Trump's adminitration is a clusterf*ck
- Thread starter RealDave
- Start date
Not really but I do get a laugh from you and your idiot trump supporters Hows that tax break working out LOL LOL
Just when I thought I was out you pulled me back in ,,,WTF is Dean?
BasicHumanUnit
Diamond Member
Can't STAND it when someone dares to uphold THE LAW can you? Freedom and Patriotism annoys you huh?
edward37 and those like him = Sick, Civilization threatening savages
It's called the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION for a reason.
The United States has absolutely NO OBLIGATION to care for everyone on the planet....nor CAN IT.
What part of 25 TRILLION IN DEBT ALREADY do you Commies NOT GET ??
We can't pay for ourselves, how are we gonna pay to care for the World???
Where did all these Communists COME FROM ?!?!
They won't raise the minimum wage How can you be making more And did you know the tax cut was going to pay for itself ?? LOL
H
Harpy Eagle
Guest
Can't STAND it when someone dares to uphold THE LAW can you? Freedom and Patriotism annoys you huh?
edward37 and those like him = Sick, Civilization threatening savages
It's called the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION for a reason.
The United States has absolutely NO OBLIGATION to care for everyone on the planet....nor CAN IT.
What part of 25 TRILLION IN DEBT ALREADY do you Commies NOT GET ??
We can't pay for ourselves, how are we gonna pay to care for the World???
Where did all these Communists COME FROM ?!?!
The Constitution covers people on our soil, citizens or not. The police cannot just go up to a legal immigrant and arrest them for no reason, they cannot search them without plausible cause and they cannot deny them a trial.
Here, try this. Go find a legal immigrant and shoot them and see if they are covered.
Forbidding those people from answering subpoenas is what?? IMO a scumbag trying to avoid losing even the schmuks who voted for him Supporting a Putin loving POS is what? Patriotism ?
Can't STAND it when someone dares to uphold THE LAW can you? Freedom and Patriotism annoys you huh?
edward37 and those like him = Sick, Civilization threatening savages
It's called the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION for a reason.
The United States has absolutely NO OBLIGATION to care for everyone on the planet....nor CAN IT.
What part of 25 TRILLION IN DEBT ALREADY do you Commies NOT GET ??
We can't pay for ourselves, how are we gonna pay to care for the World???
Where did all these Communists COME FROM ?!?!
joaquinmiller
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2013
- 6,807
- 7,208
- 2,055
I think it means you're confused. You maintained the USSC refused to hear the case. They heard it, and they issued a 5-4 decision. From my link:
Jun 27 2019 Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III, IV–B, and IV–C, in which Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined; with respect to Part IV–A, in which Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined; and with respect to Part V, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Breyer, J.,
filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED means they heard the case. If they had refused to hear it, they would not have issued a Writ of Certiorari. The oral arguments at the time they heard the case were in all the papers. I'm surprised you missed it.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
You know you don't actually have to prove you qualify to claim them, right?
E Child tax credit. See Pub. 972, Child Tax Credit, for more information. • If your total income will be less than $71,201 ($103,351 if married filing jointly), enter “4” for each eligible child. • If your total income will be from $71,201 to $179,050 ($103,351 to $345,850 if married filing jointly), enter “2” for each eligible child. • If your total income will be from $179,051 to $200,000 ($345,851 to $400,000 if married filing jointly), enter “1” for each eligible child.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf (page 3)
The SCOTUS agreed that states had a basis to claim damages, but that saying that illegals or 3rd parties won't respond is a valid reason to remove the citizenship question isn't a valid reason. Pg 10 paragraph 2:
The Government contends, however, that any harm to respondents is not fairly traceable to the Secretary’s deci-sion, because such harm depends on the independent action of third parties choosing to violate their legal duty to respond to the census. The chain of causation is made even more tenuous, the Government argues, by the fact that such intervening, unlawful third-party action would be motivated by unfounded fears that the Federal Gov-ernment will itself break the law by using noncitizens’ answers against them for law enforcement purposes. The Government invokes our steady refusal to “endorse stand-ing theories that rest on speculation about the decisions of independent actors,” Clapperv. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 414 (2013), particularly speculation aboutfuture unlawful conduct, Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 105 (1983).
But we are satisfied that, in these circumstances, re-spondents have met their burden of showing that third parties will likely react in predictable ways to the citizen-ship question, even if they do so unlawfully and despite the requirement that the Government keep individual answers confidential. The evidence at trial established that noncitizen households have historically responded to the census at lower rates than other groups, and the Dis-trict Court did not clearly err in crediting the Census Bureau’s theory that the discrepancy is likely attributable at least in part to noncitizens’ reluctance to answer a citizenship question. Respondents’ theory of standing Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 11 Opinion of the Courtthus does not rest on mere speculation about the decisions of third parties; it relies instead on the predictable effect of Government action on the decisions of third parties. Cf.Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 169–170 (1997); Davis, 554 U. S., at 734–735. Because Article III “requires no more than de facto causality,” Block v. Meese, 793 F. 2d 1303, 1309 (CADC 1986) (Scalia, J.), traceability is satis-fied here. We may therefore consider the merits of re-spondents’ claims, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.
But we are satisfied that, in these circumstances, re-spondents have met their burden of showing that third parties will likely react in predictable ways to the citizen-ship question, even if they do so unlawfully and despite the requirement that the Government keep individual answers confidential. The evidence at trial established that noncitizen households have historically responded to the census at lower rates than other groups, and the Dis-trict Court did not clearly err in crediting the Census Bureau’s theory that the discrepancy is likely attributable at least in part to noncitizens’ reluctance to answer a citizenship question. Respondents’ theory of standing Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 11 Opinion of the Courtthus does not rest on mere speculation about the decisions of third parties; it relies instead on the predictable effect of Government action on the decisions of third parties. Cf.Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 169–170 (1997); Davis, 554 U. S., at 734–735. Because Article III “requires no more than de facto causality,” Block v. Meese, 793 F. 2d 1303, 1309 (CADC 1986) (Scalia, J.), traceability is satis-fied here. We may therefore consider the merits of re-spondents’ claims, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.
joaquinmiller
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2013
- 6,807
- 7,208
- 2,055
You may not have noticed, but redfish wasn't arguing the merits or details of the decision, he was maintaining the USSC refused to hear the case. Your quotes may end his confusion.
Maybe his confusion...but Justice Roberts kept this confusion going by siding with the left once again.
I don't think that it's a valid point to say that illegals will avoid filling out the forms and using that as a reason not to have the question on the form.
The same could be said if you claimed that illegals would simply lie on the form.
So Justice Roberts is trying to make a claim that has no logic.
At any rate.....this is a delay tactic by sending it back to be hashed over at a lower court.
BasicHumanUnit
Diamond Member
BECAUSE..........
They "might" be a US citizen. A Police officer cannot just assume they are not. Once it is ESTABLISHED that they are here ILLEGALLY, they CAN BE DETAINED.
Again, the Constitution is protecting AMERICANS. That means they cannot just arbitrarily arrest people on suspicion.
You are terribly confused or willfully agreeable with the invasion apparently.
As always, arguing with Communists and America haters is pointless at the end of the day.
Last edited:
BasicHumanUnit
Diamond Member
It's just an opinion....but I think Roberts presence on the Supreme Court is a travesty and the traitor is among the worst to ever be there.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Zone1 "Messianic Theology is now Israeli State Policy",.... And I Believe that it has been Prophesied of.
- Started by TruthSeeker112125
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
