How To Rig The Census For Fun And Profit And White Supremacy

[Winehole23]

FrostKing is totally ignorant of US law and custom, as usual.

[Winehole23]

How is this no brainer census question still up for debate

Lol @ backwards USA

Answer me this: why are DOJ lawyers withdrawing en masse from Trump's new bid to cir vent the courts?

[Winehole23]

I'm sure the Consumer Protection Bureau lawyers are very good, but this is shenanigans. Even if the DOJ lawyers successfully withdraw -- not a given, btw -- they are still bound to correct the record if the new lawyers make false or misleading representations to the court.

[Pavlov]

FrostKing is totally ignorant of US law and custom, as usual.

lol Poland

[Winehole23]

lol Poland

Eh, I'm favorably disposed toward Poles. I certainly don't blame that for FK's head being approximately as large and as wise as a cabbage.

[boutons_deux]

...

[Winehole23]

Motion to Withdraw denied for all but two atty's. The rest must write affidavits with satisfactory reasons.

Pick one: piss off the judge or your boss.

[Spurtacular]

Participation in the US Census is voluntary.

Wrong.

[Winehole23]

Wrong.

You're right. There's a fine for not participating, not that that will necessarily prevent you from being counted.

[Winehole23]

Do you have a topical take, or a take on the ongoing conversation, or do you just gnaw on other posters ankles?

[Winehole23]

If Obama had added a question to the 2010 census asking whether you owned a firearm, how do you think that would have gone over?

[FrostKing]

If Obama had added a question to the 2010 census asking whether you owned a firearm, how do you think that would have gone over?

I would support it

[Winehole23]

I would support it

Board conservatives would still be screaming.

[boutons_deux]

If POTUS can ignore the courts we no longer have a republic, simple as that.

If Dems don't impeach, Trash's example will encourage future assholes to push the boundaries even further.

Pelosi/Nadler are making a huge strategic error

Larry Tribe already showed how House Dems can impeach and vote Trash guilty (he wouldn't be removed), w/o bothering to pass impeachment to McConnell who already said YOU to Dem impeachment.

[benefactor]

Looks like King Trump is going with the attempted decree to get the question on today

[boutons_deux]

It was not so long ago that Repugs / rightwing hate media chorus were objecting to the census as govt oppression, overreach, and influencers said they would answer "present" to be counted but not any other census question or checkbox.

[Winehole23]

Looks like King Trump is going with the attempted decree to get the question on today

Win or lose, Barr and Trump deserve to be impeached and removed for this.

They won't be.

[Winehole23]

The US Census falls unambiguously under Article I power. POTUS lacks the authority to do what he's trying to do, and he's doing it in the face of adverse legal rulings.

The Trump Census decree, if he does in fact issue one, will be lawless and uncons utional on its face.

[boutons_deux]

The US Census falls unambiguously under Article I power. POTUS lacks the authority to do what he's trying to do, and he's doing it in the face of adverse legal rulings.

The Trump Census decree, if he does in fact issue one, will be lawless and uncons utional on its face.

Who has "standing" to challenge Trash's lawless decree? and will they do it?

it's like he emoluments ruling he won because the plaintiffs didn't have standing.

[Winehole23]

That's a good question.

[spurraider21]

That's a good question.

the states would have standing

The District Court concluded that the evidence at trial established a sufficient likelihood that the reinstatement of a citizenship question would result in noncitizen households responding to the census at lower rates than other groups, which in turn would cause them to be undercounted and lead to many of respondents’ asserted injuries. For purposes of standing, these findings of fact were not so suspect as to be clearly erroneous.

We therefore agree that at least some respondents have Article III standing. Several state respondents here have shown that if noncitizen households are undercounted by as little as 2%—lower than the District Court’s 5.8% prediction—they will lose out on federal funds that are distributed on the basis of state population. That is a sufficiently concrete and imminent injury to satisfy Article III, and there is no dispute that a ruling in favor of respondents would redress that harm.

The Government contends, however, that any harm to respondents is not fairly traceable to the Secretary’s decision, because such harm depends on the independent action of third parties choosing to violate their legal duty to respond to the census. The chain of causation is made even more tenuous, the Government argues, by the fact that such intervening, unlawful third-party action would be motivated by unfounded fears that the Federal Government will itself break the law by using noncitizens’ answers against them for law enforcement purposes. TheGovernment invokes our steady refusal to “endorse standing theories that rest on speculation about the decisions of independent actors,” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568U. S. 398, 414 (2013), particularly speculation about future unlawful conduct, Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S.95, 105 (1983).

But we are satisfied that, in these cir stances, respondents have met their burden of showing that third parties will likely react in predictable ways to the citizenship question, even if they do so unlawfully and despitethe requirement that the Government keep individual answers confidential. The evidence at trial established that noncitizen households have historically responded to the census at lower rates than other groups, and the District Court did not clearly err in crediting the CensusBureau’s theory that the discrepancy is likely attributable at least in part to noncitizens’ reluctance to answer acitizenship question. Respondents’ theory of standing

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...8-966_bq7c.pdf

[koriwhat]

If Obama had added a question to the 2010 census asking whether you owned a firearm, how do you think that would have gone over?

conflating issues once again... bad to ask if you're a citizen but good to ask if you have guns? is there not a registry for gun ownership already that the gov't can look up? lol

lmao at the idea of asking if you're a citizen of this country somehow is wrong to do. all you that have issues with it should just pack up and go make venezuela great again.

[Pavlov]

conflating issues once again... bad to ask if you're a citizen but good to ask if you have guns? is there not a registry for gun ownership already that the gov't can look up? lol

You should actually explore that issue yourself.

[koriwhat]

trolls will be trolls...

[Pavlov]

trolls will be trolls...

No, it's actually really interesting and might surprise you.

I'm not going to just answer you because you don't really care after all and just want to be angry at teh Dems.

If you want to know you're going to have to be a big boy and look it up yourself.