Originally posted by oxmixmudd
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
US Census
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostIt would have been a very bad move to try to go over the ruling of SCOTUS, apparently even Donald Trump could understand that
JimSome may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostFrom what I can tell that whole rumor was just made up by the MSM. Barr said he had no plans to go against SCOTUS ruling.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYou guys need to get a new line. "It's all the MSM's fault" is getting really old.
Jim
Well they were the ones reporting it and I can find nothing where Trump said he was going to do such a thing, so what is your conclusion? he told them in secret?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWell they were the ones reporting it and I can find nothing where Trump said he was going to do such a thing, so what is your conclusion? he told them in secret?
The original complaint about including a citizenship question on the census was that doing so would cause an undercount of the population -- both citizens and non-citizens, as many families would avoid the census for fear of exposing undocumented relatives. This was the opinion of the census bureau, which said that it gets citizenship data through different means with more accuracy.
Undercounting the population this way would over-represent the white population, creating skewed data that helps Republican apportionment. This has been a conservative to-do for awhile among the folks who deal with such things.
One of those people, Republican strategist Thomas Hofeller, was working on getting this done when he died recently. Unbeknownst to pretty much everyone, he was working with a Trump administration census official to put the question on the census. This came to light just before SCOTUS ruled on the question, after the Trump administration had gone through the courts arguing that the reason it had wanted to put the question on was to help enforce the Voting Rights Act. There was a good deal of evidence presented proving this wasn't true but it seems that the Hofeller files was the last straw for Justice Roberts, who sided with the liberal wing of the Court -- not by saying that the administration's reasons were insufficient but rather that they were mendacious. Roberts more or less invited the administration to come back within a short span of time with a "better reason".
Since Commerce and DOJ had already shot their credibility to the depths by clearly lying, they weren't about to trot out a new fake reason so they gave up, having already told SCOTUS that printing the census couldn't wait past June 30, anyway. Trump saw this on TV later that night and began being Trump, not only saying that he was still planning to get the question on the census but stating clearly that the motivation for doing so was finding out who's here legally or illegaly (which the question wouldn't ask). So DOJ lawyers had a pretty bad day on the phone with the judge in a related case (whether the citizenship question would violate the Equal Protection Act) on July 4.
The next week, DOJ announced that it was going to replace all the previous lawyers working the case with a new set -- presumably because it's problematic for lawyers to argue something untrue having already argued something untrue in the same case -- you can get through it the first time by being careful about what information you don't learn. But the second time? After you already know what you know? Big ethics problem. But DOJ didn't actually give a reason. Plaintiff lawyers complained that DOJ had to give a reason for withdrawing lawyers and the judge agreed, telling the lawyers to put into writing why they were withdrawing and telling them that he was retaining jurisdiction over them. That'd be bad for the administration.
So Trump caved and his executive order is two things: 1) it's getting the citizenship information he ostensibly wanted the "right" way that everyone involved in this thing said was a better way to get it in the first place and 2) directed Commerce to share that data with states that want to use it for apportionment in the 2021 redistricting. Because there's another case in Alabama right now where conservatives are trying to argue that districts can be apportioned by citizenship rather than total population. They can't -- or at least they never have -- so the case will almost certainly fail up to SCOTUS, where four conservative justices just wrote a scathing dissent about people not taking the Trump administration at its word and falling into "conspiracy theories" about how the administration didn't really want the citizenship question to enforce the VRA like it was saying. Days later, Trump would of course acknowledge that his motivation for getting the question back on through EO had nothing to do with the VRA. Whether those four justices will feel at all chastised about this and refuse to make a partisan redistricting ruling ... well, I leave that question to people less cynical about the state of modern conservatism than I.
I'm not really here - infrequently check in to see what the state of the Christian conservative base is, usually looking for some faint glimmer of recognition that things have gotten really bad for taking care of refugees, asylum seekers, and the "strangers" Christ talked about. Will probably continue doing that from time to time but don't plan on jumping back in any time in the near or mid future. Glad folks are well.
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Nice to see you back
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Couldn't the US just standardize how tracking of citizenship happens. Perhaps by developing a federal database? Is handing out a questionaire to all the addresses of the US really the best way to do it?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostCouldn't the US just standardize how tracking of citizenship happens. Perhaps by developing a federal database? Is handing out a questionaire to all the addresses of the US really the best way to do it?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostIt would have to be an agreement of Congress, and there is a substantial liberal element that simply doesn't want it to be known how many citizens and non-citizens are here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostJust seems to me that one of the least things a country should be able to know is who its citizens are.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostCouldn't the US just standardize how tracking of citizenship happens. Perhaps by developing a federal database? Is handing out a questionaire to all the addresses of the US really the best way to do it?
Sure there will be some margin of error as some people might avoid getting a social security number for some reason (paranoia) or some people could maybe scam the system somehow to get a number when they shouldn't, but I think that would be a small percentage. And when you die that is recorded by the SSA also, so they know how many active SS numbers are out there. That would be a pretty close number of US Citizens alive today. And they can correlate those numbers to names and ages.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:33 AM
|
8 responses
126 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 03:41 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
51 responses
295 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 04:42 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
83 responses
365 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 04:37 AM | ||
Started by carpedm9587, 04-14-2024, 02:07 PM
|
57 responses
370 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 07:12 PM
|
Comment