Law US 2020 census will be printed without citizenship question

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Article
The Supreme Court found Thursday that the Trump administration did not give an adequate reason for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census, blocking the question for at least the time being.

The move is a surprise win for advocates who opposed the question's addition, arguing it will lead to an inaccurate population count. The administration had argued the question was needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

The justices sent the issue back to the Commerce Department to provide another explanation.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the court's liberal wing in delivering the court's opinion.



Roberts wrote "that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of [the Department of Justice's] request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the VRA."

"Several points, considered together, reveal a significant mismatch between the decision [Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross] made and the rationale he provided."

Roberts pointed to evidence showing that Ross, whose department oversees the census, intended to include a citizenship question on the census "about a week into his tenure, but it contains no hint that he was considering VRA enforcement in connection with that project."



And he noted that the Justice Department didn't indicate any interest in the citizenship data until contacted by Commerce officials, and that the evidence "suggests that DOJ's interest was directed more to helping the Commerce Department than to securing the data."

"Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the secretary gave for his decision," Roberts wrote.

"In the Secretary's telling, Commerce was simply acting on a routine data request from another agency. Yet the materials before us indicate that Commerce went to great lengths to elicit the request from DOJ (or any other willing agency)," he continued. "And unlike a typical case in which an agency may have both stated and unstated reasons for a decision, here the VRA enforcement rationale-the sole stated reason-seems to have been contrived. We are presented, in other words, with an explanation for agency action that is incongruent with what the record reveals about the agency's priorities and decisionmaking process."



However, the chief justice said that the decision to add the citizenship question was not "substantively invalid."

"But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably," Roberts said. "What was provided here was more of a distraction."

While Trump officials had pointed to the VRA as reason to add the citizenship question, critics argued that asking about citizenship status would lead to an undercount of the total population. Census data is used for items like drawing congressional districts and allocating federal funds to states, and opponents said an inaccurate population count would harm Americans and cause some to not receive needed funds.



Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elana Kagan, the liberal members of the court, joined on the part of Roberts's opinion opposing the question.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

In a dissenting opinion, Thomas wrote that, "For the first time ever, the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency's otherwise adequate rationale."

"This conclusion is extraordinary," he wrote. "The court engages in an unauthorized inquiry into evidence not properly before us to reach an unsupported conclusion."

Groups that had challenged the citizenship question's addition to the census in court quickly celebrated the ruling.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose state had led the lawsuit presented before the Supreme Court, said that because of Thursday's ruling "the census will remain a tool for delivering on our government's promise of fairness and equity, and states, like New York, will not be shortchanged out of critical resources or political representation."

"Our democracy withstood this challenge, but make no mistake, many threats continue to lie ahead from the Trump administration and we will not stop fighting. Now, more than ever, the marginalized, the disenfranchised, and everyday people need us to stand firm in our fight for justice. After all, everyone counts, and therefore, everyone must be counted."

The ruling is handed down as the Commerce Department says it has a deadline of June 30 - Sunday - to start printing census materials.

And it comes as another lawsuit challenging the question plays out in federal court in Maryland.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that a district judge in Maryland could review whether there was a discriminatory intent behind the question's addition, in light of new evidence filed in the lawsuit. That opens the door for the judge to potentially block the question on those grounds, as it's a different legal question than the one presented to the Supreme Court.

That new evidence pertains to late Republican redistricting strategist Thomas Hofeller, as documents were recently uncovered from Hofeller's hard drives as part of a separate lawsuit in North Carolina that indicate he played a previously undisclosed role in the orchestration of the citizenship question.

The documents indicate that Hofeller conducted an unpublished study in 2015 that found asking about citizenship would help Republicans in redistricting, while hurting Latinx communities and Democrats.

It also suggests that Hofeller may have helped in the drafting of a memo used by the Trump administration to argue for the citizenship question. And emails also show that a Census Bureau staffer was in touch with Hofeller about the citizenship question back in 2015.

Documents relating to Hofeller's role have been filed in a pair of separate lawsuits challenging the citizenship question, in federal court in New York and Maryland. The New York lawsuit was the case under consideration by the Supreme Court

The ACLU has notified the Supreme Court of the evidence. And it requested that the justices send the case back down to a lower court, to allow new evidence to be officially added to the lawsuit - a motion the court is scheduled to discuss during a private conference Thursday.

But the Trump administration asked the justices to rule on whether the addition of the question violates equal protection claims, in an effort to preempt any action out of a lower court.

