The Roberts census opinion is an attack on our representative system of government

[bravoactual]

He ruled on Constitutionality of the Question. That is what you meat heads do not understand.

 

[Faun]

1 The administration was defending the Question with arguments so silly Roberts just could not give them credence while studiously avoiding the obvious and publicly known reason for the Question.

2 No it was a disastrous ruling that no democrat is happy to receive. While democratic gerrymandering is not unknown it is they who are leading the effort to make redistricting more fair. It is surely a complex issue but one thing is clear, republicans see nothing wrong with it whatsoever. Under their system politicians get to choose their voters instead of voters choosing them. Isn't that cool?

1. AG Barr it is said, has the magic key to adding the citizenship question. Hopefully its as simple as "it was in the census more than it was not" and "President Trump, and all presidents have the Article 2 power to add or remove the question".

What is gained by adding that question?

What damage is done by adding that question?

None, which is why I said I have no problem with adding it. I'm just laughing at all the rightards here who want it added because they were told it will weed out illegal aliens from being counted towards apportioning representation. Yet another example of the herd blindly following marching orders.

I'm just an inquiring mind who would like to get a better idea how many non-citizens are in this country. There should be no harm in nailing that number down a little better than the guesses we have now.

We already know how many non-U.S. citizens are here legally. What we don't know exactly is how many are here illegally. 12 million is th he latest estimate in 2015 by DHS. Asking that question on the census is not going to help counting illegal aliens. It never has which is why we never had an exact count.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. AG Barr it is said, has the magic key to adding the citizenship question. Hopefully its as simple as "it was in the census more than it was not" and "President Trump, and all presidents have the Article 2 power to add or remove the question".

What is gained by adding that question?

What damage is done by adding that question?

None, which is why I said I have no problem with adding it. I'm just laughing at all the rightards here who want it added because they were told it will weed out illegal aliens from being counted towards apportioning representation. Yet another example of the herd blindly following marching orders.

I'm just an inquiring mind who would like to get a better idea how many non-citizens are in this country. There should be no harm in nailing that number down a little better than the guesses we have now.

We already know how many non-U.S. citizens are here legally. What we don't know exactly is how many are here illegally. 12 million is th he latest estimate in 2015 by DHS. Asking that question on the census is not going to help counting illegal aliens. It never has which is why we never had an exact count.

Some suspect that number is much MUCH higher than 11 or 12 million. But if confronted, even if they lie, at least they will be counted. Not only do I think the Democrats want to use the illegals for apportionment and maybe some extra votes in their districts--most illegals do stake out territory in the more liberal/progressive areas--but I think they are resisting the citizenship question because they don't want to put those illegals at higher risk of deportation and they really REALLY don't want the American people to know how many of them there are, as that would not look good for the Democrats proposing amnesty, more social services for illegals, and their refusal to help President Trump close the border to illegal traffic.

 

[kyzr]

1. The citizenship question is a defense of our citizenship rights and representation, it was an attack on "open borders" and "illegal representation".
2. Democrats also got the right to unlimited partisan gerrymandering, that is a fair ruling by the USSC.

1 The administration was defending the Question with arguments so silly Roberts just could not give them credence while studiously avoiding the obvious and publicly known reason for the Question.

2 No it was a disastrous ruling that no democrat is happy to receive. While democratic gerrymandering is not unknown it is they who are leading the effort to make redistricting more fair. It is surely a complex issue but one thing is clear, republicans see nothing wrong with it whatsoever. Under their system politicians get to choose their voters instead of voters choosing them. Isn't that cool?

1. AG Barr it is said, has the magic key to adding the citizenship question. Hopefully its as simple as "it was in the census more than it was not" and "President Trump, and all presidents have the Article 2 power to add or remove the question".

What is gained by adding that question?

What damage is done by adding that question?

None, which is why I said I have no problem with adding it. I'm just laughing at all the rightards here who want it added because they were told it will weed out illegal aliens from being counted towards apportioning representation. Yet another example of the herd blindly following marching orders.

Its not a slam-dunk that the congressional districts are based on counting non-citizens. That makes no sense to me or Trump, we'll see how it plays out.
The question you did not answer is "how is Federal Aid apportioned?" by citizens only, or non-citizens too?
Lastly, the 14th Amendment (Sections 1 & 2) mentions "citizens" so I do not want my "rights and privileges" affected by counting non-citizens.

