- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 81,453
- Reaction score
- 86,418
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Step 1: Devise a discriminatory policy. In this case, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, after consulting with Stephen Bannon, who was then President Trump’s nationalist “alt-right” adviser, resolved to put a citizenship question on the 2020 Census for the first time in 70 years. ...Step 2: Create a pretext. In this case, Ross lied to Congress, saying the Justice Department wanted the citizenship question added to help enforce the Voting Rights Act — a claim three lower courts dismissed as pretextual....
Step 3: Muddy the waters. In this case, Solicitor General Noel Francisco and conservative justices raised doubts about the statistical capabilities of the Census Bureau, claiming it couldn’t accurately “quantify” the damage that would be done by adding a citizenship question because the alternative way to get such information was an “untested statistical model.” ...Step 4: Blame the victim. Francisco, the top Trump administration lawyer, saved this nastiness for the final minute of the 80-minute argument. If the court disallows the citizenship question, he said, “you are effectively empowering any group in the country to knock off any question on the census if they simply get together and boycott it,” he said, raising the possibility of a boycott by gender-nonbinary people.
Link
This is a breathtakingly cynical power grab on the part of the executive and judicial branches. Trump wants to undercount people in blue states because most people don't support him, so they devise a scheme to undercount the census by adding a question about citizenship.
The conservatives on the Supreme Court seem willing to support this by saying that it is needed to uphold the Voting Rights Act, a law whose enforcement provisions they gutted several years ago.
I have come to believe that all of the GOP's efforts to undermine democracy, to the degree that they accept interference from a foreign adversary in our electoral process because they believe that the political power must stay in the hands of white, male, straight, Christians despite their shrinking population and popularity.
This is merely part of the radical rights strategy to change the rules to allow them to win elections and hold power. Without that, they are doomed and they know it so suppressing the vote and census count is the only other option that works for them.
We are slowly losing America to the forces of right wing evil.
Link
This is a breathtakingly cynical power grab on the part of the executive and judicial branches. Trump wants to undercount people in blue states because most people don't support him, so they devise a scheme to undercount the census by adding a question about citizenship.
The conservatives on the Supreme Court seem willing to support this by saying that it is needed to uphold the Voting Rights Act, a law whose enforcement provisions they gutted several years ago.
I have come to believe that all of the GOP's efforts to undermine democracy, to the degree that they accept interference from a foreign adversary in our electoral process because they believe that the political power must stay in the hands of white, male, straight, Christians despite their shrinking population and popularity.
This is merely part of the radical rights strategy to change the rules to allow them to win elections and hold power. Without that, they are doomed and they know it so suppressing the vote and census count is the only other option that works for them.
We are slowly losing America to the forces of right wing evil.
This is merely part of the radical rights strategy to change the rules to allow them to win elections and hold power. Without that, they are doomed and they know it so suppressing the vote and census count is the only other option that works for them.
We are slowly losing America to the forces of right wing evil.
There is a rule against asking for citizenship status on the census? since when?
Interesting, all this doom and gloom with obvious partisan hackery in this post. I didn’t realize that wanting an accurate census of US citizens deserved the tag of “radical”, my bad. I’m curious, how is it suppressing the vote when this topic is about undocumented non-citizens that live is this country illegally being asked if they are citizens?
And yes, we are in fact slowly losing America, One just needs to look at the Democratic platforms of the candidates running in 2020.
As per the article, if the citizen question is part of the census it will keep non-citizens from answering the census. Yes, probably so, but lets keep in mind the main goals of the census, and that is representation, districting and funding. Why should a district get more representation and funding because of the numbers of illegal non-citizens?
Now that's a remarkable claim in light of the policy efforts of the New Democratic Party.
Open Borders, Amnesty for illegals leading to voting rights, felons who haven't paid their debt to society being given the right to vote, children being given the right to vote, refusal to take action to insure the legitimacy of voters, ballot harvesting, etc., etc..
To the question of asking about citizenship:
Census in the Constitution
Questions beyond a simple count are Constitutional
It is constitutional to include questions in the decennial census beyond those concerning a simple count of the number of people. On numerous occasions, the courts have said the Constitution gives Congress the authority to collect statistics in the census. As early as 1870, the Supreme Court characterized as unquestionable the power of Congress to require both an enumeration and the collection of statistics in the census. The Legal Tender Cases, Tex.1870; 12 Wall., U.S., 457, 536, 20 L.Ed. 287. In 1901, a District Court said the Constitution's census clause (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) is not limited to a headcount of the population and "does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution, and in such case there could be no objection to acquiring this information through the same machinery by which the population is enumerated." United States v. Moriarity, 106 F. 886, 891 (S.D.N.Y.1901).
There is a rule against asking for citizenship status on the census? since when?
Because the Constitution orders it so.
Too bad the constitution didn't add a common sense amendment. I guess our forefathers didn't think the country would get this dysfunctional. Your position is that the invading British army during the years of the War of 1812 ought to have been counted in the census, these illegals the Democrats want to be counted are invaders too. But we are here.
You do know that there are millions of lawful permanent residents in this country who are not citizens don’t you?
Yes they are legally here & I imagine will fully cooperate & not check the citizen box as they have no fear of deportation.
The distortion of your "legal" argument is comical. The commerce secretary (CS) can include anything not prohibited by law on the census forms. It is not up to the CS to show a need to ask (include?) a particular question - it is up to those how don't like that question to prove that the law does not allow (prohibits?) asking it. The SCOTUS does not make law - it merely decides if the existing law is being violated. Congress has specifically barred asking census questions about religion but has never barred the federal government from asking questions about citizenship, in fact, the REAL ID act actually requires doing so.
Don’t be so sure of that. ICE has a very poor record of distinguishing between undocumented immigrants vs lawful residents and even citizens when it comes to snatching people off the street and detaining them.
Federal Law (Title 13) protects the information gathered via the Census from being shared with any other Federal Department such as the FBI or ICE.
And you trust this administration not to do that? ICE routinely violates the law and the Constitution and no one is held accountable for it.
Because the Constitution orders it so.
Your attempting to use logic and reason on people that do not understand these concepts.
They do not understand that the job of the judicial system is to uphold the law not change it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?