Posted on 10/23/2018 9:07:03 PM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
The U.S. Supreme Court stopped the scheduled deposition of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in a legal challenge to the inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 census form.
The Monday night order was unsigned and the vote count was not disclosed, as is typical of matters of this nature.
The Supreme Court's decision will only remain in effect until Oct. 29, at which point the Justice Department must ask the high court to review the case in full and make a final decision.
A coalition of interest groups and Democratic state attorneys general sued the Trump administration at a Manhattan federal court in April after the Commerce Department added a citizenship question to the decennial census questionnaire — the U.S. Census Bureau is supervised by the Department of Commerce.
The Constitution requires a census once every decade for apportioning seats in the House of Representatives among the states.
The plaintiffs claim the citizenship question "will fatally undermine the accuracy of the population count," to the extent that illegal aliens or other non-residents might avoid participating for fear of arrest or deportation. Federal reports suggest as many as 1.5 million minorities went uncounted in the 2010 census.
The states thus fear they will lose federal funding and congressional representation unless the citizenship question is removed from the questionnaire. They further allege the policy violates "one man, one vote" standards, which require equal populations among legislative districts.
U.S. District Court Judge Jesse Furman allowed the plaintiffs to question Ross and John Gore, the acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division. Furman agreed that the deposition was necessary in view of Ross' shifting explanations for his decision, among other factors. In a separate filing, the judge suggested Ross may have acted with discriminatory intent. Learn more about RevenueStripe...
A trial in the case is currently scheduled for Nov. 5.
Monday night's order does not stop Gore's deposition, and allows plaintiffs to obtain documents relating to the citizenship question, called discovery, for the time being. However, the high court invited the government to ask for the cessation of further discovery and Gore's testimony in the petition due Oct. 29.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a short separate opinion Monday disagreeing on that point, arguing the high court should have stopped Gore's testimony and the expanded discovery, given the burden "most unusual" burdens it imposes on the executive branch. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Gorsuch opinion.
A spokesperson for New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood spun the decision as a partial victory, as it only disallowed the Ross deposition for the time being.
"We'll get to the bottom of how the decision to demand citizenship status was made, as we continue our case to ensure a full and fair census. As we've argued, the Trump administration's plan to demand citizenship status as part of the census is unlawful — and could cause a huge undercount that would threaten billions in federal funds and New York's fair representation in Congress and the electoral college."
Speaking at the Heritage Foundation on Oct. 15, Attorney General Jeff Sessions cast Furman’s decision as an example of a new form of judicial activism he styled "judicial encroachment." The AG said the internal deliberations of federal officials are typically shielded from review in court.
"An increasing number of judges are ignoring these boundaries and view themselves as something akin to roving inspectors general for the entire executive branch," Sessions warned.
So, the Dems are concerned that the question of citizenship on the census is going to discourage illegals from taking part in the census?
How is that a bad thing?
We should only count citizens, period.
BS. Counting illegals in the Census, unfairly gives places like California more representation than they are entitled to.
One man one vote applies to citizens. Non-citizens have no right to vote, and should not have the right to vote, nor to be included in deciding the apportionment of the Citizen’s representation in the House.
Any decision otherwise is just wrong, and is judicial skullduggery.
Obviously California would lose Congressmen, that’s why. Their entire legal argument is not disputing the legality of it, but simply, “They were thinking racist thoughts when they chose to do this.”
Is there any doubt that there are three million illegals in California? That amounts to about 5 additional Congressman. Is that what our Founders intended?
Perhaps Texas should temporarily invite everybody in Canada to participate in the census as Texas residents. That would tip things in the other direction, now wouldn't it?
The Census used to ask this question! As a genealogist, I have used old census records to trace my family and that question was once in there as well as ability to speak English! Imagine that! And this was back in the times of Ellis Island and heavy immigration by ship!
Didn’t the original Obamacare law prohibit coverage for illegals - and they wrote a reg to authorize what the law prohibited? Then the Medicaid expansion was implemented.
Well, that expansion was federally subsidized. So, my legal argument would be that the feds need accurate citizen/non-citizen counts to calculate the proper amount of these subsidies for participating states. The administrative state needs its data, dontchaknow!
I don’t recall about the Obama care coverage. I do know that people who show up in ER rooms have to be treated/stabilized. And it doesn’t matter if they have insurance or are here illegally.
But I’ll buy your argument.
Yep. And people weren’t allowed off Ellis Island without a sponsor who guaranteed the person would go to work, not become a parasite. My great-grandmother died on the boat over. My grandmother was only 13 upon arrival and taken in by her cousins. It’s hard to believe this nation’s memory of history is limited to yesterday’s headlines.
I have read that not including illegals in the census count could cost Democrats 15-20 House seats, especially in California and Texas.
Too bad you too smart for the sc. Hope t the great appoints you next
And using the one man, one vote argument is admitting that they uphold the notion of non-citizens’ voting.
LOL. I could do better than Ruthie or Kegan and that’s for sure-the Constitution is not a difficult document to understand.
In addition the minutes of the Constitutional Convention make it even plainer.
However, I am old enough that someone younger and healthier needs to be appointed.
bookmark
This is part of a greater purpose. . .as in combining Mexico, Canada and the United States. Utter chaos is on the horizon.
None of that matters, although everything you say is true.
This case is about the ability of interest groups to attack ministerial decisions by officials of the executive branch, including the President, based on their INTENT.
In other words - if Trump enforced immigration law because he hated Mexicans, then even though the plain language of the law allowed him to restrict entry from Mexico, he could be stopped from doing his job.
In other words - if Trump enforced immigration law because he hated Mexicans, then even though the plain language of the law allowed him to restrict entry from Mexico, he could be stopped from doing his job.
************************************************************
None of the above matters-it’s irrelevant to the actual law.
In fact, it’s ridiculous, and it’s time that such ignorance is called out.
And by the way, that crazy circus of a court that declared that Trump couldn’t implement the 90 day delay (so called travel ban) had no jurisdiction to declare anything for every other district in the USA.
So I’m just sick and tired of Black Robed Tyrants. So I’m speaking up. Done with listening to stupid made up excuses to get around the plain letter as well as intent of the laws.
Justice Thomas is sick and tired of them too.
There is some wiggle room for US House, but for state legislatures, the constitution requires citizenship:
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.