Law US 2020 census will be printed without citizenship question -

Should we know the number of illegals in America?

  • Yes

    Votes: 128 82.1%
  • No

    Votes: 2 1.3%
  • Orange Man Bad

    Votes: 26 16.7%

  • Total voters
    156

Diabolical diabetic

No bullying allowed
kiwifarms.net
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:
It sounds like they're saying "Come back with a better legal argument", so they've passed it back to the Chamber of Commerce so they can get their shit together. Hopefully the chamber gets that figured out, then.
Yeah, but the dissents make a good point in that they considered a ton of shit outside the purview of the case, and they're basically trying to mind read someone's motivations for a completely legal request.

We gotta get ginsburg's skeleton replaced with a conservative living human to outnumber the crazies.
 

JohnDoe

There is still time for some poolside fun!
kiwifarms.net
It sounds like they're saying "Come back with a better legal argument", so they've passed it back to the Chamber of Commerce so they can get their shit together. Hopefully the chamber gets that figured out, then.
Luckily every TDS afflicted moron has been working out and persuing all angles of attack for virtue signalling purposes so any counter argument is already in the air. Putting together a bulletproof justification should be child's play. The courts basically told them what they need to hear anyway.
 

Lou Wrong

Butthurt about Buddyloids
kiwifarms.net
I wouldn't be surprised if the court ultimately sides with Trump, but only after this decade's census, at which point its all moot as a future administration can take the question away again. The question was only taken away after immigration levels fell so low that the amount of non-citizens was not of note. It has since returned to and even surpassed the rates it was at at the turn of the 20th century, hence we are in need of the question again.

Libs would have a lot of explaining to do once the stats come out and get co-related with all of the negative things right wingers tend to associate with illegal immigration, too.
 

X Prime

kiwifarms.net
Remember that the swing vote for this was John "Obamacare's individual mandate is a tax" Roberts. The idea that he can say someone's reasoning is contrived after that fiasco stretches credibility.

This was a purely establishmentarian political decision to stall out Trump.

Clarence Thomas was right in implying as much by pointing out the mind-reading games going on.
 

It's HK-47

Meatbag's Bounty of Bodies
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
>SCOTUS finds the citizenship question constitutional.
>SCOTUS says Sec. Ross made a reasonable decision to include it and it was reasonably explained.
>SCOTUS doesn't allow it because it "doesn't believe in stated rationale."
(Source)

tenor.gif
 

Attachments

It's HK-47

Meatbag's Bounty of Bodies
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
lol hk-47 btfo
I'm baffled because there's no legal requirement for a "rationale", that's just a completely subjective term and has nothing to do with whether or not the census question is Constitutional, which they... Just ruled that it was. C. Thomas even says in this document (Pg. 36) that even though they were "Unable to identify any legal problem with the Secretary’s reasoning, the Court imputes one by concluding that he must not be telling the truth. The Court therefore upholds the decision of the District Court—which, in turn, was transparently based on the application of an administration-specific standard."

At least I'm not the only one who found this decision baffling. C. Thomas doesn't seem to like it at all.

5a1363cd2473deecb975eabe38b34dff.png
 

ConfederateIrishman

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I'm baffled because there's no legal requirement for a "rationale", that's just a completely subjective term and has nothing to do with whether or not the census question is Constitutional, which they... Just ruled that it was. C. Thomas even says in this document (Pg. 36) that even though they were "Unable to identify any legal problem with the Secretary’s reasoning, the Court imputes one by concluding that he must not be telling the truth. The Court therefore upholds the decision of the District Court—which, in turn, was transparently based on the application of an administration-specific standard."

At least I'm not the only one who found this decision baffling. C. Thomas doesn't seem to like it at all.

View attachment 818112
Not the first time the supreme court bullshitted a power into existsnce, and it wont be the last
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino