- 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
Can someone give me cliff notes on Census ruling? What argument was "a lie"?
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:57 pm
Posted on 6/27/19 at 5:57 pm
How was it determined to be a lie?
Can't make sense of it. Anyone with enough sense to make it to work could come up with a good answer as to "why". Hell, we're being over-run by 3rd world Hispanics. It's the #1 concern of US citizens. How could you possibly blow the "why"??
Can't make sense of it. Anyone with enough sense to make it to work could come up with a good answer as to "why". Hell, we're being over-run by 3rd world Hispanics. It's the #1 concern of US citizens. How could you possibly blow the "why"??
4
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:05 pm to WorkinDawg
Wow I just realized they ruled against the citizenship question. Terrible ruling.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:10 pm to WorkinDawg
something about the question is valid and should be included only if they can determine the true intent behind why they want to ask the question 
so once again, forget the constitution and the law you just cited clearly says the question is valid and should be on the census, lets rule against it because maybe its being asked for the wrong reasons
just like with the travel ban it depends on the "feels" behind it if its giving us a reason to ignore clear letter law or not and say orange man bad
so once again, forget the constitution and the law you just cited clearly says the question is valid and should be on the census, lets rule against it because maybe its being asked for the wrong reasons
just like with the travel ban it depends on the "feels" behind it if its giving us a reason to ignore clear letter law or not and say orange man bad
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:13 pm to keakar
pretty much
It's OK to ask the question as long as the court is OK with the reason you asked it.
So, they said go back to the lower court and explain your reasoning behind the question.
It's OK to ask the question as long as the court is OK with the reason you asked it.
So, they said go back to the lower court and explain your reasoning behind the question.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:13 pm to Walter Kovacs
quote:
Wow I just realized they ruled against the citizenship question. Terrible ruling.
No, they didn’t. Not at all. Read the opinion people, Jesus.
Commerce didn’t adequately provide an acceptable justification for the change. Roberts’ opinion outright tells the government that to include the question all Commerce has to do is go back to the District court and provide a better reason for including the question.
The ‘voting rights act compliance’ mantra was always stupid
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:14 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
It's OK to ask the question as long as the court is OK with the reason you asked it.
Wrong. The Court doesn’t have to like it, but it has to be reasonable.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:15 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
but it has to be reasonable.
a/k/a they have to be Ok with it
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:16 pm to keakar
Frickalmighty- there is nothing more basic than the US Census. Knowing if the person taking the census is legal or illegal (thus should count for House seats, etc.) is pretty dam important. We've tied ourselves in knots and can't get anything meaningful accomplished. How is this even debatable???
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:19 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
a/k/a they have to be Ok with it
You mean they have to Agree with it? No, not at all.
If you mean “being OK” with it to mean “satisfied that it is legally sufficient” then yea, I guess.
There is jurisprudence on agency decisions. SCOTUS didn’t pull this opinion out of nowhere. Requiring a reasonable justification for executive agency policy changes is not bad case law.
It’s inconvenient for this administration at this particular time because of the time constraints related to prepping for the census. However, down the road this opinion works HEAVILY in this administration’s and the executive branches favor.
Roberts essentially said all you have to do is provide anything at all that is actually reasonable, then an agency can do wtf it wants.
The voting rights act justification was ridiculous from the jump. It never made sense, and I support the questions inclusion.
This post was edited on 6/27/19 at 6:21 pm
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:22 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
There is jurisprudence on agency decisions. SCOTUS didn’t pull this opinion out of nowhere. Requiring a reasonable justification for executive agency policy changes is not bad case law.
According to Justice Thomas you are wrong.
From the Thomas dissent:
quote:
The Court, however, goes further. For the first time ever, the Court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale. Echoing the din of suspicion and distrust that seems to typify modern discourse, the Court declares the Secretary’s memorandum “pretextual” because, “viewing the evidence as a whole,” his explanation that including a citizenship question on the census would help enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA) “seems to have been contrived.” Ante, at 23, 26, 28. The Court does not hold
that the Secretary merely had additional, unstated reasons for reinstating the citizenship question. Rather, it holds that the Secretary’s stated rationale did not factor at all into his decision....
