What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

2020 Census Thread (3 Viewers)

The General said:
I work for a crazy person as well. I feel their pain.
Click to expand...
I feel ya. I worked a long time for a guy who "absorbed" information exactly like Donald. And his decision making processes worked exactly the same way, too. He thought he was just smarter than everybody else. "Great instincts."

 
SoBeDad said:
Is the citizenship question on the long form?
Click to expand...
The Decennial Census no longer has a long form. Starting in 2010, it only had one form. The old long form questions are now on the annual sample survey called the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS has a citizenship question.

 
US still looking for way to ask about citizenship on census

You can almost guarantee that Trump will try an end-around the SC ruling and get the citizen question asked/answered in some form.

Maybe by including a certification that whoever signs the census form certifies, under penalty of perjury, that all persons included are citizens of the United States. 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department said Wednesday that it was still looking for a way to include a controversial citizenship question on the 2020 census, even though the government has started the process of printing the questionnaire without it.

The abrupt shift from the Justice Department came hours after President Donald Trump insisted he was not dropping his efforts to ask about citizenship in next year’s nationwide survey. On Twitter he declared, “We are absolutely moving forward.”

The administration has faced numerous roadblocks to adding the citizenship question, including last week’s Supreme Court ruling that blocked its inclusion, at least temporarily. The Justice Department had insisted to the Supreme Court that it needed the matter resolved by the end of June because it faced a deadline to begin printing census forms and other materials.

But on Wednesday, officials told a Maryland judge they believed there may still be a way to meet Trump’s demands.

“There may be a legally available path,” Assistant Attorney General Joseph Hunt told U.S. District Judge George Hazel during a conference call with parties to one of three census lawsuits. The call was closed to reporters, but a transcript was made available soon after.

A day earlier, a Justice Department spokeswoman confirmed that there would be “no citizenship question on the 2020 census” amid signs that the administration was ending the legal fight. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement Tuesday that the “Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question.”

Trump’s tweet sowed enough confusion to prompt Hazel and U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, overseeing a census lawsuit in New York, to demand clarification by the end of the day.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Trump’s tweet sowed enough confusion to prompt Hazel and U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, overseeing a census lawsuit in New York, to demand clarification by the end of the day.
Click to expand...
Must suck to work at the DOJ these days. Plans for the beach or BBQ on the 4th weekend? Scratch that the President just tweeted.

 
Sinn Fein said:
The Justice Department had insisted to the Supreme Court that it needed the matter resolved by the end of June because it faced a deadline to begin printing census forms and other materials.
Click to expand...
The SC didn’t tell the USG not to include the question, it said to show the lower court that it did not have a discriminatory purpose.

Rather than do that Treasury said meh never mind.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Must suck to work at the DOJ these days. Plans for the beach or BBQ on the 4th weekend? Scratch that the President just tweeted.
Click to expand...
Listening to Preet Bhrara’s podcast about the DOJ argument for sanitary conditions at CBP detention centers was funny. They couldn’t believe they found a lawyer to make the argument.

 
Sinn Fein said:
But on Wednesday, officials told a Maryland judge they believed there may still be a way to meet Trump’s demands.

“There may be a legally available path,” Assistant Attorney General Joseph Hunt told U.S. District Judge George Hazel during a conference call with parties to one of three census lawsuits. The call was closed to reporters, but a transcript was made available soon after.
Click to expand...
Sure just do what the court said which is truthfully offer a non-discriminatory basis for the question. They could still do that assuming one exists and acknowledging the SC said all their prior claims were  :bs: .

 
For a guy complaining about cost all the time, it never bothers him about the cost of him trying to get his way.

 
I dont think the citizenship question should be on the census.. but.. cant.. people.. just lie? Is there any followup? I have no clue. 

