Posted on 06/17/2019 8:43:44 AM PDT by bitt
The ACLU asks SCOTUS to delay ruling in Department of Commerce v. New York.
Sometime during the next two weeks, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down its ruling on whether the Census Bureau may include a question in the 2020 census asking if the person filling out the form is a U.S. citizen. If you think that’s a sensible question to ask in a nation whose population swells every year with immigrants from all over the planet, that means you’re in step with 60 percent of registered voters. It does, however, put you at odds with the Democrats, various leftwing activist groups, and an Obama-appointed judge in New York. Enter SCOTUS.
The Supreme Court took up the case early this year and heard oral arguments on April 23. It’s always difficult to predict a SCOTUS ruling by analyzing the questions asked by the justices during these hearings, but most Court watchers came away with the impression that the “conservative majority” would rule in favor of the Trump Commerce department. At which point, the Democrats did what they always do when they fear they are about to lose a Supreme Court Case — they sought some way to intimidate Chief Justice John Roberts. The ACLU came to their rescue:
The ACLU asked the Supreme Court to wait until the fall to decide if it will reject or allow the Trump administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. We requested the Supreme Court send the case to a lower court to consider new evidence showing the question was added for political purposes.
The “new evidence” consists of some information found on the hard drive of a Republican consultant named Thomas Hofeller. This fortuitous discovery ..
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
p
Roberts got rolled on Obamacare, why should this be different?
He is compromised and should resign.
It’s a safer bet just to assume Judge Roberts will side with the Libs on at least 75% of his ‘5th vote’ decisions.
That way, I don’t feel so let down. Not the way I felt when this judge kept ObamaCare alive by twisting legal definitions.
Of course, I'm sure illegals will be told to "just lie".
Imho, Justice John Roberts has been compromised.
What is the statute of limitations on adoption fraud?
5.56mm
Not the way I felt when this judge kept ObamaCare alive by twisting legal definitions.
—
Yep. He sure did. Twisted any logic he could find in order to justify placating the left and their attempt to destroy our country. Good job, there! Smirk-Boy!
The fact that the ACLU even thinks they have standing to stop such a question on the census is horrifying. This should be slapped down because it is PURELY POLITICAL to protect the presence of ILLEGAL CRIMINALS in our country.
Roberts will get rolled. he is a weak-willed man.
Yes because he wants to avoid being exposed for illegally adopting his two children. They were Irish Free State citizens and the Free State of Ireland only allows adoption of her children by Irish citizens. He will vote wrong on the census issue.
My bet is that Roberts will flop the wrong way.
"Judge Roberts ... kept ObamaCare alive by twisting legal definitions."
Fellow, fellows, no one can beat me for being a conservative, but you need to understand at least EXACTLY what Roberts did when he upheld Obamacare. And don't accuse me of being a lib, I am as far right as they come but I am a technical man and also a bit of a constitutional scholar.
Roberts voted with the conservative majority on Obamacare, initially. But he did not vote to overturn the entire 2,000 page monstrosity; he only voted to overturn the individual mandate. Why? Because he thinks that citizens should live with the decisions made by their legislators. So you don't make the romantic decision that conservatives want, overturn it all, you make the decision consistent with judicial restraint. Only overturn the few lines about the mandate.
But the other conservative justices disagreed. Overturn it all, they wanted. So Roberts had to make a choice. Abandon his principle of judicial restraint and side with Scalia, Thomas et.al., or switch votes and ... this is important ... get some concesssions from the lib justices in exchange for his vote?
He chose the latter. Yes, he had to do some written contortions to accept the fact that a mandate was instead a tax, but to him this seemed less egregious than overturning 98% of a law that was fully consistent with the constitution.
But the concessions he got from Ginsburg et. al. were very significant. He got them to agree to narrowing significantly the use of the Commerce Clause for bypassing the 10th Amendment. Clarence Thomas was no doubt thrilled with that. He also got them to agree that the Feds can't use witholding money from another program as a bribe, or a cudgel, to force states to act a certain way. Obamacare would have taken away Medicare funding for states who didn't set up exchanges; that's some serious arm twisting. But in exchange for the mandate, the libs agreed that this was unconstitutional. This has always been the source of the Fed's greatest power, get you dependent on their money and then threaten to take it away for another reason. Roberts deep sixed that.
So with Roberts' legal maneuver, the states could blow off doing a state exchange without penalty. THIS IS WHAT DESTROYED OBAMACARE OVER THE PAST 4 YEARS. Without the ability to force states to act, Obamacare imploded on its own.
This was clear back in 2012, when the SCOTUS decided on Obamacare. It gave us what we wanted, just over a longer timeframe. I think Roberts knew exactly what he was doing.
So cut him some slack. He got us some major concessions and, from the perspective of a veteran Supreme Court watcher, he won for us in the end.
He didn't get rolled, he made a very clever legal gambit. Just remember that.
I was thinking the same thing. His kids must be college age.
He smacked AZ down when they tried to enforce fed law so yes he will screw us again.
Yes but...... the Free Republic Dogma is that Roberts was blackmailed.
Truth doesn’t matter
So you think.
It could have/should have all been thrown out years ago.
Roberts does not have the balls to be a good justice on the Court. He’s a despicable weasel.
I appreciate your analysis Tom h and agree with you.
I don’t know about Roberts. But, this nation is where it is today because of the ASININE way people vote. Yes voter fraud is a problem but it’s only got to this point because we have elected horrible representatives who have aided and abetted the fraud.
We as a nation have to start voting better.
We have good voters, good patches and some really good elected officials. But not good enough. This country has got to start voting CONSISTENTLY BETTER. Hilary should not have gotten a tenth of the votes she got. Obama never should have been elected once, let alone twice. Standing against the political opinions of most Californians, Gavin Newsome does not belong in the governorship of California. Our electorate is lazy and self Indulgent and corrupt.
I appreciate your explanation. Most of the unlearned (me) saw it as choosing which side of the argument to support or enable. “Which Tribe do you belong to, ours or theirs?”
It’s good to know the bigger picture though.
What was really contained within the penumbra of that law.
Unfortunately, just like everyone else, Freepers are not necessarily deep thinkers and don’t want to read anything longer than 140 characters.
Still, ya gotta luv em for their passion.
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.