Law Trump administration gives up on 2020 Census question

[panamaican]

what do you mean?


the approved gerrymandering this increases your chance for 2020

By printing the questionnaire without the question, it makes the existing case "moot", meaning that there is nothing to litigate because the issue has already been resolved. This basically saves them from having the District Court have to rule on if the Administration lied about why they were adding the question. Which would have happened because even the SCOTUS called the stated reason a "pretext".

They don't need a judicial ruling saying "The administration lied about why they added a citizenship question. They knew it would hurt the Census and Democrats and were willing to risk the accuracy of the Census for that partisan goal. Then they claimed that they cared about the Voting Rights Act to cover up their lie."

There's no way the GOP wants something like that on the record. So drop the case because the court rules on the "pretext" issue and move on.

 

[JamesRussler]

A few weeks ago, a federal judge in Alabama allowed a suit to go forward challenging use of illegal aliens in reapportionment of seats in the House of Representatives:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/census-alabama-immigrants-lawsuit-advances

The suit was brought on grounds that "including undocumented immigrants in the census count will cause Alabama to lose an electoral college vote and a U.S. House member to a state with a 'larger illegal alien population.' "

A federal judge in Alabama is allowing to move forward a lawsuit that seeks to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census count used to apportion political power in the United States.

U.S. District Judge David Proctor denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit Wednesday, NPR reported.

The lawsuit was brought by the state of Alabama and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL). They allege that including undocumented immigrants in the census count will cause Alabama to lose an electoral college vote and a U.S. House member to a state with a “larger illegal alien population.”

The U.S. Constitution, in its enumeration clause, dictates that the “whole Number” of people is used to determine how to apportion U.S. representatives across the country.

On Wednesday, Proctor said he was expressing “no view on the merits” of Alabama’s claims in the case, but that he had found that the challengers had established standing, allowing the case to advance to its next procedural stages.

The lawsuit is separate from the several challenges brought against the Trump administration for adding a citizenship question to the census — an issue that is now before the Supreme Court. In the Alabama case, civil rights groups have intervened to defend the Census’ current system of including undocumented immigrants in its count for congressional apportionment.

First thing I'll say about this is I think it's a great argument, it appeals to common sense, and it has a pretty solid foundation in the text of the Constitution. Second thing I'll say is that contrary to conventional wisdom on the Left, this issue is not settled. It has never been squarely decided, even though the issue has been raised, at least tangentially, in similar cases (including the recent "census question" case).

Third thing I'll say is, unfortunately, I don't have much faith in this Court to get it right if this case gets to the SCOTUS. I hate to say it, but John Roberts is not a dependable judge. He's the type of judge to rule that "The Constitution doesn't forbid apportionment of seats based on the population of illegal aliens, even if that's contrary to the whole idea of representative government, derp de derp." On the bright side, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg kicks off and gets replaced with a bonafide Conservative before the next reapportionment, we may not need a citizenship question on the census after all.

Just something to keep your eye on, since this census question saga is apparently done.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

That's cute you think the massive military force in California won't split right and subjugate California.

Is this another right wing version of climate change will sink the coasts in 5 years? Along with muslims and illegal immigrants will take over Congress in 15-20 year?

 

[TheFirstEMP]

Fuck Mexico. Fuck illegal invaders. But mostly, fuck the traitorous left for the direction they're leading this country in.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Fuck Mexico. Fuck illegal invaders. But mostly, fuck the traitorous left for the direction they're leading this country in.

I thought Trump was the leader...........

 

[LangfordBarrow]

That's cute you think the massive military force in California won't split right and subjugate California.

Maybe even Canada too.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

I thought Trump was the leader...........

What you do on your weeknights is your own business.

 

[oldshadow]

“Now we don’t want open borders, why would we”

Like we anyone including the democrats actually believe that.

They just don’t want to actually say it.

 

[Happy Man]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trum...BZSomgSLbqhn9z7gvvKjLXwtcOoJkoEk2JfyViGHIPp4b

Look at the bright side right wingers. massive illegal immigration will only accelerate the partition of US and the leaving of the reconquista land. Then the US can be reformed with a more homogenous population in the midwest, non californian west, south, and northern non coastal states.