 
Ok Thank you @Bucky86. I get that it will scare some people off and maybe thats the goal. Makes sense. But in this day & age they should also realize if it ends up on the census... There will definitely be a “lie on the census campaign” and then citizens will lie about how many citizens are in their house and then the whole thing will be a inaccurate waste of money. Doesn't seem worth the hassle to me. 

 
HomerSimpson said:
I dont think the citizenship question should be on the census.. but.. cant.. people.. just lie? Is there any followup? I have no clue. 
Click to expand...
As I understand it: The goal of the citizenship question is to discourage non-citizens from filling out the census. Yes, someone could lie or skip the question, but the people who would skip that question would probably just decide it's not worth filling out at all. Since these people are most likely to live in a blue state, if enough people decide not to fill out the census form, then that could adversely affect blue states in terms of congressional representation and federal funding, because blue states would be undercounted. 

 
phandango said:
As I understand it: The goal of the citizenship question is to discourage non-citizens from filling out the census. Yes, someone could lie or skip the question, but the people who would skip that question would probably just decide it's not worth filling out at all. Since these people are most likely to live in a blue state, if enough people decide not to fill out the census form, then that could adversely affect blue states in terms of congressional representation and federal funding, because blue states would be undercounted. 
Click to expand...
Florida would lose 1 or 2 electoral votes and Texas even more in a census undercount due to immigrant fear. And both would lose federal dollars. I'm not sure if red or blue states have more to lose.

 
SoBeDad said:
Florida would lose 1 or 2 electoral votes and Texas even more in a census undercount due to immigrant fear. And both would lose federal dollars. I'm not sure if red or blue states have more to lose.
Click to expand...
Blue states or the Trump Administration would never be considering this.

 
Their own lawyers have no idea what's going on

In a frazzled hearing on Wednesday, DOJ attorney Joshua Gardner practically begged Hazel not to accuse him of misleading the court. “What I told the court yesterday was absolutely my best understanding of the state of affairs,” Gardner said. “The tweet this morning was the first I had heard of the President’s position on this issue, just like the plaintiffs and Your Honor. I do not have a deeper understanding of what that means at this juncture other than what the President has tweeted. But, obviously, as you can imagine, I am doing my absolute best to figure out what’s going on.”

 
SoBeDad said:
Trump mulls executive order to add citizenship question to census: report.
Click to expand...
Apparently the census has already started printing *without the question. The DOJ has to backstrap a way to get this back to the SC, and likely their theory is some EO somehow clarifying the question’s purpose would do that. But it would still have to go to the SC.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Congressman from Texas and the from the party of law and order. 

Chip Roy @chiproytx

Absolutely. It’s the lawyers advising him.

@realDonaldTrump should ignore them. Completely. Print the census with the question - and issue a statement explaining why - “because we should.” Done

 
Mile High said:
Congressman from Texas and the from the party of law and order. 

Chip Roy @chiproytx

Absolutely. It’s the lawyers advising him.

@realDonaldTrump should ignore them. Completely. Print the census with the question - and issue a statement explaining why - “because we should.” Done
Click to expand...
Serious questions: Who would stop him and what consequences would he face if he did ignore the SCOTUS?

 
Duty of Candor. Barbara McQuade says the DOJ credibility in other legal proceedings could be affected by this case. She says it's over except for appeasing the boss. 

 
squistion said:
Oh, dear...

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1147214817176014848

Brace yourselves:

Justice Department lawyers have told a federal judge that they would press ahead in their efforts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, but indicated they did not know yet what kind of rationale they would put forward

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/05/us/census-question.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
Click to expand...


I've seen the NYT and WaPo write that in the headline, but I don't think that's entirely accurate of what the DOJ wrote. 

It actually wrote that, "In the event the Commerce Department" adopts a new rationale consistent with the S.Ct. ruling, DOJ will notify the Court. So it seems to me that Commerce/DOJ has yet to decide whether they will include the citizenship question.

Of course, this is two days after the judge setting a hard 2pm Friday deadline. So lets see how that goes.

