Activist Judges Strike Again

[DBTrek]

Judge Orders Trump Administration To Remove 2020 Census Citizenship Question

A federal judge in New York has ruled against the Trump administration's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ordered the administration to stop its plans to include the controversial question on forms for the upcoming national head count "without curing the legal defects" the judge identified in his opinion released on Tuesday.

Furman's decision marks a significant milestone in a legal battle that began shortly after the Trump administration announced last year that the 2020 census would include a controversial question about U.S. citizenship status. The added question was: "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" All U.S. households have not been asked such a question on the census since 1950.

Furman has noted that he does not expect his order to be the final word on the question's fate. The district court ruling in New York is expected to be appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court. . . .

In addition to the two lead cases before Furman at the U.S. District Court for the Southern Distri

. . . The administration has maintained that the citizenship question was added because the Justice Department wants to use the responses to better enforce Voting Rights Act provisions that protect racial and language minorities from being discriminated against.

The lawsuits' plaintiffs, however, have argued that the administration has been misleading the public. Ross, the plaintiffs insist, misused his authority over the census and, by adding the citizenship question, discriminated against immigrant communities of color. (So now asking both whites and non-whites their citizenship status is "discriminatory") Research by the Census Bureau suggests asking about citizenship status in the current political climate will scare households with noncitizens from participating in the head count. That, in turn, could jeopardize the constitutionally mandated head count of every person living in the U.S.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/15/67128385 ... p-question

Why do people who believe we can't enforce a border, and likewise believe that we can't even ask who is a citizen in this country, vote? Why? They clearly believe that we're all just co-habitating this section of the North American land mass, and no one really has any claim to it. They obviously do not believe in the actual existence of a United States of America. So why do they vote? Is it like fantasy roleplaying for them?

Anyway, this is yet another excellent example of "shit I wouldn't have believed before Trump". Before Trump if you asked me if we could build a border wall I'd say "Seems expensive, not sure how effective it would be, but sure, we could if we wanted to. It's our border, right?" Before Trump if you asked me if we could ban Muslims from entering the US I'd say "I doubt we'd target an entire group of people like that, but it's our country so of course we aren't obligated to let anyone we don't want in". Before Trump if you asked me whether we could add a citizenship question to the census I'd say "Why couldn't we?", because it's not a particularly pernicious question and it's no more intrusive than asking about race and children.

But then Trump happened, and it's been on long wake-up call over how far down the crazy leftist path we've traveled ever since.

[C-Mag]

So, whenever I r the doctor or government asks if you are a citizen I should refuse to answer

[C-Mag]

This judge shopping thing is no different or more sophisticated than the Mafia buying Judges.

Same thing with the way the FBI and DOJ have been bought

[DBTrek]

Really looking forward to more and more of these clowns being replaced. Whoever thought appointing these activists judges who appear to rule based on their feelings of social justice, the US Constitution be damned, was a traitor to this nation in the truest sense. They didn't sell our secret weapon plans to the communist, but they replaced the people charged with upholding the law of the land with ideologues who are opposed to this land and our laws.

Sad.

[C-Mag]

It's not just judges. It's a corrupt system. I'm not sure its fixable. Don't get me wrong, a lot of good people in America, but the system caters to and promotes these types of activist judges.

The lessons being taught right now are...... be a judge and be more powerful than the POTUS

[Fife]

I scanned some of the (277 page (!)) opinion submitted by the Judge (46 y/o Obama appointee; Oxford and Yale guy, only a couple of years in his life drawing checks not issued by the Treasury as far as I can tell). He found that the administration's actions were "not inconsistent with the Constitution," but violated the Administrative Procedures Act "in several respects."

IOW they didn't fill out all the correct paperwork and check off all the right boxes, according to him.

The SCOTUS has already heard an interlocutory appeal (an emergency type appeal to a higher court on limited issues before the trial court has held a trial) on the case regarding whether the secretary had to sit for a deposition (SCOTUS said he didn't); so it's headed back up there at some point. Will it be before the census paperwork has to be ready to roll out in 2020?

[C-Mag]

These politically motivated decisions are tactics in a war of attrition. They know their decisions can be overturned, but they are forcing others to take on the cases, spend resources and time getting them overturned. So, from the start it's a small political victory.

Secondarily, they hope as many as possible slip through the cracks and aren't challenged. Basically chipping away at the Constitution and trying to wear us out.

Its insidious.