Groups challenging the citizenship question in federal court in Maryland also requested late Wednesday that District Judge George Hazel issue a preliminary injunction by Friday to block the question from appearing on the census.

Hazel, an Obama appointee, has asked the Trump administration to reply to that request by 8 p.m. Thursday.

Tldr the Court ruled the argument for why should the question be added was bad so it got blocked, it may still pass if a better argument is made up
EDIT: It will be officially printed without the question

EDIT 2: according to Trump that was fake news
 
Last edited:
8036a5636e9374eb4141f90c70f6971f.png


Interesting. I was wondering when he was going to chime in about this, because I can't help but notice that every single time the Democrats start running a victory lap, they make it about halfway down the field before someone sticks their foot out and trips them, so I wonder what the deal with this one's going to be considering that the census was allegedly already being printed.

It's mostly just the same dozen nutbags that it always is, but if you're interested there's a lot of salt in the replies.
So is Trump just lying to keep his base moralized; someone jumped the gun in his admin thinking they were not going to print the question; or is Trump saying they will print the question only to have someone pull him aside in a few hours to tell him they can't at this point? 🤔
 
So is Trump just lying to keep his base moralized; someone jumped the gun in his admin thinking they were not going to print the question; or is Trump saying they will print the question only to have someone pull him aside in a few hours to tell him they can't at this point? 🤔
You seem to be ignoring a huge possibility: Early reports that they had abandoned the idea were a lie. But then I don't think I"ve seen the source of that report...
 
I think fox is trying to get those two hispanic marines who were assaulted by antifa on Tucker and Hannity.

We could see the leap in logic where Hispanics and anything mexican is deemed white supremacist by antifa and must be destroyed.

I mean you know what was invented in America? Tacos, burritos, and nachos.
Nachos and Burritos were invented in Mexico, asshole.

The only shit invented in America were hard shell tacos, chimichangas (literally deep fried burritos) and Fajitas
 
He should go ahead and just have the census forms printed and order them distributed. I would be very interested in what happens.

Nachos and Burritos were invented in Mexico, asshole.

The only shit invented in America were hard shell tacos, chimichangas (literally deep fried burritos) and Fajitas
Oh so that's what a chimichanga is. The Mexican is an exotic creature this far north so any news of their cultures and we just don't know shit about them!
 
Our last governor race Gregg Abbot A FUCKING WHITE MALE ran against a literal fucking Lesbian Abuela.

He still beat her by 13.3% and 1.1 million votes.
View attachment 826279View attachment 826278
Well yeah, Texas has a really strong culture that has held it together wheras most other states under the same pressure would have cracked way faster, that is why I said decades and not years. Also Ted Cruz barely won his election due to how much money the DNC pumped in, all it could take is a slightly unpopular RNC figure and things will go to hell in a handbasket like they did in Virginia

Moreover, things are still trending towards Californian and Mexican rule there; It is not like anything long term is being reversed, just slowed down.
 
The 4 liberals, one of which is barely even alive and hasn't been seen by the general public in quite some time, dominated the so called "right wing court." The Hardcore Left-Wing Four always stick together, and the 5 right wing people are always on their Own Fucking Program. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito for all their faults are the only reliable conservative votes on the court now. You have no idea which one of Chief Faggot Roberts and the 2 fresh-meat faggots in Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will side with the Hardcore 4 on a major issue, but its almost always at least one of them.

Clarence and Alito have been talking for the entire Trump Administration about the need to reign in lawfare and obstructionist circuit court tactics and Roberts just gave that the green light. That libertarian moron Gorsuch is moving the court to abolish probation and parole. All sorts of shit like that.

This has always been the problem with conservatives in general: they're individualists.

Liberals may not agree on much due to the patchwork nature of their idpol-fueled coalition, but what they absolutely do agree on is anything that solidfies their potential power.

With conservative justices, you get individuals, often better individuals. This sounds great on paper, but an set of individuals, no matter how much smarter or better-considered their opinion is, is nothing before a group of people united in a goal. In this case, you get one individual with a possibly-nuanced opinion the liberal group automatically wins.
 
8036a5636e9374eb4141f90c70f6971f.png


Interesting. I was wondering when he was going to chime in about this, because I can't help but notice that every single time the Democrats start running a victory lap, they make it about halfway down the field before someone sticks their foot out and trips them, so I wonder what the deal with this one's going to be considering that the census was allegedly already being printed.

It's mostly just the same dozen nutbags that it always is, but if you're interested there's a lot of salt in the replies.
On another note, what is with this autistic waffling people in A&H do whenever it seems that Trump has lost at some time, somewhere? Everytime something like this happens, Trump suddenly morphs into "Neocon Don".

