• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

Fishbelt Deac said:
You're right to be pessimistic, but wrong to be fatalistic. A citizen can:

Contact their Members of Congress and demand:
--Defund any census that asks about citizenship or pass a provision in the Commerce's Authorization Act prohibiting it from asking about citizenship;
--Hold oversight hearings on Department of Commerce's/DOJ's procedures for establishing Census questions pre/post SCOTUS decision;
--Refuse to confirm any political appointees that do not swear to follow SCOTUS decisions;
--Direct USPS to not mail citizenship questionnaires that contain the citizenship question.

I could go on, and of course, Congress could impeach any official (and citizens can contact their Members of Congress to demand such action). If millions of Americans did, elected officials would perhaps not shirk the will of the People so easily.

Separation of powers is a beautiful, and imperfect, thing. It's intended no separate yet co-equal branch of government can "govern" [legislate/appropriate, execute, and interpret] on its own. (Of course there are smaller versions of this in federal agencies, but an executive department cannot go against the expressed statutes of Congress or expressed decision of the federal judiciary). But it requires basic civics on the part of the electorate and the elected, as well as faithful service of those elected and unelected officials in government.
Click to expand...

That stuff depends on the Senate not being in on the game which, uh, they are.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

No surprise. As the article notes, this has been going on for years. As the white population - especially rural whites - continues to decline as a percentage of the population, Republicans have steadily become more and more obsessed at finding ways to maintain their control (not just a voice, but control) of the political process. And to reduce the power of urbanites, and especially minority urbanites.
 
But if you count illegals, then aren't you artificially lowering the voting power of the citizens in places without clusters of illegals? So while there may be a decline relative to minority citizens in general, if the thought is that including non-citizens in a measure of total population further lowers the total % of rural voters, isn't that an issue?
 
People aren’t illegal.

The point of the census is to count people. It’s a simple headcount. You’re also making an argument against counting people who are living and working here legally but aren’t citizens.
 
Last edited:
The census is used for more than just apportioning congressmen. It’s also used for apportioning different types of funding is it not? Infrastructure like bridges or sewer pipes that could get federal funding, for example, don’t care if it’s a citizen or non citizen using them.
 
06deacon said:
The census is used for more than just apportioning congressmen. It’s also used for apportioning different types of funding is it not? Infrastructure like bridges or sewer pipes that could get federal funding, for example, don’t care if it’s a citizen or non citizen using them.
Click to expand...

Speaking of bridges, I hear RJ has been really trying to sell his
 
06deacon said:
The census is used for more than just apportioning congressmen. It’s also used for apportioning different types of funding is it not? Infrastructure like bridges or sewer pipes that could get federal funding, for example, don’t care if it’s a citizen or non citizen using them.
Click to expand...

Right. But they want to punish the citizens living with noncitizens too.
 
The Constitution says that all people must be counted in a census. Trump and his racist cohorts know that doing so would harm their power. So, they are doing everything they can to undercount and scare people from being counted. They are clearly wanting to break the law. Trump is openly and intentionally breaking his Oath of Office to "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
 
His actions will still have impact according to most experts. You combine these threats with his threats of roundups and millions are likely to be undercounted and this is his goal.
 
Junebug said:
Correct.

Isn’t it also the case that apportionment can be based on data other than that gained by the census? In other words, if the goal is to apportion based only on eligible voters, can’t that number be estimated and used for purposes of apportionment, rather than simply relying on census data?
Click to expand...

i think the answer is "that's why we don't apportion things based on eligible voters"
 
As I was waking up to Morning Edition this a.m., I heard that John Paul Stevens died. My first thought, as I was not fully awake, was that Trump was going to be able to appoint his replacement, and it sent me into a panic.

I went to law school way back in the late 80s to early 90s. The 2 justices who I liked to read the most and who I thought were the best reasoned who were on the bench then were Stevens and Powell. RIP to a great justice who lived a long and eventful life.
 
RIP to Justice Stevens. Definitely my favorite justice to read and a true giant on the bench. Was still sharp well into his 90’s after his retirement.
 
Of course they did. Due to McConnell, when a Dem is in the WH and has the Senate, we need to expand the SC to 15.
 
RJKarl said:
Of course they did. Due to McConnell, when a Dem is in the WH and has the Senate, we need to expand the SC to 15.
Click to expand...

That’s stupid.

RBG came out this week and specifically praised Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and stated that expanding the Court would only politicize what is supposed to be a non-political position.
 
RBG can be wrong.

It was irrecoverably politicized when Garland wasn’t given a vote.
 
The appointment and confirmation process is politicized. No doubt. The Court itself is not.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
The appointment and confirmation process is politicized. No doubt. The Court itself is not.
Click to expand...

Yes it is and has been at least since Bush v. Gore. It is only going to get more politicized going forward.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top