Justice Roberts second guesses policy making decision on census, violates separation of powers

[Dragonlady]

No it isn't. It's designed to skew the results. The mission of the census is to be as accurate as possible and totally non-partisan. There is no way the question would yield an accurate result so why have it? The answer is obvious. Republicans want an under-count in immigrant communities for when districts are redrawn and when federal money gets spent.

Wait you admit blue states are welfare states?

All states have poor people. Do you really want to compare poverty rates in red vs blue states? You really don't.

I will destroy you..


You don't comprehend buying power.

.

You couldn't destroy anything except a golden corral buffet.

Sounds good you buying?

Notice the conservative expects someone else to pay, not him.

 

[Dana7360]

It appears with all the noise about the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision.

In regard to this assumption of power Justice Stone reminds us that:

”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)


Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:


”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”

And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.



And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violate the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction by interfering with a legitimate question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.

trump and his cohorts lied to the court about why they are trying to do this. It has nothing to do with what you posted. It has nothing to do with the voting rights law as the trump administration lied about to the court.

There is only one reason why trump tried to do this. To cheat. To deny blue states their rightful representation in congress and to deny proper funding to blue states.

The truth was exposed on a hard drive from the dead man who came up with this scheme.

At least one conservative judge on the Supreme Court doesn't like to be lied to.

trump shouldn't have sent his lawyers and cohorts to the court to lie. If he had been honest maybe things would have worked out differently but he lied. So now you have to deal with the consequences of your actions.

If you don't like it, stop voting for people who are incapable of telling truth.

 

[johnwk]

It appears with all the noise about the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision.

In regard to this assumption of power Justice Stone reminds us that:

”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)


Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:


”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”

And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.



And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violate the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction by interfering with a legitimate question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.

Nonsense.

The decision has nothing to do with determining the constitutionality of an act of Congress.

.

Baloney. Congress delegated almost unlimited power to the Executive Office over the censes. Additionally, we are talking about a policy making decision, which is not within the courts assigned duty to second guess.

JWK

 

[Westender]

I dont get it. Why would you want non citizens to fill out our census. I live in a tourist area with numerous Europeans visiting, why would we want tourist, visitors, or criminal occupiers filling out our census?

 

[22lcidw]

Republicans fucked themselves on this by using any excuse to justify the question and acting as if the idea of a deliberate under-count of the census never occurred to them. No one likes to be bullshitted to their face.

Da swamp is a deep and murky muth a ph uka!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My only real problem with the ruling is that Roberts stated that it might be legal for other reasons, just not the one given. It is legal or not. The reason should not matter.

Wrong.

Policies enacted by the executive in bad faith are not valid, the ‘citizenship question’ being one such example.

The purpose of the ‘question’ was to intimidate Hispanic residents and exploit their fear of a Trump administration hostile to immigrants and immigration, where lawful permanent resident aliens and those undocumented seeking asylum would not participate in the census fearful of punitive actions by the Trump administration.

The intent of the ‘question,’ therefore, was to disadvantage blue states with regard to Congressional representation and allocation of Federal funds and programs predicated on a state’s population determined by the census.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution says nothing about counting only citizens, nor does it authorize the exclusion of persons from the census because of their immigration status, or a lack thereof.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It appears with all the noise about the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision.

In regard to this assumption of power Justice Stone reminds us that:

”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)


Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:


”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”

And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.



And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violate the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction by interfering with a legitimate question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...uestion/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8f8de0049215

From the Link:

President Trump just explained why he thinks we need a citizenship question on the census. But in doing so, he seems to have said the quiet part out loud — and conceivably could have undercut the Justice Department’s legal case.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said you need the census citizenship question “for many reasons.”

“Number one, you need it for Congress — you need it for Congress for districting,” he said Friday. “You need it for appropriations — where are the funds going? How many people are there? Are they citizens? Are they not citizens? You need it for many reasons.”

And then the question is needed to carry out the 2nd Section of the 14th Amendment . . . distinguishing citizens from non-citizens.

JWK

"Justice Douglas, you must remember one thing. At the Constitutional level where we work, ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reason for supporting our predilections."
The Court Years --1939-1975---The Autobiography of William O. Douglas, page 8

The quote was that of Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes, which Justice Douglas wrote, "was shattering to me ...but over the years turned out to be true".

But I digress, reading sec 2 of the 14th A. in the context of your question, I can only see a reference to Native Americans ("Indians not taxed"); and, of course the 19th and 26th Amendments allowed women the right to vote in the former, and an 18 year old in the latter.

 

[Dana7360]

Republicans fucked themselves on this by using any excuse to justify the question and acting as if the idea of a deliberate under-count of the census never occurred to them. No one likes to be bullshitted to their face.

Nobody said anything never occurred to them.

The point you ignore is that it's a legitimate question.

No it isn't. It's designed to skew the results. The mission of the census is to be as accurate as possible and totally non-partisan. There is no way the question would yield an accurate result so why have it? The answer is obvious. Republicans want an under-count in immigrant communities for when districts are redrawn and when federal money gets spent.

Wait you admit blue states are welfare states?

No.

Actually it's the red states that are the welfare states that take more money than they contribute. Most red states heavily depend on the federal government to balance their state budgets. Red states don't properly tax their populations and businesses.

It's us blue states who are self sufficient and don't heavily depend on federal tax dollars to balance our state budgets.

Most & Least Federally Dependent States

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans fucked themselves on this by using any excuse to justify the question and acting as if the idea of a deliberate under-count of the census never occurred to them. No one likes to be bullshitted to their face.

The court laughed at Trumps reasoning

 

[johnwk]

But I digress, reading sec 2 of the 14th A. in the context of your question, I can only see a reference to Native Americans ("Indians not taxed");

Did you miss this:


But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


JWK

 

[Care4all]

I dont get it. Why would you want non citizens to fill out our census. I live in a tourist area with numerous Europeans visiting, why would we want tourist, visitors, or criminal occupiers filling out our census?

It's not a count of tourists or temporary visa holders, the Census is a count of all RESIDENTS living in each state.... per the constitution on what the census count should include.... not just citizens... but all residents.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It appears with all the noise about the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision.

In regard to this assumption of power Justice Stone reminds us that:

”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)


Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:


”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”

And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.



And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violate the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction by interfering with a legitimate question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.

Nonsense.

The decision has nothing to do with determining the constitutionality of an act of Congress.

.

Baloney. Congress delegated almost unlimited power to the Executive Office over the censes. Additionally, we are talking about a policy making decision, which is not within the courts assigned duty to second guess.

JWK

'
I beg to differ. In part in Amendments 4, 5, 6 & 8 have been ignored for months by the Trump Administration, as well as Bush II and Obama if we are to include those still held in Cuba.

 

[Wry Catcher]

But I digress, reading sec 2 of the 14th A. in the context of your question, I can only see a reference to Native Americans ("Indians not taxed");

Did you miss this:


But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


JWK

I read it four times, my only take away is those who fought for the Confederacy and other criminals will reduce the numbers and thus impact redistricting. Unless you've equated those who cross the boarder have committed a crime. if so, keep in mind that is a civil issue, unless the person crosses the border after once being deported.

 

[Dana7360]

I dont get it. Why would you want non citizens to fill out our census. I live in a tourist area with numerous Europeans visiting, why would we want tourist, visitors, or criminal occupiers filling out our census?

Tourists and visitors to our nation don't fill out the census.

It's sent to an address. The person who lives at that address fills out the form.

Visitors and tourists don't live here so they don't fill out the form.

You know this yet you posted that ridiculous post and made a fool of yourself to every intelligent person reading this thread.

The census isn't to count all citizens of this nation. It's to count all residents and those living here. The constitution doesn't say one word about citizenship in regard to the census.

