I haven’t kept up with the details of this case that closely. Is there a reason that some of you all think Roberts has already made up his mind that he is going to side with the administration?
You have some fascinating insight into the minds of “liberals” to know what they want the Constitution to say and how they want the census directed. You should go on the road with such Kreskin-like powers. I hear sideshows are making a comeback. (Just look at Trump’s rallies.)
:rolleyes:
Expectorations,
CaptMurdock
Congress doesn’t need to modify the law because this is already the law. The status quo would certainly be consistent with a prohibition on questions being asked because of animosity towards a certain ethnicity or race.
Separately, Congress can certainly direct the census more explicitly than they have, and either require or prohibit citizenship questions. The fact that they didn’t, even knowing this was going to occur, is part of the reason that the Court may side with the administration.
My point is, that the court taking this case, and the questions presented, whether they agree or disagree, etc., does not
mean that the liberals on the court want to overturn the law and constitution. That’s not even close to a fair presentation of the issue.
Hold on a second – I’m going to walk you through the broad steps here.
- Congress never directed the Commerce Department to include the question on the census.
- Ross took it upon himself to add the question under the gloss of broad authority delegated by Congress to Commerce.
- Experts within the Commerce Department say that the question will undermine responses.
- When questioned about why he added the question, Ross lied repeatedly about the origin and the intent of adding the question.
So now because an Executive Branch official is taking a capricious action for which he cannot even provide a half-serious (or vaguely truthful) answer to the courts, it is up to Congress and NOT the courts to prevent the Executive Branch from doing stupid things with the clear intent to produce a political/electoral, rather than a governmental/policy, outcome?
Certainly you don’t believe this. You don’t believe that Congress needs to pass a law saying that taking the Census must be done in a non-discriminatory fashion? Do you believe every law that Congress passes must include language which says the law is to be executed in a way which is non-discriminatory? Isn’t it automatic? And isn’t it automatic that if a law has the effect of discrimination whether or not that was the intent, it can then be challenged? That is certainly how we’ve been operating
So, in your view, if congress wanted to defund the Commerce department and said the census will consist of two democrats who will guess, as best they can, the population of each state that would be ok.
But the Constitution says a lot of things. If Congress passes a law as directed by one part of the Constitution but violate another part of the Constitution, then the SCOTUS has the authority and the obligation to strike down that law.
You know what I find amusing? Republicans are now saying that it doesn’t matter if we make the Census less accurate. But last cycle, when there was the question of whether the Census should use statistical estimations to make the Census less accurate, the same Republicans were wholeheartedly against that, on the grounds that the Census constitutionally absolutely must be 100% accurate. It’s almost as though they don’t care about pesky little details like truth and the Constitution, and just want to do whatever benefits their party, no matter the consequences.
Ours is a nation of over 300 million people spread across a vast geographical area. Is it possible that, regardless of the citizenship question, the Constitution is demanding something that simply cannot be done? Is it even possible to count so many people, some of whom don’t want to be counted for whatever reason?
On most every political issue, there is the surface motive, and the real motive.
It would be impossible to be 100% accurate but they do the best they can and get pretty close (relatively speaking).
No, they don’t do the best they can, because the Republicans won’t let them.
Well, at least everyone has free and equal access to the voting booths at election time, thanks to the efforts of Republicans. :rolleyes:
Sooo, let’s add an unnecessary question that is likely to make the reults less accurate?
They do the best they can within the limits republicans place on them. 
The SCOTUS is unlikely to accept two arguments that have been pushed by opponents of the citizenship question. The first of those is the argument about constitutionality.
The justices added a question for the parties to argue about whether such a question is a violation of the Enumeration Clause because lower courts split on the issue. However precedent is strong that the census is not limited to merely taking a head count. I wouldn’t be surprised on a near unanimous ruling on that question which would affirm that while a citizenship question is not constitutionally required, it is also not constitutionally prohibited.
T second shaky argument is that the census would be better without the citizenship question. That would necessitate substituting their own judgement for that of the Commerce Secretary to whom authority over the census was granted by Congress. The conservative majority on the high court would be loathe to accept such reasoning as it might invite literal legislating from the bench.
However there are routes that Roberts (let’s face it, he’s the most likely swing vote here) could take that could derail the citizenship question. An underlying legal issue is whether the proposed change to census questions is something that requires a notice and comment period under the Administrative Procedures Act and whether Ross complied with other aspects of the APA in making the change. A ruling that the manner in which the question was added was improper could mean that there is not enough time to go back and do it the proper way before critical deadlines pass. That could end up with such a question being off the 2020 census, but permissible in 2030 if the proper process is carried out. It is a sort of technical narrow ruling that could piss everyone off in the long run.
Or a route that could get possible buy-in from other conservative justices would be to declare that it was unconstitutional for Congress to delegate their authority over the census to the Executive branch to begin with. Such a ruling could have wide reaching consequences (e.g. might mean Congress delegating to the Secretary of HHS the authority to determine what exactly must be covered under Obamacare was improper) over many instances where the Legislative branch has delegated legislative functions to the Executive branch. I’d rate that option quite unlikely, but it could be a devil’s bargain that could swing a vote or two. Kill the citizenship question on the census now if it means reigning in this delegation of authority that Congress has done repeatedly.
That is horse shit for the simple fact that a census is a census, meaning that the design of a census questionnaire should be designed so that it does not discourage participation. Otherwise, what’s the fucking point of a census?
To intimidate non-citizens living in the U.S.A.?
This would be a very Roberts-like thing to do, wouldn’t it? Rule as narrowly as possible to keep SCOTUS above the fray and out of thorny political arguments. Not sure if this is a likely ruling, but it does seem like something he could wrangle into a 5-4 majority decision that kicks the can down the road.
And my stance is this - You (nor I) can possibly know for sure the effect of adding/re-adding a citizenship question to the census because:
- no one knows how many people in the country illegally return the forms now (my guess, based on 2010 census return rates, is damn few)
- no one knows how many people in the country illegally would return the form and lie about citizenship
Without further evidence, I am of the belief that this question will not move the population count needle significantly in either direction.