The difficulties President Trump faces in carrying out his agenda are massive and were underscored again by the last case decided this term by the United States Supreme Court. That case , Department of Commerce v. New York , presented a challenge to the Trump Administration’s plan to add a question about citizenship status to the 2020 census form.
The U.S. Constitution requires an “ Enumeration ” of the population every 10 years , to be made “ in such Manner ” as Congress “ shall by Law direct ”.
These days , the census has at least two important effects. One is that the enumeration of persons residing in the United States determines the apportionment of representatives in the House , and the other is that it determines , to a great extent , the amount of federal funds that will be expended in each state.
The census , then , is a means of allocating political power and federal government resources. If there is an undercount , a state may end up losing power and wealth. Fearing that asking about citizenship status will result in an undercount of people living here illegally , Democrats challenged the right of the government to secure that information as part of the census. It is no secret that undocumented foreign nationals tend to cluster in urban areas , most often under Democratic Party control. So blue states feared the results of returning the citizenship question to the census.
Note how the Democraps are all to aware that they RELY on VOTES THAT SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED as the the LAW states you have to be a LEGAL resident to vote …
As they have done with many policies of this administration , a coalition of progressives formed and brought actions challenging the citizenship question , alleging , among other things that it was an attempt at unlawful discrimination on the part of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. Finding a judge sympathetic to their views , as they are too frequently able , they were successful in a federal trial court in one of the bluest of the states , New York. Similar actions are underway in other federal courts , but it was hoped that the Supreme Court would resolve the issue one way the other before the printing of the 2020 census forms , which could take place later this year.
It was not to be …
In an opinion of Byzantine complexity by Chief Justice John Roberts , the court acknowledged there was actually no legal impediment to asking the citizenship question in the census questionnaire. But because the Administrative Procedure Act enabled judicial review of the decisions of the secretary of commerce , and because the court suspected Ross had not been candid with regard to his motives for seeking the citizenship question , “ meaningful judicial review ” could not be had … Therefore , wrote Roberts , it was necessary to forbid the addition of a citizenship question to the census until further examination of the secretary’s motives could be accomplished in the lower courts.
Ross , whose department was charged with conducting the census , maintained that the citizenship question was added at the request of the Department of Justice , so that that that department might better enforce the Voting Rights Act ( VRA ) … The notion being , apparently , that if the census revealed many citizens were not exercising their right to vote , this might be corrected by appropriate action.
This, according to the Supreme Court ( and the lower court ) was a “ pretext ” ( a nice way of saying “ a lie ” ) , since Ross had declared soon after assuming his office that he would add that question to the census , presumably because he believed it would aid in determining the actual scope of the nation’s problem of illegal immigration.
The “ pretextual ” nature of Ross’s motives , for the Supreme Court majority , precluded effective judicial review. That this result was outrageous was brilliantly communicated in a dissenting opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas , further solidifying his reputation as the greatest defender of the Constitution and the rule of law currently sitting on the court. The key provisions of Thomas’s opinion are worth quoting in full …
Since when were judges asked to form conclusions based , obviously not on the law ( as they agree it is the right of the President to include the question , but instead on their ‘ thoughts ‘ about the ‘ sincerity ‘ of the reason ?!!! … Here’s the opening statement of Justice Thomas … Pretty much nails !!! …
” For the first time ever, the Court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale … “
He goes on a bit and then points out …
” It is not difficult for political opponents of executive actions to generate controversy with accusations of pretext , deceit , and illicit motives. “
No kidding !!! …
themorb.wordpress.com 