Withholding evidence from a judge is another form of obstruction.
Does anyone think the citizenship question will NOT be on the 2020 census when all is said and done?
Trying to stay optimistic
I am sure the right wingers on the SC are aware of all the new information that has come out after they agreed to hear the case. If they rule that the question can remain, it will be quite clear that they will let the Repukes do whatever they want to do, regardless of civil rights, the Constitution, or anything else. Maybe Roberts does not want to go that far ā it will give the Dems plenty of justification to appoint several new justices, assuming the POTUS is a Dem and they control the Senate. I donāt have a good feeling about it and we need to consider what to do in response, like not answering the question or not filling out a census form if you are in a red district.
Good! Judges are supposed to be judicious.
Trump: This should be only decided by Judge āJeanine Pirroā*. All others are biased.
*Edit: Was Perino earlier
āā¦the Hazelās moveā¦ā
Guys, I know copy-editors are an endangered species, if not already extinct, but could you, maybe, have someone take 10 seconds to look over your copy before publishing?
Please? (Asking for a literate friend.)
Did someone tell Hazel to rule like democracy had died, to picture that day, what he would feel, how he would make sense of his life, how he would take a measure of everything that was inside him and let it out though his ruling?
Yes, but the judge must ask the Appels Court to remand the case since that Court is packed with tRUmp apologists that will not happen.
Lesson learned by Republicans ā¦
Donāt just hide the evidence of what weāre doing, to who, and why - and then lie about it.
Destroy the evidence of what weāre doing, to who, and why - and then lie about it.
It should be difficult for SCOTUS or the appeals court to issue a judgement (especially an unfavorable judgment for Dems) when a Judge is out there asking to amend his previous decision based on new evidence. I think it would smack of obvious partisanship (something Judge Roberts hatesā¦he likes his partisanship to be more nuanced) to the general public.
Hopefulā¦
I for one will not be answering that particular question if it does appear on the census. I encourage everyone to do the same.
In any of these court cases has it been determined whose pet project this was? I mean Trump or Ross wouldnāt know Hoffler from any other Republican, so who pushed this up the chain of authority?
I hope youāre right on this!
If thereās no remand, can he sanction?
Also, I find myself a little bemused by this. Is there a different thing that happens if the change is found to be arbitrary and capricious and based on a pretext AND based on racial animus versus just the first two? I know that in theory it changes the calculus for the (thoroughly corrupted) appeals process, but is it ultimately just preparing the record to establish that the current supreme court is even more lawless than we thought it was?
Bloomberg kind of misses it its Fed headline for today:
Jerome Powell Is Playing āSurvivorā at the Fed
Should read:
Jerome Powell Forced into āApprenticeā Game at the Fed
This actually raises a legal question to which I donāt have the answer. Can SCOTUS legally consider these revelations, even though they arenāt before the court? In other words, is SCOTUS required by law to consider only the evidence presented in the case? If they canāt consider outside evidence, can they decide not to rule based on the fact that they are aware of that evidence?
I fail to see how the song has anything to do with the subject at hand, but Thank You for posting this, Listening right now,and OMG, itās been so long since Iāve last heard thisā¦
Scotus can do whatever it damn pleases. The Scalia Faction of the court, however, is on record saying that itās constitutional to execute someone you know for a fact is innocent, just as long as the right superficial forms have been observed in getting to the death warrant.