Posted on 01/15/2019 7:19:39 AM PST by COBOL2Java
Edited on 01/15/2019 7:50:35 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
That judge will just find some other reason why the question can’t be added. The question has been on them before and it was deemed legal what’s the problem?
Just another lib activist judge passing laws from the bench. This won’t stand and it lets us know again who is trying to change legal meaning to keep us under control, and we now know another one of the enemy.
LOL...sounds like the “Knights Who Say Nee!” where the one word they cannot utter is “it” so they can’t tell King Arthur what the word they may not utter is!
IIRC, from 1890 to 1950 the question used to be on the census form....
Judge Jesse Furman.
2012 Hussein appointee.
The Founders did not intend for the Judiciary to become the Supreme branch of government able to rule and overrule the other branches of the government by decree.Judges today believe they have the right to write laws from the bench without any checks on their power It’s time for a Convention of the States to address this abuse of power.
For even tax purposes, you need factual numbers about factual population. This even benefits the laft, but they are willing to be blind for a flag planted.
If asking them before wasn’t arbitrary why is it arbitrary now?
The black robes are smarter than everyone else combined.
Stop asking about ethnicity. Ask about citizenship.
“U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman said Tuesday that while such a question would be constitutional, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had added it arbitrarily and not followed proper procedure.”
If it’s legal then what power do they have to rule against it? “You didn’t fill out the paperwork” isn’t the purview of judges, is it?
Ignore the judge. Appeal and proceed.
The suicide of the United States. Led by Federal Judges.
...Then you admit Trump was right, but you just want to monkey around just to score a point.
Precisely.
The judge ought to be embarrassed, at least amongst his peers. He is in essence saying somewhere in the political process someone, or some group of our "betters" has the authority to deprive us of the...(benefit).
See in this regard the view of several states re the 2dA.
while such a question would be constitutional, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had added it arbitrarily and not followed proper procedure.
Not really.
If overruled, the Democrat-Communists will appeal to another left wing criminal judge
and block it again.
The strength of an independent Judiciary is its ability to reign in government overreach abd be apolitical.
Thanks to a succession of criminal and idiot administrations, the Federal Courts have been stocked with communist advocates who hate America and traditional American values. “Judges” like Bader-Ginsburg, Soto-Mayer and Kagan.
America as a nation needs to find a way to effectively nullify decisions by such judges and remove them from office.
A Hussein Head judge doing all HE can against America, too!
I agree - follow the correct procedure so that this particular objection is removed. This IS a role for proper procedure, even if it seems like nit-picking.
By the time that this gets to the Supreme Court and voted on, there may be a vacancy on the wrong side of this question.
Trump of course nailed it over the weekend when he said that if he did declare a national emergency he would be sued and the 9th circus would over turn his decision. He was right to call them out and right in what he said and I’m happy to see someone finally has the guts to do this. They are indeed black-robed tyrants.
Failed to follow procedure but it is constitutional? Sounds like it is a lawful decision and so he, the judge has nothing to do with it and can pound sand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.