U.S. Drops Fight to Add Census Citizen Question

[edpc]

(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration abandoned its hard-fought plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census after the U.S. Supreme Court challenged its purpose, a win for immigrant-rights groups and Democrats who claimed the query was designed to dilute their power.

The move is a sharp reversal for President Donald Trump, who said last week that he’d explore ways to delay the census after the Supreme Court put the plan on hold. In a 5-4 ruling, the court said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s stated rationale for including the question was “contrived” and couldn’t be squared with the evidence about his true motivations.

“I respect the Supreme Court but strongly disagree with its ruling regarding my decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 Census,” Ross said in a statement Tuesday. “The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-drops-fight-add-census-210841430.html

[skeeter]

Thanks Roberts, you POS, for making certain our precious illegal aliens retain their representation in the House.

[edpc]

"We're looking at that," Trump told reporters at the White House when asked about a delay. "So you can ask other things, but you can't ask whether or not somebody is a citizen? So we are trying to do that. We're looking at that very strongly."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-looking-very-strongly-at-delaying-census/ar-AADHUiM


Not so strongly, after all.   

[skeeter]

"We're looking at that," Trump told reporters at the White House when asked about a delay. "So you can ask other things, but you can't ask whether or not somebody is a citizen? So we are trying to do that. We're looking at that very strongly."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-looking-very-strongly-at-delaying-census/ar-AADHUiM


Not so strongly, after all.   

This is on Roberts, not Trump.

[Ghost Bear]

The Court's ruling was ridiculous. The motivation for adding the question is irrelevant. The Court itself said that the Census Bureau had the legal ability to ask the question, and that's all that matters. This is the issue on which Pres. Trump should tell the Court to pound sand, and distribute the form with the question on it.

[skeeter]

The Court's ruling was ridiculous. The motivation for adding the question is irrelevant. The Court itself said that the Census Bureau had the legal ability to ask the question, and that's all that matters. This is the issue on which Pres. Trump should tell the Court to pound sand, and distribute the form with the question on it.

Yeah. In this case I wish Trump were half the 'dictator' his detractors claim he wants to be.

[aligncare]

Yeah. In this case I wish Trump were half the 'dictator' his detractors claim he wants to be.

That’s certainly an inconvenient truth. If Trump ignores the ruling, he’s a dictator. If he follows tradition and the Supreme Court ruling, he’s a blow hard who was merely pandering for votes.

Good thing Trump’s got a tough hide.

[edpc]

This is on Roberts, not Trump.

It’s on Trump, because he hires Wilbur Ross to be Commerce Secretary for no other reason than he restructured Trump’s failed casino debt, decades ago. This was his project. Yet another example of hiring ‘only the best.’

[EdJames]

In its ruling last week, the high court said the administration needed to put forward a rationale for the question that could pass legal muster.

WTH!

You would have thought that they would move mountains to get this done.   

[dfwgator]

Well Citizenship these days means squat anyways, so what's the point?

[Hoodat]

They should also remove from the census questionnaire the check box on race.  Not only is it none of their business, it is a violation of the Civil Rights Act to use race as a factor in any federal decisions.

[skeeter]

It’s on Trump, because he hires Wilbur Ross to be Commerce Secretary for no other reason than he restructured Trump’s failed casino debt, decades ago. This was his project. Yet another example of hiring ‘only the best.’

I guess Roberts is totally incapable of discerning the obvious constitutionality of the administration's position & needed someone else to point it out for him.

Makes one wonder why he's on the SCOTUS at all, let alone it's chief justice.

[Hoodat]

WTH!

You would have thought that they would move mountains to get this done.   

Heck, they can't even manage to recoup the savings in food stamp reductions.  Millions have been dropped from the food stamp roles, yet they continue to spend even more than they did under Obama.  If they are so easily able to redirect food stamp funds into the general Agriculture Dept budget, then you wonder why those funds can't be spent on a wall.

[EdJames]

Heck, they can't even manage to recoup the savings in food stamp reductions.  Millions have been dropped from the food stamp roles, yet they continue to spend even more than they did under Obama.  If they are so easily able to redirect food stamp funds into the general Agriculture Dept budget, then you wonder why those funds can't be spent on a wall.

It's a damn mess....

 

[skeeter]

Heck, they can't even manage to recoup the savings in food stamp reductions.  Millions have been dropped from the food stamp roles, yet they continue to spend even more than they did under Obama.  If they are so easily able to redirect food stamp funds into the general Agriculture Dept budget, then you wonder why those funds can't be spent on a wall.

The nation is being run by unelected bureaucrats more interested in protecting their fiefdoms than in fixing problems. I guess this has been apparent all along. Whats becoming more clear is any one man or administration is nearly powerless to oppose them.

[edpc]

I guess Roberts is totally incapable of discerning the obvious constitutionality of the administration's position & needed someone else to point it out for him.