Technically, if they left the US, we could then invade and then push them all back across the border.

We wouldn’t be attacking our own citizens then. Constitution would be safe

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Maybe even Canada too.

That would be a lot of harder.

There are several major military bases in California. The only situation I can foresee for an actual civil war would be a military coup. In which case, California would be decidedly under the control of the insurgent military.

I don't think it will ever actually come to that though.

 

[hillelslovak87]

What you do on your weeknights is your own business.

I spend my weeknights moaning about how "the left" is traitorous and hates America, like it's 2004 again.

We should be friends.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

It's only reasonable if everyone goes back to their ancestral homeland and all those boundaries are redefined.

Bring back the Ottoman empire & Ancient Rome while we are at it.

And the Mexicans that are of European decent can fuck right off back to Spain. We'll see what they can accomplish when the fraction of their population that is actually indigenous remains.

Moving to take territory from a nation is an act of war. For fucks sake it's long overdue that our government take off the gloves with Mexico & "northern" Mexico.

In all seriousness. We could subjugate all of the Americas and raise the standard of living for everyone. I'm sick of Narcos and welfare leeches looking at us like an easy meal.

What about the mestizo majority? Cut them in half?

In seriousness, Mexico is mostly native and mestizo but it's ruled by white Spaniards. That is, they can't even kick out their leaders in their own countries, no way they can split from the US. They wouldn't want either as they don't control shit in California, the moment independence is declared all the guys that actually make California prosperous (whites, jews, asians), like in Silicon Valley (not many Mexicans there), move to the US with all the money and skills.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

I spend my weeknights moaning about how "the left" is traitorous and hates America, like it's 2004 again.

We should be friends.

No more borders, close the centers, tear down the border wall, healthcare for all illegals protests the left.
And yet ever increasing homelessness amongst Americans in major liberal cities, and...crickets.
Sounds like the left is catering more to illegal immigrants than American citizens.

 

[hillelslovak87]

No more borders, close the centers, tear down the border wall, healthcare for all illegals protests the left.
And yet ever increasing homelessness amongst Americans in major liberal cities, and...crickets.
Sounds like the left is catering more to illegal immigrants than American citizens.

I agree. Everyone on the left, despite nobody of import saying it, want open borders, to close unnamed centers, to tear down the wall unbuilt, and get all illegals on Cobra instead of clogging up ER systems. The left also wants more homelessness, which is only in leftist cities, despite them perhaps being in red states and subject to county, state and federal laws.

The left wants all of this, despite not really asking or promoting for it at all. Traitorous pieces of shit hate the CBP so much in particular, they approved a 42bil DHS funding bill with 21b for the CBP with the Republicans. Good on Trump for refusing to sign that TREASON!

 

[Fugazy]

No more borders, close the centers, tear down the border wall, healthcare for all illegals protests the left.
And yet ever increasing homelessness amongst Americans in major liberal cities, and...crickets.
Sounds like the left is catering more to illegal immigrants than American citizens.

I don't get their platform one bit.

People think money will appear out of thin air. The money for this will only come from one place, the already overburdened middle class.

Democrats won't tax the donor class just like Republicans won't.

The people most offended should be the middle class and working poor, and the black and brown people who have been here for generations. Paying taxes into a system that gives it away to leeches (corporations and people who choose to stay poor) and with the help of dems, now any people who just show up in our country.

Shame.

 

[MicroBrew]

I don't get their platform one bit.

People think money will appear out of thin air. The money for this will only come from one place, the already overburdened middle class.

Democrats won't tax the donor class just like Republicans won't.

The people most offended should be the middle class and working poor, and the black and brown people who have been here for generations. Paying taxes into a system that gives it away to leeches (corporations and people who choose to stay poor) and with the help of dems, now any people who just show up in our country.

Shame.

You are never going to see any change unless we have some kind of far-reaching Campaign Finance Reform .

All contributions should be made illegal. Just have the tax payer give a set amount to all candidates. Have the public TV and Radio stations give a set amount of air time to all candidates.

 

[Fight To Win]

Yay.....

