Another Court Rules Against Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Census Apportionment Policy | Talking Points Memo

A second panel of federal judges has ruled against the President Trump census policy that would seek to exclude undocumented immigrants from the count that determines congressional apportionment. The latest decision, handed down Thursday in a case brought in California, goes further than the previous ruling — which stemmed from a New York-based lawsuit — in that the new decision declares the policy both illegal and a violation of the Constitution.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1339872
1 Like

So when Amy gets on the court and rubberstamps the malAdministrations/REPUG census plans it will become even clearer to those few that remain wantingly blind to the feature that is power come hell or high water that is The REPUG party.

5 Likes

This is a no brainer case. Will the 6-3 right wing Supreme Court majority agree on appeal? That is the question. If they don’t, it’s a green light (assuming Biden is president and has a Senate majority) to expand the membership by a minimum of 4 before further damage is done to our country.

11 Likes

This latest decision, however, said that the policy runs afoul of the Constitution’s Apportionment and Enumeration Clauses, and the Fourteenth Amendment.

This is going to force the Barrett Court to find that both Article I, §2 and the 14th Amendment are unconstitutional.

18 Likes

The Supreme Court will have the final word on whether Trump can implement that policy, which was announced in July. The justices will hear arguments in the New York case in late November, which should allow for a decision by early January, before inauguration.

Just in time to greenlight the practice for Trump, win or lose.

4 Likes

Well that is it then. Spanky will need to sign an executive order rendering that pesky constitution thingy null and void. Can’t have some ancient piece of paper telling Spanky what he can and can not do.

6 Likes

6-3

But her emails…

2 Likes

In other news, the sun rises in the east.

What part of “count the whole population” don’t GOP constitutional scholars understand?

5 Likes

Did we have a whole hoohaw over “shall” and “will” not too long ago? Isn’t that one still going on?

3 Likes

The part where that means they have to count people they don’t think should be considered people.

9 Likes

She’s a believer in the idea that the 14th Amendment is in fact void ab initio for the way it was enacted.

Constitutional Myth #8: The 14th Amendment Doesn't Exist - The Atlantic.

9 Likes

Maybe the GOP is taking a tough initial position to eventually offer a compromise by resurrecting the 3/5ths Rule.

2 Likes

The GOP wants one thing and one thing alone at this point: permanent minority-rules white Christian hegemony established and maintained through a “managed democracy” that pretends to have free and open elections, but in which those elections produce dependable, predictable results they can CONTROL from their positions of power in order to perpetuate their minority-rule hegemony.

That’s it. They want us to operate 100% like Putin’s Russia.

5 Likes

They’ve also managed to overlook the “well regulated” part of the Second Amendment.

6 Likes

It looks to me as if the Court is working to provide evidence that a SCOTUS is behaving in a blatantly partisan matter if they rule in favor of the abusive policy that this administration is supporting. I think we can plan on seeing more and more courts writing opinions that will demand that SCOTUS ignore established jurisprudence in order to reach the partisan decisions. This won’t slow them down, but it will make a difference in the public support for balancing the courts.

7 Likes

I don’t recall when filling out my census questionnaire any queries about my being an undocumented immigrant. If my memory is correct, how will the Census Bureau sift out undocumented immigrants from the final count?

5 Likes

This is all based on a fairly easy to understand founding principle of our country, “No taxation without representation.” Obviously, it’s too new-fangled for the current Republican Party.

Congress is unconstitutional.

3 Likes

I really don’t understand how they would do it. They were blocked by the court from asking about citizenship. Would they just not count any people whose last name ended in “ez”?

3 Likes

Me guess below that they just won’t count anyone whose last name ends in “ez”.

1 Like