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. App. to Pet. for Cert. 527a (crediting respondents’ allegations that “the current Department of Justice has shown little interest in enforcing the” VRA (emphasis added)).
This post was edited on 6/27/19 at 6:24 pm
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:24 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
No, they didn’t. Not at all. Read the opinion people, Jesus.
Commerce didn’t adequately provide an acceptable justification for the change. Roberts’ opinion outright tells the government that to include the question all Commerce has to do is go back to the District court and provide a better reason for including the question.
The ‘voting rights act compliance’ mantra was always stupid
The purpose of this thread was asking for cliff notes on logic of the ruling so I don't have to read it.
What was Commerce's argument?
Finally, how can Voting Rights Act be stupid? They stretch that focker in every direction when discussing common sense things like voter ID. How in the world could it not be used in support of the census? You know, for actual US citizens who's vote is nullified by an illegal voter.....or Cali getting an extra house seat.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:25 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Commerce didn’t adequately provide an acceptable justification for the change.
Federal funding and representation (how many reps each state gets) is plenty reason.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:25 pm to MFn GIMP
Justice Thomas is a national treasure.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:29 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Federal funding and representation (how many reps each state gets) is plenty reason.
It's unfricking believable....the shite courts uphold and we get an insane ruling like this
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:32 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
The voting rights act justification was ridiculous from the jump. It never made sense, and I support the questions inclusion.
I agree completely. I am fine with the question, but I expect a government that can at least provide a reason that passes the smell test. This did not. In all fairness, the administration had the bad luck that the Republican strategist that is the architect of this died and his daughter gave his hard drives to the other side which produced a lot of the most damning evidence. In the end they should have had a better reason but they had some really bad luck that this evidence was found.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:34 pm to MFn GIMP
Thomas is factually incorrect. Courts “question the motive” all the time; that’s literally the entire basis of the due process analysis 
.
But to OP, here’s the Court’s reasoning in simple terms:
1) You want to make a change to the census
2) Your proposed change has potential ramifications affecting one of the most important aspects of our Republic (deciding how many congressional seats each state gets)
3) You kinda have to justify why that change is appropriate before we let you do it.
4) Your justification is beyond stupid. We are actually on your side. We’re rooting for you. But come on, baw. Give us something to work with.
. But to OP, here’s the Court’s reasoning in simple terms:
1) You want to make a change to the census
2) Your proposed change has potential ramifications affecting one of the most important aspects of our Republic (deciding how many congressional seats each state gets)
3) You kinda have to justify why that change is appropriate before we let you do it.
4) Your justification is beyond stupid. We are actually on your side. We’re rooting for you. But come on, baw. Give us something to work with.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:38 pm to Cold Drink
quote:
) Your justification is beyond stupid. We are actually on your side. We’re rooting for you. But come on, baw. Give us something to work with.
That's interesting because even Roberts said in his opinion, emphasis added:
quote:
He then weighed the value of obtaining more complete and accurate citizenship data against the uncertain risk that reinstating a citizenship question would result in a materially lower response rate, and explained why he thought the benefits of his approach outweighed the risk. That decision was reasonable and reasonably explained, particularly in light of the long history of the citizenship question on the census. Pp. 16–20.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:39 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:
they should have had a better reason
what was the reason they were standing on??
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:41 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:
I agree completely. I am fine with the question, but I expect a government that can at least provide a reason that passes the smell test.
I'll ask again, how does voting rights act not "pass the smell test"? Don't US citizens deserve to have their vote protected from nullification by an illegal? As stated above, voting rights act is used to argue against things like voter ID. This is a far better and more straight forward use of "voter rights"...you know, for actual US Citizens voting legally and all
Posted on 6/27/19 at 6:47 pm to WorkinDawg
Haven't been following this particular case much, but there is an argument to be made that asking the citizenship question will give us an inaccurate count overall. This is because no illegal is going to answer the question - they will simply avoid the census. The citizenship question hasn't been asked in previous censuses to my knowledge. It was a sort of a "don't ask don't tell" type of thing.
In a way, I would rather have an accurate overall count of people in America than to know exactly how many are illegals.
In a way, I would rather have an accurate overall count of people in America than to know exactly how many are illegals.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News