Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree7Likes
  • 3 Post By ALIPAC
  • 3 Post By Airbornesapper07
  • 1 Post By Airbornesapper07

Thread: Judge bars citizenship question from 2020 Census

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    64,931

    Judge bars citizenship question from 2020 Census

    By LARRY NEUMEISTER, ASSOCIATED PRESS NEW YORK — Jan 15, 2019, 11:28 AM ET

    A federal judge blocked the Trump administration Tuesday from asking about citizenship status on the 2020 census, the first major ruling in cases contending that officials ramrodded the question through for Republican political purposes to intentionally undercount immigrants.

    In a 277-page decision that won't be the final word on the issue, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled that while such a question would be constitutional, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had added it arbitrarily and not followed proper administrative procedures.

    "He failed to consider several important aspects of the problem; alternately ignored, cherry-picked, or badly misconstrued the evidence in the record before him; acted irrationally both in light of that evidence and his own stated decisional criteria; and failed to justify significant departures from past policies and practices," Furman wrote.

    Among other things, the judge said, Ross didn't follow a law requiring that he give Congress three years notice of any plan to add a question about citizenship to the census.

    The ruling came in a case in which a dozen states or big cities and immigrants' rights groups argued that the Commerce Department, which designs the census, had failed to properly analyze the effect the question would have on households where immigrants live.

    A trial on separate suit on the same issue, filed by the state of California, is underway in San Francisco.

    The U.S. Supreme Court is also poised to address the issue Feb. 19, meaning the legal issue is far from decided for good.

    "We are disappointed and are still reviewing the ruling," Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco said in a statement.

    In the New York case, the plaintiffs accused the administration of Republican President Donald Trump of adding the question to intentionally discourage immigrants from participating, which could lead to a population undercount — and possibly fewer seats in Congress — in places that tend to vote Democratic.

    Even people in the U.S. legally, they said, might dodge the census questionnaire out of fears they could be targeted by a hostile administration.

    The Justice Department argued that Ross had no such motive.

    Ross' decision to reinstate a citizenship question for the first time since 1950 was reasonable because the government has asked a citizenship question for most of the past 200 years, Laco said.

    When Ross announced the plan in March, he said the question was needed in part to help the government enforce the Voting Rights Act, a 1965 law meant to protect political representation of minority groups.

    New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office was among those that litigated the lawsuit, called the decision a win for "Americans who believe in a fair and accurate count of the residents of our nation."

    Ross said politics played no role in the decision, initially testifying under oath that he hadn't spoken to anyone in the White House on the subject.

    Later, however, Justice Department lawyers submitted papers saying Ross remembered speaking in spring 2017 about adding the question with former senior White House adviser Steve Bannon and with then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

    The U.S. Supreme Court blocked Ross from being deposed, but let the trial proceed, over the objections of Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

    In a dissent on one of two Supreme Court orders related to the case, Gorsuch wrote there was "nothing unusual about a new cabinet secretary coming to office inclined to favor a different policy direction, soliciting support from other agencies to bolster his views, disagreeing with staff, or cutting through red tape."

    "Of course, some people may disagree with the policy and process," he wrote. "But until now, at least, this much has never been thought enough to justify a claim of bad faith and launch an inquisition into a cabinet secretary's motives."

    The constitutionally mandated census is supposed to count all people living in the U.S., including noncitizens and immigrants living in the country illegally.

    The Census Bureau's staff estimated that adding a citizenship question could depress responses in households with at least one noncitizen by as much as 5.8 percent. That could be particularly damaging in states like New York or California, which have large immigrant populations.

    Justice Department lawyers argued that the estimate was overblown and that, even if they were true, that didn't mean Ross exceeded his legal authority in putting the question on anyway.

    The administration faces an early summer deadline for finalizing questions so questionnaires can be printed.

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...ensus-60390375
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Administrator ALIPAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Gheen, Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    63,725
    "He failed to consider several important aspects of the problem; alternately ignored, cherry-picked, or badly misconstrued the evidence in the record before him; acted irrationally both in light of that evidence and his own stated decisional criteria; and failed to justify significant departures from past policies and practices," Furman wrote.
    Who gives a flip! Judges are only supposed to rule if matters are constitutional or not or if they violate any existing laws. That is not the criteria Judge Jesse Furman is applying here!

    Judge Furman is making a ruling based on bureaucratic red tape practices, not the law.

    Judge Furman needs to be removed from the bench and discharged from any job affecting American governmental policies.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    17,544
    BS.... I am NOT WILLING TO PAY FOR ANYMORE OF THESE FREELOADERS and this Judge said I DON'T CARE. He needs to be Immediately removed from the Bench
    Last edited by Airbornesapper07; 01-15-2019 at 03:06 PM.
    Judy, Beezer and GeorgiaPeach like this.
    If you're gonna fight, fight like you're the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark... and brother its starting to rain. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    17,544
    people are Livid on other sites

    Todd Snyder I believe that when a federal judge issues an injunction to a presidents policy then it should immediately go to the supreme court to be ruled on as a priority bypassing lower courts. I do want checks and balances but a federal judges sole ruling should not take precedence over the duly elected president.

    Jim Doyle _____ ____ IT! I Am SICK Of this BS. WHO THE HELL do these random liberal UN-ELECTED judges think they are???! I feel like they are laughing at us and have set up a de facto rule-by-judicial-committee-tyranny. IT's time to END THIS BS once and FOR ALL!

    The more and more they do this to stall out progress and get away with it the more they will be encouraged to INTENSIFY it as a natural dog-pack mentality of power projection.

    ENOUGH! We need a new system. We need to put federal judges in PRISON whenever they get to a trigger threshold of a pattern of belligerence against the Executive Office that is blatant sedition or contempt for the office.

    Jim Doyle It's NOW time to IGNORE the JUDICIARY and call their bluff. They want a civil war they will be the first to go to the ---------.

    IGNORE any judicial ruling that impacts national security - they have NO say in the matter.
    Beezer likes this.
    If you're gonna fight, fight like you're the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark... and brother its starting to rain. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    17,544


    Informed American Citizen

    Unacceptable
    This determines congressional representation. Counting non-citizens distorts this.



    If you're gonna fight, fight like you're the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark... and brother its starting to rain. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Similar Threads

  1. Supreme Court to hear case on plan to add citizenship question to 2020 Census
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-15-2019, 08:01 PM
  2. Trump's victory lap over citizenship question could sink 2020 Census effort
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-26-2018, 01:43 PM
  3. 17 States, 7 Cities Sue To Remove Citizenship Question From 2020 Census
    By JohnDoe2 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-04-2018, 12:40 PM
  4. Diamond and Silk - 2020 federal census citizenship question
    By Jean in forum Videos about Illegal Immigration, refugee programs, globalism, & socialism
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-01-2018, 02:28 AM
  5. U.S. will reinstate question about citizenship in 2020 Census
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-27-2018, 02:17 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •