![]() |
U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now (/Thread-U-S-Supreme-Court-blocks-Trump-s-census-citizenship-question-for-now) Pages:
1
2
|
U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - GMDino - 06-27-2019 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-census/u-s-supreme-court-blocks-trumps-census-citizenship-question-for-now-idUSKCN1TS1BL Quote:The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant defeat on Thursday, ruling that his administration did not give an adequate explanation for its plan to include a contentious citizenship question on the 2020 census and preventing its addition to the decennial survey for now.[url=https://tmsnrt.rs/2V2T0Uf][/url] Of course I agree with this...but more because I don't trust the reasoning the Trump Admin tried to say they had nor what would be done with the answers on the census than because of the question itself. RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-27-2019 Let's put it this way: It's not a coincidence that this vote went along party lines. RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - SunsetBengal - 06-27-2019 Quote:The census, required by the U.S. Constitution, is used to allot seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and distribute some $800 billion in federal funds. The intent of the citizenship question, opponents said, is to manufacture a deliberate undercount of areas with high immigrant and Latino populations, costing Democratic-leaning regions seats in the House, benefiting Republicans and non-Hispanic whites. Always wanting to make it a racial issue.. RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - CJD - 06-27-2019 (06-27-2019, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's put it this way: What party line did it go along? RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - Belsnickel - 06-27-2019 (06-27-2019, 12:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Always wanting to make it a racial issue.. Well, to be fair, that is exactly what the architect of the question intended it for when he wrote up the idea in 2015. So, yeah. The Republicans always do seem to want to make it a racial issue. RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - Belsnickel - 06-27-2019 (06-27-2019, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's put it this way: You mean one side trying to protect democracy and the other not? ![]() RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - SunsetBengal - 06-27-2019 (06-27-2019, 12:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, to be fair, that is exactly what the architect of the question intended it for when he wrote up the idea in 2015. So, yeah. The Republicans always do seem to want to make it a racial issue. A racial issue, or just wanting to get a more accurate number of American and non-American bodies in the US, and how they are distributed? Honestly, it seems like a fair enough question to ask on a census, it's not like they're asking for your name, address, and SSN. RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - Belsnickel - 06-27-2019 (06-27-2019, 12:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: A racial issue, or just wanting to get a more accurate number of American and non-American bodies in the US, and how they are distributed? Honestly, it seems like a fair enough question to ask on a census, it's not like they're asking for your name, address, and SSN. A racial issue. That is the reason for adding it. The Republican strategist that came up with the idea, whose memo was copied almost verbatim by the Trump administration when adding the question, came up with the idea to gerrymander along racial lines in favor of Republicans. This was submitted as evidence in court for this case. And adding a citizenship question will ensure a less accurate count on the census overall. RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-27-2019 (06-27-2019, 12:29 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: What party line did it go along? What party line did it go along the time you made the exact same comment? (06-27-2019, 12:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You mean one side trying to protect democracy and the other not? I actually see the point they're making though. I may not necessarily agree with all of it, but I can understand the logic. RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - GMDino - 06-27-2019 (06-27-2019, 01:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A racial issue. That is the reason for adding it. The Republican strategist that came up with the idea, whose memo was copied almost verbatim by the Trump administration when adding the question, came up with the idea to gerrymander along racial lines in favor of Republicans. This was submitted as evidence in court for this case. And, if I have this right, the reasoning was what this ruling was based on and not the question itself. RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - Belsnickel - 06-27-2019 (06-27-2019, 01:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I actually see the point they're making though. I may not necessarily agree with all of it, but I can understand the logic. I'm in the same position. I am actually against both rulings we have threads about from today. This one because even though I think the citizenship question is based on racist motives to gerrymander more effectively for Republicans, I think the administration has the ability to add the question and it is up to Congress to provide the oversight on that. RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-27-2019 (06-27-2019, 01:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm in the same position. I am actually against both rulings we have threads about from today. This one because even though I think the citizenship question is based on racist motives to gerrymander more effectively for Republicans, I think the administration has the ability to add the question and it is up to Congress to provide the oversight on that. You and I are of similar minds on this issue, with slight differences. I don't see either of these rulings as hyper partisan though. RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - CJD - 06-27-2019 (06-27-2019, 01:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What party line did it go along the time you made the exact same comment? The party line of judges appointed by Republicans vs judges appointed by Democrats. So, what party line did this vote, in which a conservative judge joined the 4 liberal judges against 4 conservative judges, go along? RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - BmorePat87 - 06-27-2019 The administration failed to prove that the intent of this question was not intended to scare latinos away from participating in the census, ensuring areas that lean Democrat would be under represented. When the Trump administration is outsourcing so much to GOP operatives and think tanks, the intent of those groups is going to come into play. RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - Mike M (the other one) - 06-27-2019 I think the question has every right to be on there, but I don't want it used for the purposes that they are arguing about. But anyways, there's nothing stopping the Dems from using the same data to do the same thing. In all honesty, the voting district lines should be done strictly by a non partisan group, but unfortunately it would only be a matter of time before that would get corrupted as well. RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-27-2019 (06-27-2019, 02:14 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The party line of judges appointed by Republicans vs judges appointed by Democrats. Oh, so you're operating on the principle that a GOP appointed justice will always rule with the others and vice versa. Rather cynical. RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - CJD - 06-27-2019 (06-27-2019, 02:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, so you're operating on the principle that a GOP appointed justice will always rule with the others and vice versa. Rather cynical. Is it cynical? Or is it just realistic? There were people who voted for Trump solely because of the empty Supreme Court seat and their desire to overturn Roe v Wade. Were they cynical as well? RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-27-2019 (06-27-2019, 03:07 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Is it cynical? Or is it just realistic? Not a fact I was unaware of. However, Justices tend to have a mind of their own once appointed and are still bench officers who decide cases based on the Constitution, the law and legal precedent. To dismiss any ruling simply based on the justices for or against it is actually a more partisan exercise then you accused the justices of engaging in. RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - GMDino - 06-27-2019 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/27/supreme-court-citizenship-question-trump-wants-delay-census/1581702001/ Quote:Trump says he asked lawyers if census could be delayed after Supreme Court decision on citizenship question RE: U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now - CJD - 06-27-2019 (06-27-2019, 03:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not a fact I was unaware of. However, Justices tend to have a mind of their own once appointed and are still bench officers who decide cases based on the Constitution, the law and legal precedent. To dismiss any ruling simply based on the justices for or against it is actually a more partisan exercise then you accused the justices of engaging in. They may assume the identity of non-partisanship, but they still have their own thoughts and beliefs and, sometimes, those thoughts and opinions, as well as their qualifications as a judge, are significant factors in why they were nominated. In other words, it is my belief that a judge appointed by a pro-life president is more likely to be pro-life than a judge appointed by a pro-choice president. Just like a judge appointed by a pro-LGBT rights president is more likely to be pro-LGBT rights than a judge appointed by an anti-LGBT rights president. I don't think recognizing the inherent biases of the human condition is any more partisan than those who are voting along their own partisan lines, whether they like to believe they are being objective or not. |