All you care about is the fact that your party is losing members at a very high rate now and see your chances of winning an election becoming harder and harder. So instead of changing your party, instead of having policies that appeal to people, you want to cheat to force your policies on a nation that doesn't want them. Which will further harm and divide our nation.

Backlash is a real bummer and it's headed your way.

You people will whine, cry and throw temper tantrums but you have only yourselves to blame.

 

[OldLady]

It appears with all the noise about the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision.

Except that legislative power had nothing to do with anything here.

Oh, but it does. Congress delegated almost unlimited power to Executive Office with regard to the census. Additionally, this is a policy making decision, and our courts are not there to second guess policy making decisions.

JWK

Purposely trying to make the census inaccurate is NOT just a policy making decision. Well, it is, but it is illegal as hell. The Census is mandated every ten years.

I'm not sure why there is such a big fuss over asking the question this year. Our illegal population is actually shrinking they say and the question doesn't ask if you are here illegally. Is this more shrieking by the Never Trumpers?

Shrinking?

Ohh, lie some more. Obamugabe gets hard when you lie....

5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.
BY JENS MANUEL KROGSTAD, JEFFREY S. PASSEL AND D’VERA COHN


The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States has dropped to the level it was in 2004, and Mexicans are no longer a majority of this population. This decline is due mainly to a large drop in the number of new unauthorized immigrants, especially Mexicans, coming into the country. The origin countries of unauthorized immigrants also shifted during that time, with the number from Mexico declining and the number rising from Central America and Asia, according to the latest Pew Research Center estimates.
5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.

 

[Care4all]

But I digress, reading sec 2 of the 14th A. in the context of your question, I can only see a reference to Native Americans ("Indians not taxed");

Did you miss this:


But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


JWK

That passage in the 14th is about the Federal government being given power to punish States who prevent black men (who had just been given their right to vote) or any citizen legally with the right to vote, from voting.

The Federal government was given the power to take away proportionately, the number of Federal Representatives for the US Congress the State had gotten from the Census count, for the black men that were disenfranchised.

IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Census, or the purpose of the census, other than taking away the State's congressmen and representation in our federal govt,, based on the number of citizens they kept from legally voting for their nefarious reasons.

 

[Crixus]

Except that legislative power had nothing to do with anything here.

Uhhh. Yes. It does.

It is the Congress legislative power to determine if a census question on citizenship is legal. And POTUS's power to sign or veto it. Not the SCOTUS's.

You're kidding right?

It is scotus's job to determine constitutionality, no one else's.

And what does the constitution say about the census?

 

[basquebromance]

i wonder if Roberts is still chiseled as he was in his days as a high school wrestler.

BUT...STAY ON TOPIC!

 

[Wyatt earp]

It appears with all the noise about the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision.

In regard to this assumption of power Justice Stone reminds us that:

”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)


Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:


”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”

And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.



And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violate the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction by interfering with a legitimate question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.

trump and his cohorts lied to the court about why they are trying to do this. It has nothing to do with what you posted. It has nothing to do with the voting rights law as the trump administration lied about to the court.

There is only one reason why trump tried to do this. To cheat. To deny blue states their rightful representation in congress and to deny proper funding to blue states.

The truth was exposed on a hard drive from the dead man who came up with this scheme.

At least one conservative judge on the Supreme Court doesn't like to be lied to.

trump shouldn't have sent his lawyers and cohorts to the court to lie. If he had been honest maybe things would have worked out differently but he lied. So now you have to deal with the consequences of your actions.

If you don't like it, stop voting for people who are incapable of telling truth.

All that to

S

A

Y

Blue states are well fare whores?

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I dont get it. Why would you want non citizens to fill out our census. I live in a tourist area with numerous Europeans visiting, why would we want tourist, visitors, or criminal occupiers filling out our census?

It's not a count of tourists or temporary visa holders, the Census is a count of all RESIDENTS living in each state.... per the constitution on what the census count should include.... not just citizens... but all residents.

Not the ones who can get here huh?


.