- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Another Court Strikes Down Trump’s Census Citizenship Question
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:49 pm
LINK
quote:
A federal judge in California ruled Wednesday against the Trump administration’s move to add a citizenship question to the Census.
U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, of the Northern District of California, said that the addition of the question was a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Unlike the judge in New York who also ruled against the question, Seeborg also said that the question violated the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause, which requires the “actual Enumeration” of the population every decade to be used for congressional apportionment.
The Supreme Court has taken up the New York case for review and will hear arguments next month.
22
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:49 pm to TOKEN
quote:
federal judge in California ruled
Shocked face
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:50 pm to TOKEN
So this decision is yet another huge waste of time and taxpayer money and means a big huge NOTHING.
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:50 pm to TOKEN
quote:
A federal judge in California
Not surprised at all...
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:50 pm to TOKEN
quote:
The Supreme Court has taken up the New York case for review and will hear arguments next month.
Will be the only opinion that matters. Every Cali court could rule against it, but the case already before the SC will decide the issue.
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:50 pm to TOKEN
Hopefully the Supreme Court gets it right. I have no faith in John Roberts when it counts.
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:51 pm to TOKEN
quote:
Enumeration Clause, which requires the “actual Enumeration” of the population every decade to be used for congressional apportionment.
Great! Let's also have the Supreme Court define "population" as intended. My bet is population in this use does not include everyone, only citizens. Trump could be killing two birds with one stone thanks to this judge...
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:53 pm to TOKEN
the census is a head count of current legal citizens of the united states yet they arent allowed to ask if those being counted as legal citizens of the united state are in fact legal citizens.
so if this judge feels the census should be prevented from collecting accurate data he should just declare the census cant be done at all
so if this judge feels the census should be prevented from collecting accurate data he should just declare the census cant be done at all
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:54 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
How does it affect Enumeration? It doesn’t, it just separates citizens from non-citizens...What am I missing with this ruling?
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:54 pm to TOKEN
I feel like the SCOTUS is going to uphold these decisions, unfortunately.
From a textualist perspective, "actual Enumeration" is what it says. However, it is an untenable policy to apportion Congressional representation based purely on bodies and not American citizens. Such apportionment is pretty clearly contrary to the purpose of representation and common sense. If the Court holds that this question cannot be included, Congress needs to consider amending the Enumeration Clause.
Non-citizens have no place being considered for Congressional representation. For social services, etc, fine..Its probably better to be pragmatic and get an accurate count for who is actually there (legal or not) for the purposes of schools, public health, etc. But not for apportionment. Not at all.
It will be a very interesting decision.
From a textualist perspective, "actual Enumeration" is what it says. However, it is an untenable policy to apportion Congressional representation based purely on bodies and not American citizens. Such apportionment is pretty clearly contrary to the purpose of representation and common sense. If the Court holds that this question cannot be included, Congress needs to consider amending the Enumeration Clause.
Non-citizens have no place being considered for Congressional representation. For social services, etc, fine..Its probably better to be pragmatic and get an accurate count for who is actually there (legal or not) for the purposes of schools, public health, etc. But not for apportionment. Not at all.
It will be a very interesting decision.
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:54 pm to TOKEN
This is BS, illegal aliens are being counted in the Congressional apportionment. That means that they are also being counted in the Electoral college apportionment.
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:54 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
John Roberts when it counts.
Flaming out rather quickly
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:54 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
Great! Let's also have the Supreme Court define "population" as intended. My bet is population in this use does not include everyone, only citizens. Trump could be killing two birds with one stone thanks to this judge...
That would be pretty clever
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:56 pm to CamdenTiger
quote:
How does it affect Enumeration? It doesn’t, it just separates citizens from non-citizens...What am I missing with this ruling?
They will claim that the question suppresses the response rate among non-citizens, leading to an inaccurate count and therefore violative of "actual Enumeration"
Its a stretch, and rather disingenuous, but it has legs with the more liberal legal minds and those who sympathize with the illegal population.
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:58 pm to TOKEN
quote:
U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, of the Northern District of California, said that the addition of the question was a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Unlike the judge in New York who also ruled against the question, Seeborg also said that the question violated the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause, which requires the “actual Enumeration” of the population every decade to be used for congressional apportionment.
Democrats used to claim the Slaves as 3/5ths a man for representation in Congress.
Now they get 5/5ths for illegals.
Democrats never change!
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:58 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I feel like the SCOTUS is going to uphold these decisions, unfortunately.
From a textualist perspective, "actual Enumeration" is what it says. However, it is an untenable policy to apportion Congressional representation based purely on bodies and not American citizens. Such apportionment is pretty clearly contrary to the purpose of representation and common sense. If the Court holds that this question cannot be included, Congress needs to consider amending the Enumeration Clause.
Non-citizens have no place being considered for Congressional representation. For social services, etc, fine..Its probably better to be pragmatic and get an accurate count for who is actually there (legal or not) for the purposes of schools, public health, etc. But not for apportionment. Not at all.
It will be a very interesting decision.
Counting vs Estimating argument continues.
I agree, the SCOTUS will uphold these decisions
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:59 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
I have no faith in John Roberts when it counts.
This post was edited on 3/6/19 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:59 pm to TOKEN
This case reminds me of the Saturday Night Live segment of "Weekend News" when the news announcer said, "In breaking news, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that the U.S. constitution is unconstitutional."
Posted on 3/6/19 at 12:59 pm to TOKEN
Considering the SCOTUS is already reviewing the matter, seems to me this ruling should have been held pending that review.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News