Originally posted by imanihonjin
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Uncle Ted View PostDrumpf just gave his data... This is why the Dems are going to lose pushing immigration (again).
All you have to do is look at all the homeless folks in California. If a country can't even take care of its own how can it be expected to take care of all the orphans of the world?τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν
Comment
-
Originally posted by BlueK View PostInteresting results from the Court today.
They blocked the government from adding the Citizenship question. That one was probably doomed when the memos leaked about the administration's real intent being to under-count minorities.
However, IMO, Roberts wimped out on the gerrymandering case, even admitting in his opinion that:
“Our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering."
Also calling partisan gerrymandering "unjust" and "incompatible with democratic principles."
I like states rights arguments most of the time, but come on Roberts, this one is just wimpy. Now when the pendulum swings the other way the dems are free to do the same thing. Both are wrong.
So the decision is basically,
Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you.
It would have been fun if he'd quoted the great president Van Buren.
Lame.
But the political tide on this is going in the other direction I think, and this decision will just serve to beat that drum louder. So for the long term I'm not as worried about it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BlueK View PostI like Roberts in some ways, but his wimpiness annoys me. He admits gerrymandering is freaking "INCOMPATIBLE with democratic principles" but still rules the other way because he's afraid to make that decision?????
George Washington with his warning of the dangers of political parties is not impressed.
I miss Justice Kennedy.
Still, I think this decision will only serve to spur on the anti-gerrymandering movement because now they can use the Chief Justice's own words to make their case.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BlueK View PostWhen the partisanship action is unconstitutional they can. I say it was, maybe five justices say it's not, but it's more than just "impolite" when states go out of their way to limit representation of certain people based on political ideas. If this were done on racial lines instead of party, this is already a settled matter and the gerrymandering would have been struck down.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BlueK View PostI think it's a Constitutional right for a citizen to be represented the same as their neighbor even if their political preferences are different. How is that off base?
And what about Democrats in Utah? There are a significant number of them. Should Utah be forced to draw district lines to guarantee at least one Democrat gets elected to Congress? What's the point of even voting if that is what the constitution requires?Last edited by UVACoug; 07-01-2019, 04:20 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BlueK View PostState's courts? That's exactly what people did in these cases and they all ruled against the gerrymandering. So now the Supreme court has reversed it. Ok, maybe the legislatures then. The tide I think is to push back on the extreme partisanship fortunately.
Comment
-
Originally posted by UVACoug View PostJust read the opinion. Didn't see anything about leaked memos revealing that the government wanted to undercount minorities. Link?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...stion-congress
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...on-wilbur-ross
"But the recent discovery of a trove of files from the deceased Republican operative and redistricting expert Thomas Hofeller may force the Court to address the issue. The documents that Hofeller’s estranged daughter found on backups of the noted Republican mapmaker’s laptop have since been brought to the attention of both the New York and Maryland judges, and the Supreme Court is also aware of it. Hofeller, the documents show, conducted a private study in 2015 which concluded that a citizenship question would decrease the political power of Latinos and “be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” in the redistricting process; he also wrote that employing citizenship data derived from the census “can be expected to provoke a high degree of resistance from Democrats and the major minority groups in the nation.” Hofeller later urged the Trump Administration to adopt a citizenship question and helped craft its public legal argument that the Census Bureau needed citizenship data to better enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
"In constitutional litigation, that’s as close to a smoking gun of discriminatory motive as a plaintiff could hope for in court. In a ruling on Monday, Hazel opened the door to revisiting his earlier ruling in the Maryland case and allowing for an examination of whether a desire to target Latinos was a motivating factor for adding the citizenship question. The “new evidence,” Hazel wrote, “potentially connects the dots between a discriminatory purpose—diluting Hispanics’ political power—and Secretary Ross’s decision. The evidence suggests that Dr. Hofeller was motivated to recommend the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census to advantage Republicans by diminishing Hispanics’ political power.” Hazel added that “as more puzzle pieces are placed on the mat, a disturbing picture of the decisionmakers’ motives takes shape.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ratic-n1014651
The court's majority said the government has the right to ask a citizenship question, but that it needs to properly justify changing the long-standing practice of the Census Bureau. The Trump administration's justification was "contrived," Roberts wrote, and did not appear to be the genuine reason for the change, possibly implying that the real reason was political.
