allow for printing of the forms. After the decision went against the Admin, Trump decided timing was no longer relevant. Trump can't keep a story straight for five minutes.

No the administrative procedures act requires that it be an abuse of discretion not a use of discretion the democrats do not like. It is a question that has been added and removed from the census before ergo there was no abuse.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Barr must investigate Roberts to see if he or his family have been bought off

 

[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.

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

And you are admitting why democrats want illegal immigrants.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Once the court said the question was legal, that should have been the end of it. You don't have to give a justification to ask a perfectly legal question on the census.

.

 

[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.

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.

trump and his cohorts lied to the court about why they are trying to do this. It has nothing to do with what you posted. It has nothing to do with the voting rights law as the trump administration lied about to the court.

There is only one reason why trump tried to do this. To cheat. To deny blue states their rightful representation in congress and to deny proper funding to blue states.

The truth was exposed on a hard drive from the dead man who came up with this scheme.

At least one conservative judge on the Supreme Court doesn't like to be lied to.

trump shouldn't have sent his lawyers and cohorts to the court to lie. If he had been honest maybe things would have worked out differently but he lied. So now you have to deal with the consequences of your actions.

If you don't like it, stop voting for people who are incapable of telling truth.

Comrade, you view illegal aliens as "rightful?"

How stupid are you?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I dont get it. Why would you want non citizens to fill out our census. I live in a tourist area with numerous Europeans visiting, why would we want tourist, visitors, or criminal occupiers filling out our census?

democrats hate America. They view themselves as "citizens of the world." the Marxist dream of a one world dictatorship still festers in them. They make no distinction between an American citizen and a foreign national. democrats are trying to erase the border, and in doing so erase America.

 

[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.

Once the court said the question was legal, that should have been the end of it. You don't have to give a justification to ask a perfectly legal question on the census.

.

The fact is, the Court is not "supporting this Constitution" when it subjugates the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, have been adopted.

And in the case of Justice Roberts, it is not within his job to second guess the wisdom or merits of asking, on our census form, "Is this person a citizen of the United States". His only job is to confirm if putting the question on the census form is within the powers assigned to our federal government.

JWK

The Democrat Leadership is correct! The border crisis has been manufactured. It has been manufactured by the Democrat Leadership in Congress refusing to protect our borders against an ongoing invasion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Nobody said anything never occurred to them.

The point you ignore is that it's a legitimate question.

No it isn't. It's designed to skew the results. The mission of the census is to be as accurate as possible and totally non-partisan. There is no way the question would yield an accurate result so why have it? The answer is obvious. Republicans want an under-count in immigrant communities for when districts are redrawn and when federal money gets spent.

Wait you admit blue states are welfare states?

No.

Actually it's the red states that are the welfare states that take more money than they contribute. Most red states heavily depend on the federal government to balance their state budgets. Red states don't properly tax their populations and businesses.

It's us blue states who are self sufficient and don't heavily depend on federal tax dollars to balance our state budgets.

Most & Least Federally Dependent States

Nope, that's a fucking lie.

You use worn out leftist bullshit to fabricate a tale that has no relationship to reality, Military bases are not welfare. Aerospace contracts are not welfare. Research grants to universities, well maybe those ARE welfare, but they sure aren't going to normals.

What IS welfare is the federal government supplying the state taxes to the Marxist states.

Prior to the 2018 Tax Reform, people in the America states were paying the taxes of the coastal elites who so bitterly hate them. That's right, people in New York didn't mind a 22% state income tax, after all, they deducted it from their federal taxes, so that folks in Montana could pay it for them.

UNTIL tax reform capped SALT deductions to $10,000

 

[OKTexas]

Well then you just lost your own argument. The question has not been on the Census since the 1950's, so the President would have to have an authorization from Congress to add the question, and cannot do so by Executive Order.

Thanks for playing.

You lefties are so cute when you think you have a 'gotcha'.

Congress has previously forwarded authority in this matter to the Executive Branch via legislation. It will take new legislation to remove it.

I understand but don't have a link to the Obama admin using a citizenship question on mini-census forms.

Obama's Census Bureau Asked About Citizenship in Yearly Survey | NTK Network

.

 

[occupied]

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.

Once the court said the question was legal, that should have been the end of it. You don't have to give a justification to ask a perfectly legal question on the census.

.