 
Amused to Death said:
Serious questions: Who would stop him and what consequences would he face if he did ignore the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...
Well since the POTUS is apparently above the law, I would guess that it would fall on the cabinet secretary (Ross) who is overseeing the census. I would think contempt of court would the charges like when Sheriff Joe did it.

 
Biff84 said:
Well since the POTUS is apparently above the law, I would guess that it would fall on the cabinet secretary (Ross) who is overseeing the census. I would think contempt of court would the charges like when Sheriff Joe did it.
Click to expand...
Who would issue the charge of contempt and who would enforce it?

I'm genuinely curious.

 
Amused to Death said:
Who would issue the charge of contempt and who would enforce it?

I'm genuinely curious.
Click to expand...
Plaintiffs would file a motion requesting it and the Court would decide whether or not hold someone in contempt. Presumably the US Marshalls would pick up whoever the Court said was in contempt...at least until a certain Obstructionist issued a pardon as he did with Sheriff Joe.

 
apalmer said:
Plaintiffs would file a motion requesting it and the Court would decide whether or not hold someone in contempt. Presumably the US Marshalls would pick up whoever the Court said was in contempt...at least until a certain Obstructionist issued a pardon as he did with Sheriff Joe.
Click to expand...
I was hoping it wouldn't be left up to the Republican Senate. 

 
>>Just now, however, DOJ announced that tomorrow (Monday) it is "shifting" the census cases "to a new team of Civil Division lawyers going forward."  That's deeply concerning.  It almost certainly means that some or all of the lawyers involved in the cases are unwilling to contribute to or sign briefs that will contradict the representations DOJ, and the SG, have made to the courts.  (The Post story reports that the Consumer Protection Branch--which has no obvious connection to the issues in the case--will be involved, which suggests that perhaps the entire Federal Programs Branch is refusing to have anything to do with it any longer.  That would be, to say the least, a troubling portent--perhaps a harbinger of indefensible arguments to come.)<<

Balkin

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
>>Just now, however, DOJ announced that tomorrow (Monday) it is "shifting" the census cases "to a new team of Civil Division lawyers going forward."  That's deeply concerning.  It almost certainly means that some or all of the lawyers involved in the cases are unwilling to contribute to or sign briefs that will contradict the representations DOJ, and the SG, have made to the courts.  (The Post story reports that the Consumer Protection Branch--which has no obvious connection to the issues in the case--will be involved, which suggests that perhaps the entire Federal Programs Branch is refusing to have anything to do with it any longer.  That would be, to say the least, a troubling portent--perhaps a harbinger of indefensible arguments to come.)<<

 Balkin
Click to expand...
I dunno.  I was involved in a case at DOJ back in my practicing days where an entire team was switched out.  A huge class action case.  It started in the Environmental division at DOJ, and after a few big losses (and a contempt citation or two for the client Agency), the case was transferred to Civil. 

It could be that DOJ leadership thinks that the lawyers in Civil are more able to defend this particular issue.  That's my guess. 

 
Here is a good explanation as to why Trump can't simply dictate census questions via executive order, and also why efforts to add the question now face a very steep uphill battle. 

The article also gets at broader point I've made a bunch of times around here dating back to the Obama administration, which is that all the hubbub from both sides about Executive Orders is overblown.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
VP Kamala Harris Claims US Government Hurricane Ian Relief Will PRIORITIZE "Communities Of Color" (10/3/22 14:07 PST)
Replies
34
Views
851
FairWarning
FairWarning
GordonGekko
New York Times: "Will Asian Americans Bolt From The Democratic Party?" (6/20/22 23:20 PST)
Replies
36
Views
880
jon_mx
J
GordonGekko
Scott Chipman/AALM: Biden's Marijuana Pardons Will Have "No Real Impact Other Than The Headlines” (10/8/22 11:47 PST)
Replies
17
Views
556
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top