Is this what Executive Orders are for?

[This_person]

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?

 

[Burnthings]

What are checks and balance for?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

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]

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?

 

[This_person]

What are checks and balance for?

What is the source of your question on "checks and balances"? That sounds a lot like "wall separating church and state" which has no legal basis, but is a talking point that is not really relevant to anything except meaningless debates.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

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]

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]

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."

 

[This_person]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I'm at a loss to figure out why the court feels it has jurisdiction to ask that question.

Not to come off as crass, but it's spelled out in the decision.

 

[This_person]

Not to come off as crass, but it's spelled out in the decision.

Good talking with you.

 

[This_person]

Look at the case and you'll see that the court doesn't dispute the Secretary has the right or ability to ask the question.

Apparently, now they do:

Judge signs order permanently blocking citizenship question from 2020 census

If SCOTUS says he can ask the question (if the Sec - who has full discretion - can explain his reasoning well enough to the Lords on the Court), but lower courts say he can't AFTER they say he can, can you see now that this is a usurpation of authority they really don't have?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Apparently, now they do:
Judge signs order permanently blocking citizenship question from 2020 census

If SCOTUS says he can ask the question (if the Sec - who has full discretion - can explain his reasoning well enough to the Lords on the Court), but lower courts say he can't AFTER they say he can, can you see now that this is a usurpation of authority they really don't have?

the Justice Department "does not oppose" the judge signing it.

The letter points to an executive order issued by Trump last week that directs federal agencies to provide records relating to citizenship to the Commerce Department, after determining there was "no practical mechanism for including the [citizenship] question on the 2020 decennial census."

Keep trying to make it something it's not.

 

[This_person]

Keep trying to make it something it's not.

The Secretary has the authority to ask the question. There's no legal basis for NOT asking the question.

SCOTUS says in its own opinion that they should not be involved, but they're making an exception in this case, and they offer no cogent argument WHY they need to be involved in this case.

As you stated, SCOTUS agrees the Secretary has the authority to ask the question.

The only reason SCOTUS was involved is because a lower court ruled something, so the government HAD to ask them to get involved or risk simply ignoring the lower court's opinion.

The lower court had no business being involved, SCOTUS had no business being involved, as they themselves stated. Except, Trump, so.....

 

[Chris0nllyn]

The Secretary has the authority to ask the question. There's no legal basis for NOT asking the question.

Correct. That was not part of the case.

SCOTUS says in its own opinion that they should not be involved, but they're making an exception in this case, and they offer no cogent argument WHY they need to be involved in this case.

No, SCOTUS says they are there because of the timeline and because the govt. asked them to. They do not say they should not be involved. They most certainly do offer an argument as to why they are involved. When has SCOTUS ever done that? Come on, there are people with combined hundreds of yeasrs of legal experience figuring all this out and you think your idea is the only one that counts.

As you stated, SCOTUS agrees the Secretary has the authority to ask the question.

Glad we've cleared that up after 348 posts about it.

The only reason SCOTUS was involved is because a lower court ruled something, so the government HAD to ask them to get involved or risk simply ignoring the lower court's opinion.

Yet you can't see "why they need to be involved in the case"?

The lower court had no business being involved, SCOTUS had no business being involved, as they themselves stated. Except, Trump, so.....

The lower court got involved because courts get involved when a lawsuit happenes. Sometimes, depending on the case and other rulings, cases get pushed higher up the food chain.

SCOTUS, as you've said twice now in this very post, got involved because the Trump admin asked them to.




I think that your anger is mis-directed at the courts and not Ross, whose fault this really is.

 

[This_person]

The lower court got involved because courts get involved when a lawsuit happenes. Sometimes, depending on the case and other rulings, cases get pushed higher up the food chain.

SCOTUS, as you've said twice now in this very post, got involved because the Trump admin asked them to.




I think that your anger is mis-directed at the courts and not Ross, whose fault this really is.

The only valid response from the lower court was, “you are wrong to question the validity of asking the question. Case dismissed, and prosecution is advised to not waste the court’s time again.”