The decision by Roberts said that the court cannot naively ignore the known intent of a policy when it is totally different than the bullshit reason given. Apparently you do have to justify things when democracy itself is in question.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Once the court said the question was legal, that should have been the end of it. You don't have to give a justification to ask a perfectly legal question on the census.

.

The fact is, the Court is not "supporting this Constitution" when it subjugates the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, have been adopted.

And in the case of Justice Roberts, it is not within his job to second guess the wisdom or merits of asking, on our census form, "Is this person a citizen of the United States". His only job is to confirm if putting the question on the census form is within the powers assigned to our federal government.

JWK

The Democrat Leadership is correct! The border crisis has been manufactured. It has been manufactured by the Democrat Leadership in Congress refusing to protect our borders against an ongoing invasion.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's not a count of tourists or temporary visa holders, the Census is a count of all RESIDENTS living in each state.... per the constitution on what the census count should include.... not just citizens... but all residents.

You have no idea what the Constitution says, you've never read it, nor would you.


{Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.}

I know the Constitution on you Stalinists is like salt on a slug (no offense to slugs), but I love seeing you foam up and squirm...

 

[johnwk]

My only real problem with the ruling is that Roberts stated that it might be legal for other reasons, just not the one given. It is legal or not. The reason should not matter.

Wrong.

Policies enacted by the executive in bad faith are not valid, .

Bad faith, good faith, or sheer stupidity is not for the court to decide!


With regard to second guessing legislative acts and the separation of powers, 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)




Also see: 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. Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997).

And Justice Hugo Black, was apparently speaking to you when he wrote:

"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




JWK




…..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. _________ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Once the court said the question was legal, that should have been the end of it. You don't have to give a justification to ask a perfectly legal question on the census.

.

The decision by Roberts said that the court cannot naively ignore the known intent of a policy when it is totally different than the bullshit reason given. Apparently you do have to justify things when democracy itself is in question.

Legality is the only question the court should consider, anything else is the court getting political. Many policy decisions made by the government are made on political calculations, they court has no business intervening unless there is a violation of law.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment demands that the numbers for representation be reduced by the number of people not eligible to vote for electors. That would include non-citizens in the US, legal or not. They can be counted for all other purposes.

.

.

 

[occupied]

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.

Once the court said the question was legal, that should have been the end of it. You don't have to give a justification to ask a perfectly legal question on the census.

.

The decision by Roberts said that the court cannot naively ignore the known intent of a policy when it is totally different than the bullshit reason given. Apparently you do have to justify things when democracy itself is in question.

Legality is the only question the court should consider, anything else is the court getting political. Many policy decisions made by the government are made on political calculations, they court has no business intervening unless there is a violation of law.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment demands that the numbers for representation be reduced by the number of people not eligible to vote for electors. That would include non-citizens in the US, legal or not. They can be counted for all other purposes.

.

.

That is just an opinion that is not shared by the supreme court. Again, the true intent of the Question is known by everyone, even you. These spurious arguments are losers. The court has already said not to bullshit them.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Once the court said the question was legal, that should have been the end of it. You don't have to give a justification to ask a perfectly legal question on the census.

.

The decision by Roberts said that the court cannot naively ignore the known intent of a policy when it is totally different than the bullshit reason given. Apparently you do have to justify things when democracy itself is in question.

Legality is the only question the court should consider, anything else is the court getting political. Many policy decisions made by the government are made on political calculations, they court has no business intervening unless there is a violation of law.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment demands that the numbers for representation be reduced by the number of people not eligible to vote for electors. That would include non-citizens in the US, legal or not. They can be counted for all other purposes.

.

.

That is just an opinion that is not shared by the supreme court. Again, the true intent of the Question is known by everyone, even you. These spurious arguments are losers. The court has already said not to bullshit them.

I find it funny how you commies cried about the court not getting into political decisions on gerrymandering yet you applaud them getting into political decisions now. Roberts had no legal justification to deny the question. PERIOD

I also noticed you, like all the other commies, just ignored the provisions of the 14th Amendment that would mandate the citizenship question to get a proper count for representation.

.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Justice Roberts said the reason why he went with Obama on obamacare was that the ultimate judge are the voters who voted for Obama views

Now

The voters have voted for trumps agenda and views and he totally goes against the reason he made to vote with Obama

Which proves the guy is a total fraud and corrupt to the core

Him and his family and friends should be investigated to see if he has enriched himself and family over their salaries. And if so Barr must charge him with high treason and get that strong penalty