Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
It really is amazing how Barr just acts like he is Trump’s personal lawyer.
Seems to be more to it than that.Sweet J said:
Seriously? When does some judge point out to these clowns that they had an opportunity in court to provide "reasons" for the question. Going back now and changing their position isn't providing a reason, it's providing an excuse.
I’m not knowledgeable about how this works, but am reading people who are. They seem to be saying this mass withdrawal is unprecedented.
he will eventually...
Neal Katyal: https://mobile.twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1148776450998382592
I read the order. The attorneys will offer up a lame excuse - it won't be "we are bound by ethical considerations to withdraw from representing the government in this case." It's possible, the judge requires some to stay on (I thought I read that 1 or 2 are leaving their jobs, for other opportunities). But, the lead attorneys will be the ones Barr wants.
This should be grounds for immediate impeachment. I'm not sure that I agree with the court's ruling in the census case -- there are certainly legitimate reasons why the government might want to ask folks about their immigration status, even if the administration was obviously doing so for partisan advantage -- but simply disregarding a supreme court ruling violates the president's oath of office and should result in his dismissal.
FWIW I would wait to see the EO before people overreact to it. My guess is that it will be something along the lines of directing the Department of Commerce to make every effort to include the question within the bounds of the law or something, which has very little legal effect and would actually harm Commerce's case in the courts (they've tried to argue that the President's racism is not material to determining their motivation to include the question because the decision belongs entirely to Secretary Ross).
I'm old enough to remember when the GOP claimed to be the party of "law and order".
The Constitution? The piece of paper everyone thought was strong but is starting to look like it's just an old piece of paper?
From a Fox News article:
Now there's a great approach: "No, Justice Roberts, the President's EO can't override this Court's decision, but the fact that he issued the EO means you should change your decision so it can go into effect."
An executive order by Trump would not, by itself, override court rulings blocking the question, but such a move could give administration lawyers a new basis to try to convince federal courts the question could be included.
100% lock.
One, because that's what the Constitution says about the census, as interpreted by the courts. I think the electoral college itself is a monumentally stupid and undemocratic vestige of slavery and a bygone era that has disenfranchised people on an astronomical scale, but if a president tried to unilaterally change it I'd oppose those efforts because we don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to abide by.bcat01 said:
Winner, skinner, have chicken fried steak for dinner.TobiasFunke said:Evan McMurry @evanmcmurry
EXCLUSIVE: Pres. Trump is expected to announce he is backing down from his effort to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census, and will instead instruct the Commerce Department to get the data through other means, sources tell @ABC News.
You might want to give non-citizens the right to vote but I don't. I prefer to make them citizens then give them the rights and responsibilities other Americans have.bcat01 said:
Once a month we get something crazy and "we're 95% there with a China trade deal". Twice a month his base eats it up. Num, num, num, num, num.
Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t know to what extent your above scenario would happen. But that doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to not ask the question. No one really knows how many people are here illegally. I think the general rule of thumb is 11 million, but I’ve heard estimates as high as 20+ million and as low as 7 million. That’s an absurd variance that could be somewhat clarified by asking the question. One point of the census is to gather information for future policy making. Ascertaining a better understanding of the amount of people here illegally should be something everyone should want to do. Especially if you want to figure out an effective and efficient mechanism for them to obtain legal status.
I think many people in the world figured out Trump was all bark and no bite going way back to the original North Korea "Crisis" when they were comparing big buttons.
Really?
I don’t know. I’m sure some people lie about a lot of questions. There will definitely be a margin of error.
The government, by definition, represents the will of the citizenry. At least, it should. I have no issue with the census being used to apportion monies by a count of all people, but for purposes of representation it should not include those folks who have entered the country illegally. There is no logical construct under which the current scenario makes sense.
SALT was excellent tax policy (and I'm saying that as someone whose tax liability went well up last year).