Makes one wonder why he's on the SCOTUS at all, let alone it's chief justice.

No, Ross is incapable of coming up with an iron-clad reason for the decision was made, since it’s eligible for review under the Administrative Procedures Act, which is law. Everyone knew this would be challenged, so you need to have your organization in line. He obviously didn’t.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf


Between this, his age, and the protracted and fruitless negotiations with China, expect Ross to be put out to pasture, in the near future.


Ross goes from Trump ‘killer’ to ‘past his prime’

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/29/wilbur-ross-trump-commerce-china-trade-610030

[aligncare]

In its ruling last week, the high court said the administration needed to put forward a rationale for the question that could pass legal muster.

The court needs to put a coherent rationale together for saying that 1. Commerce had every right to include the citizenship question but then say that 2. They don’t trust the motivation behind the question’s inclusion(?). Okay, what devining rod did the court use to determine motivation. Where in the rules of evidence is that to be found?

[Hoodat]

The nation is being run by unelected bureaucrats more interested in protecting their fiefdoms than in fixing problems. I guess this has been apparent all along. Whats becoming more clear is any one man or administration is nearly powerless to oppose them.

Nearly powerless, but not powerless.  The President appoints the Secretary of Agriculture.  The Secretary of Agriculture is responsible for his/her budget.  The Secretary has an undersecretary, a deputy secretary, and lots of upper level managers that report to him/her.  And the Secretary has the ability to do what no Cabinet Secretary has ever had the guts to do - return money to the Treasury at the end of the fiscal year.

As President, I would hand bonuses out to any Dept head who returned money to the Treasury at year's end.  Say, 1% of all money returned.  At the very least, freeze spending in each department.  This alone would return 5% of the total budget in Year 1, 10.5% in Year 2, 16% in Year 3, . . . and so on.  But it requires Conservative leadership, and that is something we simply don't have right now.

[skeeter]

Nearly powerless, but not powerless.  The President appoints the Secretary of Agriculture.  The Secretary of Agriculture is responsible for his/her budget.  The Secretary has an undersecretary, a deputy secretary, and lots of upper level managers that report to him/her.  And the Secretary has the ability to do what no Cabinet Secretary has ever had the guts to do - return money to the Treasury at the end of the fiscal year.

As President, I would hand bonuses out to any Dept head who returned money to the Treasury at year's end.  Say, 1% of all money returned.  At the very least, freeze spending in each department.  This alone would return 5% of the total budget in Year 1, 10.5% in Year 2, 16% in Year 3, . . . and so on.  But it requires Conservative leadership, and that is something we simply don't have right now.

Trump is no ideologue, unfortunately.

What drives him is ego. We'll see if thats enough.

[Chosen Daughter]

This is on Roberts, not Trump.

No, Roberts is one judge.  What about Kavanagh and Gorsuch?  It appears that it was dropped with hardly a wimper.  This is unconstitutional.  You would have thought Roberts can ask the question.  And the answer is Constitutional pertaining to representation according to population.

[Chosen Daughter]

They should also remove from the census questionnaire the check box on race.  Not only is it none of their business, it is a violation of the Civil Rights Act to use race as a factor in any federal decisions.

I am not going to answer it.

[skeeter]

No, Roberts is one judge.  What about Kavanagh and Gorsuch?  It appears that it was dropped with hardly a wimper.  This is unconstitutional.  You would have thought Roberts can ask the question.  And the answer is Constitutional pertaining to representation according to population.

The decision was broken into parts. Do you know how the specific members voted with concern to the central issue? I thought that part was a 5 to 4 decision.

[Chosen Daughter]

Proportional Representation
Related Links
Congressional Apportionment
Historical Highlight
August 08, 1911
The 1911 House reapportionment
Historical Highlight
June 11, 1929
The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929

“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…”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3

“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”
— U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, section 2

The Constitution provides for proportional representation in the U.S. House of Representatives and the seats in the House are apportioned based on state population according to the constitutionally mandated Census. Representation based on population in the House was one of the most important components of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Proportional-Representation/

I don't know any clearer argument than the United States Constitution.  Isn't that what the Supreme Court rules by?  Since when should we include people here illegally when it raises the population and the representatives?

[jafo2010]

Unfortunately, we do not have a conservative court.  Even if Trump successfully appointed another conservative judge, there is no guarantee we would have any conservative decisions.

[truth_seeker]

Unfortunately, we do not have a conservative court.  Even if Trump successfully appointed another conservative judge, there is no guarantee we would have any conservative decisions.

Bingo.

The Trump Admin probably has it on good authority, that Roberts is set in stone.

After all, Strzok and Page knew there was an insurance policy. More than one.

Ryan, Roberts, and others.


If you love your Bush family, you can keep your Bush family.