Downright childish thinking.
 
On another note, what is with this autistic waffling people in A&H do whenever it seems that Trump has lost at some time, somewhere? Everytime something like this happens, Trump suddenly morphs into "Neocon Don".

Downright childish thinking.
This isn't unique to Trump, this is how politics has always worked. Humans are exceptionally fickle things.
 
This isn't unique to Trump, this is how politics has always worked. Humans are exceptionally fickle things.
"For this can be said of men in general: that they are ungrateful, fickle, hypocrites and dissemblers, avoiders of dangers, greedy for gain; and while you benefit them, they are entirely yours, offering you their blood, their goods, their life, their children,...when need is far away, but when you actually become needy, they turn away."
-Niccolo Machiavelli
 
8036a5636e9374eb4141f90c70f6971f.png


Interesting. I was wondering when he was going to chime in about this, because I can't help but notice that every single time the Democrats start running a victory lap, they make it about halfway down the field before someone sticks their foot out and trips them, so I wonder what the deal with this one's going to be considering that the census was allegedly already being printed.

It's mostly just the same dozen nutbags that it always is, but if you're interested there's a lot of salt in the replies.
I just wish I could actually still believe this. I will be shocked if it makes it on, but pleasantly so.

Blue California and Texas bright side: suddenly Republicans can see how EC votes should at least be proportional, if a constitutional amendment is not to be had.
Electoral college favors smaller states in a lot of ways because of the 2 senators/electors for everyone thing. Furthermore, places like New York vote super overwhelmingly blue. Texas and Florida would have to be really really really close for it to be worth giving up the slight weighting toward smaller states. It isn't so black and white as you think.
 
I mean, it's entirely possible to like Trump for one reason and dislike for another.

For example, one can like him for the vast quantities of purestrain liberal tears he harvests with every word. On the other hand, they would like it if he could do something about the social erosion.
 
This has always been the problem with conservatives in general: they're individualists.

Liberals may not agree on much due to the patchwork nature of their idpol-fueled coalition, but what they absolutely do agree on is anything that solidfies their potential power.

With conservative justices, you get individuals, often better individuals. This sounds great on paper, but an set of individuals, no matter how much smarter or better-considered their opinion is, is nothing before a group of people united in a goal. In this case, you get one individual with a possibly-nuanced opinion the liberal group automatically wins.
It's a double edged sword though. When nobody thinks for themselves and just follows the flock then they all go down together and far more spectacularly than an independently thinking pack.
 
I just wish I could actually still believe this. I will be shocked if it makes it on, but pleasantly so.


Electoral college favors smaller states in a lot of ways because of the 2 senators/electors for everyone thing. Furthermore, places like New York vote super overwhelmingly blue. Texas and Florida would have to be really really really close for it to be worth giving up the slight weighting toward smaller states. It isn't so black and white as you think.

If electoral votes were proportional, as they are in a few states but not most, the EC would be weighted in favor of small states. As it stands, the EC is weighted in favor of states with nearly 50-50 split votes such as Florida and Ohio.
 
If electoral votes were proportional, as they are in a few states but not most, the EC would be weighted in favor of small states. As it stands, the EC is weighted in favor of states with nearly 50-50 split votes such as Florida and Ohio.
Correct me if I am wrong, but states get the same number of electors as they do senators plus congressmen right? This favors smaller states because senators are leveled out at 2. Several states even have the minimum of 3. Small (population wise) states have a tendency to be red so long as they aren't in New England. It would be foolish for conservatives to sign on to abolition of the electoral college. Having the electors be split proportionally by each state is the choice of each state. As a state goes purple, it could be in either party's best interest to advocate for the proportional split (but that is that state alone's business).

A better strategy is to mock blue states signing on to the whole "popular vote" elector pledge thing by not putting their money where their mouth is by assigning electors proportionally.
 
I mean, it's entirely possible to like Trump for one reason and dislike for another.

For example, one can like him for the vast quantities of purestrain liberal tears he harvests with every word. On the other hand, they would like it if he could do something about the social erosion.
That would be wonderful but aside from fostering good domestic conditions what can the president do about it? Especially with a hostile press?
Remember he also wants to be reelected, really needs to be to do the policy stuff he wants.

I don't know that "social erosion" can be fixed from above. I know people blame Obama for it, I personally didn't see it that way. I suppose he did fund a lot of social justice propaganda though...
 
Back
Top Bottom