 

[panamaican]

A few weeks ago, a federal judge in Alabama allowed a suit to go forward challenging use of illegal aliens in reapportionment of seats in the House of Representatives:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/census-alabama-immigrants-lawsuit-advances

The suit was brought on grounds that "including undocumented immigrants in the census count will cause Alabama to lose an electoral college vote and a U.S. House member to a state with a 'larger illegal alien population.' "


First thing I'll say about this is I think it's a great argument, it appeals to common sense, and it has a pretty solid foundation in the text of the Constitution. Second thing I'll say is that contrary to conventional wisdom on the Left, this issue is not settled. It has never been squarely decided, even though the issue has been raised, at least tangentially, in similar cases (including the recent "census question" case).

Third thing I'll say is, unfortunately, I don't have much faith in this Court to get it right if this case gets to the SCOTUS. I hate to say it, but John Roberts is not a dependable judge. He's the type of judge to rule that "The Constitution doesn't forbid apportionment of seats based on the population of illegal aliens, even if that's contrary to the whole idea of representative government, derp de derp." On the bright side, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg kicks off and gets replaced with a bonafide Conservative before the next reapportionment, we may not need a citizenship question on the census after all.

Just something to keep your eye on, since this census question saga is apparently done.

The Alabama suit has to go forward but I don't think they can win.

The Census was never meant to only count citizens. I think this is pretty clear when you look at the history involving slaves and the compromise that represents the intent behind the language. The Free States made a nearly identical argument for why slaves should not be counted in the Census. That argument being that counting slaves in the Census would result in them losing seats to the states that did have slaves and that since slaves were not people under the law (they were property) they shouldn't count. The compromise was that the slaves were counted but at less than a full person.

I'll cite Madison here for some insight into how the Founding Fathers framed the issue:

At the same time, Madison recognized that, under the law, slaves’ lives were protected against bodily harm, they could be punished for doing harm to others, they were not an irrational creature (such as a domesticated animal), and they were seen by the law as a member of society. Hence, slaves were also persons.

That list of qualities largely applied to illegal aliens as well. They are protected against bodily harm, they can be punished for doing harm to others, they are seen as members of society (hence the granting of due process rights to them).

The only people excluded from the count were "Indians not taxed". Which makes sense since the Census is also for the apportionment of Direct Taxes. Illegal aliens are taxes and they are free Persons.

So, while I understand letting the case proceed, I don't think they have much chance of winning if the Court follows the original intent of the Const.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

 

[JamesRussler]

The Alabama suit has to go forward but I don't think they can win.

The Census was never meant to only count citizens. I think this is pretty clear when you look at the history involving slaves and the compromise that represents the intent behind the language. The Free States made a nearly identical argument for why slaves should not be counted in the Census. That argument being that counting slaves in the Census would result in them losing seats to the states that did have slaves and that since slaves were not people under the law (they were property) they shouldn't count. The compromise was that the slaves were counted but at less than a full person.

I'll cite Madison here for some insight into how the Founding Fathers framed the issue:

There is one important distinction here: slaves were lawfully present. They were counted as 3/5 persons, but their lawful presence was taken for granted. The term “persons” was used instead of “voters” because not all persons lawfully present in the USA could vote (e.g., slaves, women, children, permanent residents).

That list of qualities largely applied to illegal aliens as well. They are protected against bodily harm, they can be punished for doing harm to others, they are seen as members of society (hence the granting of due process rights to them).

The only people excluded from the count were "Indians not taxed". Which makes sense since the Census is also for the apportionment of Direct Taxes. Illegal aliens are taxes and they are free Persons.

So, while I understand letting the case proceed, I don't think they have much chance of winning if the Court follows the original intent of the Const.

I’ll put it like this: there are arguments to be made on both sides. IMO, the better argument is against providing representation to illegal aliens. At a time when there are 20+ million illegals inside the USA, and hundreds of thousands coming each year, this should be clear. The numbers of illegals exceeds the population of 48 out of 50 states, and the combined total population of our 15 least populous states. Continuing to afford them representation is a serious threat to the integrity of this union. It raises the question, “for whom exactly does this government exist?”

But like I said, I don’t trust Roberts. After his performance in the census question case, pretty much no one trusts him. I can only hope that if this case makes its way to the high court, we have one more solidly Conservative judge (preferably a Gorsuch-style Conservative) to put this nightmare to rest.