Ross told Congress that he decided to add the question after receiving a letter from the Justice Department that said the citizenship data was needed to properly enforce federal voting laws. But he later admitted during a trial on the issue that he started thinking about the citizenship issue shortly after taking office and suggested that the Justice Department request it.
Led by New York, the states opposing the question also said Ross' directive sidestepped the Census Bureau's longstanding procedures for testing changes to the questionnaire in order to evaluate whether they would lead to an undercount. Because the citizenship question would depress minority responses, the challengers said, including it on the form would actually produce a less accurate count than leaving it off and using Social Security and IRS data to supplement the information gathered from the census form.
Five weeks after the case was argued in late April, the American Civil Liberties Union informed the court that it found evidence suggesting that the idea of including the question originated with an unpublished policy paper by a longtime adviser to the Republican Party. The government's actual goal, the group said, was to dilute the voting power of minority communities.Last edited by BlueK; 07-03-2019, 08:03 AM.
Comment
-
"Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf
Comment
-
Originally posted by BlueK View PostThis was widely reported for the last several weeks leading up to this decision. The administration would have won this had it not been for that, IMO. No, Roberts didn't specifically mention it in his opinion, but he did say the administration's argument that the question was needed to help them better enforce the voting rights act was not credible. He basically said it was a lie using more polite language. It wasn't just memos. It was an entire hard drive. Brand new cases had just been filed in the federal courts about it as the decision on this case was being decided. Many observers believe the Court was about to rule in the administration's favor on this one but that they'd have to revisit it again when those cases came up. What the ruling says is that the administration has the right to ask the question but they have to come up with a reason that isn't obviously a lie. There is no reason for the Court to rule that way without knowing the background info below:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...stion-congress
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...on-wilbur-ross
"But the recent discovery of a trove of files from the deceased Republican operative and redistricting expert Thomas Hofeller may force the Court to address the issue. The documents that Hofeller’s estranged daughter found on backups of the noted Republican mapmaker’s laptop have since been brought to the attention of both the New York and Maryland judges, and the Supreme Court is also aware of it. Hofeller, the documents show, conducted a private study in 2015 which concluded that a citizenship question would decrease the political power of Latinos and “be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” in the redistricting process; he also wrote that employing citizenship data derived from the census “can be expected to provoke a high degree of resistance from Democrats and the major minority groups in the nation.” Hofeller later urged the Trump Administration to adopt a citizenship question and helped craft its public legal argument that the Census Bureau needed citizenship data to better enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
"In constitutional litigation, that’s as close to a smoking gun of discriminatory motive as a plaintiff could hope for in court. In a ruling on Monday, Hazel opened the door to revisiting his earlier ruling in the Maryland case and allowing for an examination of whether a desire to target Latinos was a motivating factor for adding the citizenship question. The “new evidence,” Hazel wrote, “potentially connects the dots between a discriminatory purpose—diluting Hispanics’ political power—and Secretary Ross’s decision. The evidence suggests that Dr. Hofeller was motivated to recommend the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census to advantage Republicans by diminishing Hispanics’ political power.” Hazel added that “as more puzzle pieces are placed on the mat, a disturbing picture of the decisionmakers’ motives takes shape.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ratic-n1014651
The court's majority said the government has the right to ask a citizenship question, but that it needs to properly justify changing the long-standing practice of the Census Bureau. The Trump administration's justification was "contrived," Roberts wrote, and did not appear to be the genuine reason for the change, possibly implying that the real reason was political.
Ross told Congress that he decided to add the question after receiving a letter from the Justice Department that said the citizenship data was needed to properly enforce federal voting laws. But he later admitted during a trial on the issue that he started thinking about the citizenship issue shortly after taking office and suggested that the Justice Department request it.
Led by New York, the states opposing the question also said Ross' directive sidestepped the Census Bureau's longstanding procedures for testing changes to the questionnaire in order to evaluate whether they would lead to an undercount. Because the citizenship question would depress minority responses, the challengers said, including it on the form would actually produce a less accurate count than leaving it off and using Social Security and IRS data to supplement the information gathered from the census form.