 

[kyzr]

He ruled on Constitutionality of the Question. That is what you meat heads do not understand.

Yes it's Constitutional.
"Chief Justice John Roberts split the baby — again. In a dramatic and complicated opinion in a much watched census case, he first held that the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census was constitutionally and statutorily permissible and was supported by sufficient evidence. He was joined by the U.S. Supreme Court’s other conservatives."
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Faun]

What is gained by adding that question?

What damage is done by adding that question?

None, which is why I said I have no problem with adding it. I'm just laughing at all the rightards here who want it added because they were told it will weed out illegal aliens from being counted towards apportioning representation. Yet another example of the herd blindly following marching orders.

I'm just an inquiring mind who would like to get a better idea how many non-citizens are in this country. There should be no harm in nailing that number down a little better than the guesses we have now.

We already know how many non-U.S. citizens are here legally. What we don't know exactly is how many are here illegally. 12 million is th he latest estimate in 2015 by DHS. Asking that question on the census is not going to help counting illegal aliens. It never has which is why we never had an exact count.

Some suspect that number is much MUCH higher than 11 or 12 million. But if confronted, even if they lie, at least they will be counted. Not only do I think the Democrats want to use the illegals for apportionment and maybe some extra votes in their districts--most illegals do stake out territory in the more liberal/progressive areas--but I think they are resisting the citizenship question because they don't want to put those illegals at higher risk of deportation and they really REALLY don't want the American people to know how many of them there are, as that would not look good for the Democrats proposing amnesty, more social services for illegals, and their refusal to help President Trump close the border to illegal traffic.

Who cares what you think the number is? The DHS's latest figure is 12 million.

Trump's DHS.

 

[whitehall]

Years ago Robert's opinion would have been accepted or ignored. Americans are better informed than the time when a former KKK Justice appointed by FDR found a clause in the Constitution that did not exist and created the "separation of church and state" we live with today. Roberts has voiced the opinion of today's left but you can't easily get rid of Roberts, however, it's easy to get rid of democrats in the polling booth. Get informed and get active.

 

[johnwk]

He ruled on Constitutionality of the Question. That is what you meat heads do not understand.

Why are you making crap up? in fact, Justice Roberts indicated putting the question on the census form does not violate the Constitution. His objection was
:

We do not hold that the agency decision here was substantively invalid. But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably. Reasoned decision making under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction.


Roberts decided to exercise a legislative function ___ debating and deciding the reasonableness, justice and fairness of a policy making decision ___ which is an exclusive assignment placed in our elected representatives hands. The only job for our Supreme Court is to determine if policy/legislation violates the terms of our Constitution.

"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 devastating consequences of Roberts' decision was eloquently summarized by Justice Thomas.


Justice Thomas, in his dissent, identifies the can of worms opened by Justice Roberts:

“Now that the Court has opened up this avenue of attack, opponents of executive actions have strong incentives to craft narratives that would derail them. Moreover, even if the effort to invalidate the action is ultimately unsuccessful, the Court’s decision enables partisans to use the courts to harangue executive officers through depositions, discovery, delay, and distraction. The Court’s decision could even implicate separation-of-powers concerns insofar as it enables judicial interference with the enforcement of the laws. In short, today’s decision is a departure from traditional principles of administrative law. Hopefully it comes to be understood as an aberration—a ticket good for this day and this train only. *

Because the Secretary’s decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census was legally sound and a reasoned exercise of his broad discretion, I respectfully dissent from Part V of the opinion of the Court."

The bottom line is, the Roberts’ decision is an outright attack on our democratic system and attempts to overturn the consequences of our last election.

The proper remedy, for those who disagree with placing the question on the ballot, was to have Congress, our elected representatives, visit the issue. Placing the question on the census form, we all agree, does not violate the Constitution. And Roberts ought to have explained this to those who disagree with putting the question on the census form. Instead, he exercised a function assigned to our elected representatives.

JWK

"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . 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)

 

[wamose]

Roberts is obviously an idiot who thinks illegal Democratic votes are more important than the security of the American people.

 

[kyzr]

American citizens lost to open borders and the hoards of migrants soon to come from all over the world.
I wonder how many fucking illegals ICE can remove before the census?
Roberts is 0-2, he saved Obamacare, and now removed the citizenship question from the 2020 census. What a fucking liberal moron.