Is this what Executive Orders are for?

This_person

Well-Known Member
The states in the lawsuit demonstrated (as pointed out in #2 above) that if households don't reply due to fear of retribution, loss of federal funding can occur. The government's own numbers showed that if the question was included, 6.5 million people won’t respond to the census.
So, the argument the left is making (because it's surely not the middle or the right) is that - if asked - criminals will not respond positively to being criminals, so states won't be able to take taxpayer funds to give criminals those taxpayer dollars. Is that right?

Again, I ask you, so what? if he has the authority to ask it, then what the court is saying the states are saying is that non-citizens not answering will skew taxpayer funding. So what?

The Census Act doesn't give comeplete discretion to Ross
Can you show me (I linked the law) what his bounds are?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
So, the argument the left is making (because it's surely not the middle or the right) is that - if asked - criminals will not respond positively to being criminals, so states won't be able to take taxpayer funds to give criminals those taxpayer dollars. Is that right?

Again, I ask you, so what? if he has the authority to ask it, then what the court is saying the states are saying is that non-citizens not answering will skew taxpayer funding. So what?



Can you show me (I linked the law) what his bounds are?
This is not an arguement from the left or right. Everything I'v exlplained to you is from the court decision.

I'm simply repeating information and I have no interest in defending something I don't agree with.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
This is not an arguement from the left or right. Everything I'v exlplained to you is from the court decision.

I'm simply repeating information and I have no interest in defending something I don't agree with.
It feels like you are defending it, that's for sure.

So, who is making the argument that the Secretary needs to go to the court to determine if he can add it to the census, and what is the outstanding issue on the legal question?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
It feels like you are defending it, that's for sure.

So, who is making the argument that the Secretary needs to go to the court to determine if he can add it to the census, and what is the outstanding issue on the legal question?
You asked questions. I answered them based on the court's rationale.

No one is making that argument. I don't know what you're asking here.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
You asked questions. I answered them based on the court's rationale.

No one is making that argument. I don't know what you're asking here.
I'm asking why the court is involved still. I'm asking why the executive needs to get permission to do what the law allows. i'm asking where in the law there are boundaries, as you stated there are.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I'm asking why the court is involved still. I'm asking why the executive needs to get permission to do what the law allows. i'm asking where in the law there are boundaries, as you stated there are.
No one told the executive they need permission to add the question. I'm not sure where you keep getting this from.

The court specifically held that the Commerce Dept. didn't violate the law by adding the question. The court (SCOTUS) simply found that a district court's ruling to remand the case back to the Commerce Dept. for better rationale (because Ross' explanation doesn't match the evidence) is warranted.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf

Boundaries can be defined in case law. Not just the law itself.

However, the opinion mentions a few boundaries. One being the Administrative Procedures Act that
embodies a 'basic presumption of judicial review,' and instructs reviewing courts to set aside agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,”
Second, the opinion points out that:
The Census Act confers broad authority on the Secretary, but it does not leave his discretion unbounded.
The govt. argued that 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A) prevents a judicial review “to the extent that” the agency action is “committed to agency discretion by law,”. The court disagreed because the 706(2)(A) exception is limited to administrative decisions that courts have said are up to agency discretion.

Since the census itself is not an agency discretion and since the Census Act doesn't provide a way to judge Ross' actions outside of judicial review, that's what they did. In order for it to be a meaningful judicial review, an agency must "diclose the basis" of their action. Case law states that this judicial review may look at “the mental processes of administrative decisionmakers” upon a “strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior”.

SCOTUS then basically said "look, we know some people will have their policy preferences when comign into office and will try and find ways to make it look legit, but Ross' decision doesn't match the rationale."
 
Last edited:

This_person

Well-Known Member
No one told the executive they need permission to add the question. I'm not sure where you keep getting this from.

The court specifically held that the Commerce Dept. didn't violate the law by adding the question. The court (SCOTUS) simply found that a district court's ruling to remand the case back to the Commerce Dept. for better rationale (because Ross' explanation doesn't match the evidence) is warranted.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf

Boundaries can be defined in case law. Not just the law itself.

However, the opinion mentions a few boundaries. One being the Administrative Procedures Act that


Second, the opinion points out that:
So, the law provides no boundaries, but the court can establish the boundaries at their discretion? You are ok with that?

But, that still doesn't answer the question - what is the legal question that is still outstanding? What is the point of law that is potentially being violated by asking the question?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
If Trump loses, it's Wilbur Ross' fault for trying to dupe the court.

Thomas Hofeller, a Republican redistricting strategist, played a key role in adding the question because it would have provided white people and Republicans an advantage.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.491254/gov.uscourts.nysd.491254.587.0.pdf
Not to be dismissive - but turn it around. COUNTING non-citizens would give Democrats an edge - which is almost certainly why they are fighting to give illegal immigrants virtually every advantage and entitlement that actual citizens get. It's why they pushing for open borders; free education and healthcare to illegals - making illegal entry a civil offense (or to dismiss it altogether); pretty much rolling out the red carpet.

Seriously - can you think of any other reason why they are going to such great effort to bring them in?

So if someone makes the case that it would help non-Hispanic whites, of course it would.
Because INCLUDING it gives non-citizen Hispanics an advantage.

But to put it simply - we shouldn't be counting non-citizens. They should NOT be part of the count.
NOT having them in the count is NOT an undercount.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
So, the law provides no boundaries, but the court can establish the boundaries at their discretion? You are ok with that?

But, that still doesn't answer the question - what is the legal question that is still outstanding? What is the point of law that is potentially being violated by asking the question?
I just edited my post above. There are, in fact, boundaries.

The outstanding item left is the rationale.
Unlike a typical case in which an agency may have both stated and unstated reasons for a decision, here the VRA enforcement rationale—the sole stated reason—seems to have been contrived. The reasoned explanation requirement of administrative law is meant to ensure that agencies offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public. The explanation provided here was more of a distraction. In these unusual circumstances, the District Court was warranted in remanding to the agency.
Hence why the court sent it back to the Commerce Dept. to come up with a better one.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Not to be dismissive - but turn it around. COUNTING non-citizens would give Democrats an edge - which is almost certainly why they are fighting to give illegal immigrants virtually every advantage and entitlement that actual citizens get. It's why they pushing for open borders; free education and healthcare to illegals - making illegal entry a civil offense (or to dismiss it altogether); pretty much rolling out the red carpet.

Seriously - can you think of any other reason why they are going to such great effort to bring them in?

So if someone makes the case that it would help non-Hispanic whites, of course it would.
Because INCLUDING it gives non-citizen Hispanics an advantage.

But to put it simply - we shouldn't be counting non-citizens. They should NOT be part of the count.
NOT having them in the count is NOT an undercount.
Look, I'm not arguing the validity of asking the question. I think it should be on there.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I just edited my post above. There are, in fact, boundaries.

The outstanding item left is the rationale.


Hence why the court sent it back to the Commerce Dept. to come up with a better one.
I'm at a loss to figure out why the court feels it has jurisdiction to ask that question. The law states he can ask the question, the court says the law states he can ask the question - there's not a single good reason to still have it in the court system.

If the court doesn't like the answer, Congress has the ability to change the law, impeach the president or secretary, and We, the People have the right to vote in a new administration or not answer the "offending" question we don't like.

I cannot see why the court would keep the matter open.
 
Top