Five weeks after the case was argued in late April, the American Civil Liberties Union informed the court that it found evidence suggesting that the idea of including the question originated with an unpublished policy paper by a longtime adviser to the Republican Party. The government's actual goal, the group said, was to dilute the voting power of minority communities.
I suppose I should get the Ancestry DNA test done to figure were "my people" are from but the FBI is using their database to pin people to their unsolved crimes. I don't want to go to jail just because my DNA happened to be at some crime scene because I sneezed there once.
FYI, the Census Bureau threatens to fine you or something for not answering or giving false information but they haven't fined anyone since before 1970. They are like a little yappy dog you can just kick out of the way."If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
"I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
"Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
Originally posted by BlueK View PostThis was widely reported for the last several weeks leading up to this decision. The administration would have won this had it not been for that, IMO. No, Roberts didn't specifically mention it in his opinion, but he did say the administration's argument that the question was needed to help them better enforce the voting rights act was not credible. He basically said it was a lie using more polite language. It wasn't just memos. It was an entire hard drive. Brand new cases had just been filed in the federal courts about it, based on the discovery of that evidence, as the decision on this case was being decided. Many observers believe the Court was about to rule in the administration's favor on this one but that they'd have to revisit it again when those cases came up. What the ruling says is that the administration has the right to ask the question but they have to come up with a reason that isn't obviously a lie. There is no reason for the Court to rule that way without knowing the background info below:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...stion-congress
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...on-wilbur-ross
"But the recent discovery of a trove of files from the deceased Republican operative and redistricting expert Thomas Hofeller may force the Court to address the issue. The documents that Hofeller’s estranged daughter found on backups of the noted Republican mapmaker’s laptop have since been brought to the attention of both the New York and Maryland judges, and the Supreme Court is also aware of it. Hofeller, the documents show, conducted a private study in 2015 which concluded that a citizenship question would decrease the political power of Latinos and “be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” in the redistricting process; he also wrote that employing citizenship data derived from the census “can be expected to provoke a high degree of resistance from Democrats and the major minority groups in the nation.” Hofeller later urged the Trump Administration to adopt a citizenship question and helped craft its public legal argument that the Census Bureau needed citizenship data to better enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
"In constitutional litigation, that’s as close to a smoking gun of discriminatory motive as a plaintiff could hope for in court. In a ruling on Monday, Hazel opened the door to revisiting his earlier ruling in the Maryland case and allowing for an examination of whether a desire to target Latinos was a motivating factor for adding the citizenship question. The “new evidence,” Hazel wrote, “potentially connects the dots between a discriminatory purpose—diluting Hispanics’ political power—and Secretary Ross’s decision. The evidence suggests that Dr. Hofeller was motivated to recommend the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census to advantage Republicans by diminishing Hispanics’ political power.” Hazel added that “as more puzzle pieces are placed on the mat, a disturbing picture of the decisionmakers’ motives takes shape.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ratic-n1014651
The court's majority said the government has the right to ask a citizenship question, but that it needs to properly justify changing the long-standing practice of the Census Bureau. The Trump administration's justification was "contrived," Roberts wrote, and did not appear to be the genuine reason for the change, possibly implying that the real reason was political.
Ross told Congress that he decided to add the question after receiving a letter from the Justice Department that said the citizenship data was needed to properly enforce federal voting laws. But he later admitted during a trial on the issue that he started thinking about the citizenship issue shortly after taking office and suggested that the Justice Department request it.
Led by New York, the states opposing the question also said Ross' directive sidestepped the Census Bureau's longstanding procedures for testing changes to the questionnaire in order to evaluate whether they would lead to an undercount. Because the citizenship question would depress minority responses, the challengers said, including it on the form would actually produce a less accurate count than leaving it off and using Social Security and IRS data to supplement the information gathered from the census form.
Five weeks after the case was argued in late April, the American Civil Liberties Union informed the court that it found evidence suggesting that the idea of including the question originated with an unpublished policy paper by a longtime adviser to the Republican Party. The government's actual goal, the group said, was to dilute the voting power of minority communities.
Comment
-
Originally posted by UVACoug View PostInteresting. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.
Comment
Comment