Supreme Court rules against Trump bid to add Census Citizenship question

Ridiculous reasoning, the administration doesn't need to explain it's reasoning to another branch of government.

Did you notice the SCOTUS won't interfere in the gerrymander case?

 

The SCOTUS very often does what the elites want, going back to Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, and of course Roe v. Wade and Obergfell.

 

Trump has a ways to go before he gets smacked down as much as Obama's s***:

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obama-has-lost-supreme-court-more-any-modern-president

 

The Supreme Court pushed the issue to a point where it doesn't have the authority to question the reason for the question.

It should have been a simple, "is it Constitutional or is it not."
Similar questions have been asked before.

Roberts is playing political hot potato and isn't following the rules in doing so.

 

Not really

https://www.propublica.org/article/...p-losses-fred-barbash-washington-post-q-and-a

 

Deference has always been given to the administration and the Supreme Court has never gone outside of the arguments bringing in opinion instead of deciding on the law. A dangerous precedent that means any activist group can challenge any decision by any administration based on feelings and not the law.

 

I agree, the Executive Branch has full authority and does not have to explain to the SCOTUS.

 

So you believe only citizens should be counted then? All the more reason to have the question on the census.

 

Do you agree with the South of then and everyone regardless of citizenship be counted?

 

I believe in the constitution, don’t you?

 

When your registering your party affiliation where is the party called the deep South? They were Dems then and Dems now

 

Nothing in the Constitution about this question on the census. In fact for most of American history it has been on the census.

 

Then why aren't they cranking out those ole' Census Forms with the citizenship question tonight??

Posted for a 2nd time, because it's hilarious.... I'm considering making this part of my signature....

“Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave for his decision,” Roberts concluded. “We are presented, in other words, with an explanation for agency action that is incongruent with what the record reveals about the agency’s priorities and decisionmaking process.”

I don't know 100% where Roberts stands ideologically, but like most people, he just doesn't want to be lied to by ****ing idiots like Donald Trump and Wilbur Ross..... And that's good enough for me.... for the time being...

 

Not surprised you love dangerous precedents.

“For the first time ever, the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale.”
“I do not deny,that a judge predisposed to distrust the secretary or the administration could arrange those facts on a corkboard and — with a jar of pins and a spool of string — create an eye-catching conspiracy web.”
“Now that the court has opened up this avenue of attack,” he wrote, “opponents of executive actions have strong incentives to craft narratives that would derail them.”
~ Thomas

“To put the point bluntly, the federal judiciary has no authority to stick its nose into the question whether it is good policy to include a citizenship question on the census or whether the reasons given by Secretary Ross for that decision were his only reasons or his real reasons.” ~ Alito

 

You should write McConnell and tell him to start impeachment proceedings against him and the rest of those who voted against Trump and Ross.

 

SCOTUS Deep State? Oh, no!!!!

 

Those pinheads don't seem to know when they are being lied to or care... That's a bad precedent, my friend...

But the true news here is that it's unlikely this will go back to the SCOTUS without the Hofeller information attached, which it was too late to have done the first time...

 

The south are dems?

 

I was referring to counting them, not the question.

 

Ah, so bad precedents don't matter if you have TDS.

 

If you define TDS as NOT supporting a regime that will lie to the country and the courts to try and get their desired policy implemented, then sign me up!

 

Thanks for proving my point. You don't really care about the law, just partisanship.

 

If you define partisanship as NOT supporting a regime that will lie to the country and the courts to try and get their desired policy implemented, then sign me up!

 

Was that ever really in doubt? Party > Country.

 

Hillary swept the solid south in 2016, didn’t she?