Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will Roberts Get Rolled on Census Case?
spector.org ^ | 6/17/2019 | david catron

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: 2020census; 2020election; aliens; census; chiefjusticeroberts; election2020; judiciary; justiceroberts; lawsuit; roberts; robertscourt; scotus; scotuscensus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 last
To: tom h

Agree with you. Very good posting, tom h.


81 posted on 06/18/2019 2:51:46 AM PDT by octex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK

Good posting, RitaOK.


82 posted on 06/18/2019 3:43:57 AM PDT by octex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

The age of an account has nothing to do with anything, so snicker away.

If its credentials, I’ll put mine up against those of tom h. I can guarantee you I know more constitutional law than he does. He’s an engineer and possesses the typical arrogance of one.


83 posted on 06/18/2019 10:28:31 AM PDT by Stravinsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Stravinsky; tom h
I can guarantee you I know more constitutional law than he does

Whatever, n00b.

Your sole contribution to illuminating the subject was "What condescending nonsense".

I'll go with the guy that had actual reasons, instead of your half-pinion.

84 posted on 06/18/2019 1:58:52 PM PDT by kiryandil (Never pick a fight with an angry beehive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Stravinsky; kiryandil

Engineer? That is so 1990s. Senior tech exec since 99, corp exec since 2003, CEO since 2008. Began teaching at universities at night at age 25.

Lay out your own credentials, bonehead.

I bet the closest you get to anything significant is your name, when in the local pub, you tell the drunken truck drivers and Harley riders that you’re related to the famous violinist.


85 posted on 06/18/2019 3:54:37 PM PDT by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

Sorry to put you through this, but these clowns don’t know when to give up! I haven’t done this much sparring ever, especially given the disparity in intelligence, knowledge, and experience. Oh well, there’s always a first time.


86 posted on 06/18/2019 3:56:18 PM PDT by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: lee martell

If obamacare was so good, lets bring it back then. What was all the bitching about repealing it?


87 posted on 06/18/2019 4:04:58 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sport

I caused the fight, and it’s gone on for 88 comments. It wasn’t about Obamacare good or bad, it was about the merits of SC Justice Roberts’ decision to join with the lefties in his opinion to uphold it.

Read my first long post, #12. I wasn’t actually trying to endorse Roberts’ opinion, I was just trying to defend his honor a bit. A lot of shallow Freepers think he is a tool of the left, or a toady, or had been bribed, because of that decision. None of the above, in fact. He made a nuanced and, to him, principled decision.

But I had no idea that some freepers still had emotional wounds, 7 years later, about that opinion. They kind of remind me of the baseball fans in Brooklyn, in 1978, who were still angry that Walter O’Malley had moved the Dodgers 20 years earlier.


88 posted on 06/18/2019 4:30:51 PM PDT by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: tom h
No worries.

These n00b guys don't hold a candle to Eschoir or some of the early trolls.

I've always kind of filed Roberts as a question mark under "not enough information".

89 posted on 06/18/2019 6:34:34 PM PDT by kiryandil (Never pick a fight with an angry beehive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

Now that’s an interesting way to put it, and I agree.

I think Roberts’ philosophy on judicial restraint is coming out more. And he follows this philosophy even when it conflicts with his underlying conservativism. This is maddening and will continue to drive we conservatisms crazy. But I can only guess is that he is trying to set an example for other jurists, to not vote their politics but to merely intepret the law, and follow the constitution strictly.

I think this is a failing effort with the current four liberal justices. That’s what makes this even more perplexing.

There is another thing about Roberts. He believes that the court should not write new law, OK. He will never be in the majority of a future conservative Roe v Wade. But he also believes in incrementalism, that the court should not be issuing decisions that cause earthquakes. That’s why the court is avoiding broad decisions on matters like religious liberty, e.g., forcing Christian bakers to bake gay wedding cakes. He seems to not want to issue the big decision the first time the matter comes before the SCOTUS. For some reason, he wants the issue to bubble up a few times before the big decision.


90 posted on 06/18/2019 8:49:16 PM PDT by tom h (a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: tom h
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.

Except keeping laws that have no basis in the Constitution isn't something I would call judicial restraint..
91 posted on 06/20/2019 5:16:01 PM PDT by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Svartalfiar

Look, Obamacare was a monstrosity. I hated it, you hated it, we all hated it. But in its bulky, repulsive 2,000 pages only the mandate and the Medicare penalties were unconstitutional. Some of you are still so angry you are blinded to this fact. But I won’t waste any more electrons trying to get you to see beyond your rage.


92 posted on 06/21/2019 7:49:21 AM PDT by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: tom h
Look, Obamacare was a monstrosity. I hated it, you hated it, we all hated it. But in its bulky, repulsive 2,000 pages only the mandate and the Medicare penalties were unconstitutional. Some of you are still so angry you are blinded to this fact. But I won’t waste any more electrons trying to get you to see beyond your rage.

In what ways was this Constitutional AT ALL? Sure, the mandate / 'tax' penalties are not, but what about the other stuff?

Minimum essential coverage? Basically the same as the mandate.
Cost assistance? What part of the Constitution allows FedGov to spend money on this?
Marketplaces? What part of the Constitution empowers FedGov to set up a marketplace for health insurance?
Require restaurants post calorie counts? How on earth is that possibly a detail FedGov is allowed to force on retailers?
Requires covering dependents up to 26? That should be a company decision, not a requirement. They aren't dependents after 18!
Guaranteed availability/renewability? Not just no Constitutional power to force commerce, but how do you expect a company to make money and survive if it can't prevent costs that go crazy high?
Risk adjustment? Just like welfare - takes money from those that do well (low-risk enrollees) and gives it to those that don't (high-risk enrollees)...
Refundable tax credits? These shouldn't be allowed anywhere.
BANNING HOSPITAL OWNERSHIP? Why can't a doctor own a hospital? He should be one of the most knowledgeable about hospital operations, but what part of the Constitution allows Congress to ban physicians from owning hospitals, but not anyone else?
Random fees on pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, health insurers? How is that in any way NOT a bill of attainder?

We could go on section by section, but you get the idea. The only things I can think of off the top of my head that would be Constitutional would be that it included the ban on federal funding of abortion, and banned funds going to assist illegal aliens.
93 posted on 06/26/2019 9:25:20 AM PDT by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson