“As discussed below, that conclusion is supported by indications that Defendants deviated from their standard procedures in hastily adding the citizenship question; by evidence suggesting that Secretary Ross’s stated rationale for adding the question is pretextual; and by contemporary statements of decisionmakers, including statements by the President,…"
SCOTUS was faced with nearly identical circumstances when challenges to Trump's "Muslim ban" were argued, and decided in favor of the administration. They essentially conceded all the reasons Trump gave for instituting the travel ban were spurious and discriminatory on their face, and various statements by Trump and others belied their arguments. But nevertheless Trump was on firm legal ground as far as his prerogative to issue the executive order. I can easily see this challenge meeting the same fate.Another district court judge doing what he can to preserve democracy and the rule of law, when so many people, politicians, and some other judges are trying to destroy it.
Why does that old fart always have his fingers stuck in his ears? Its almost like he doesn’t want to hear anything but the ramblings from inside his own head.
He is audtioning for Hear No Evil as his next gig.
Probably. The role of See No Evil will be played by Pompeo…and Mattis can play the role of Speak No Evil.
The fate of this case could depend on calendars. Unless the administration wants to completely screw up the census (which is another possibility, especially if state polls are going against them), they’re going to have to have the text frozen and ready for printing sometime next year.
I thought because a President has broad power to execute executive authority on how policy is carried out is why Trump’s 3rd Muslim Ban got approved? ( hey it took them 3 tries to put enough whitewash on the plan) Whereas this is a Cabinet Secretary that is constrained by the Constitution, along with the President, since the Constitution has more specifics on who, when, and how this action should be undertaken.
Not with a SCOTUS that includes Kavanaugh. I seriously doubt what the Constitution says will constrain them from ruling in Trump’s favor on whatever he demands.
But see here’s the beauty of the current situation, Kavanaugh ain’t on the bench, yet.
He may very well be by the time any suits against this Census ploy wind their way through various levels of appeals.
Absolutely. IIRC, the court ruled that even though the historical record unambiguously showed that Trump’s ban was motivated by an intent to discriminate, it was still valid because it’s possible to construct an alternative theory that is not discriminatory.
That is: defendants couldn’t come up with a convincing lie, but nobody has shown that it’s logically impossible to invent such a lie, so let’s assume that someday somebody will, so we’ll decide the case on the strength of evidence that nobody – including us! – has presented.
This thieving little fart must be quivering inside with helpless fury.