Trump on track for Supreme Court Victory on Census Citizenship Question

#626
#626
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Why do you not want it to be on there after 200 years?
Click to expand...
I don't care if it's on there or not. It won't change my life. However, it won't be on the 2020 Census because Trump's Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, was caught in a lie about the administration's motive for wanting the question. Ross told Congress that he was acting on a request from John Gore of the DOJ, to add the citizenship question, in order to help enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That was a lie. Wilbur Ross's Senior Adviser, James Uthmeier, on instructions from Ross, sent a memo to Gore which advised him that the Trump administration wanted the citizenship question added to the 2020 Census form and that enforcement of the Voting Rights Act could be used as a valid legal argument in favor of it. John Gore then sent Ross a letter formally requesting the citizenship question be added, so that Ross would have documentation to present in court later (if need be).
 
#628
#628
BowlBrother85 said:
I don't care if it's on there or not. It won't change my life. However, it won't be on the 2020 Census because Trump's Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, was caught in a lie about the administration's motive for wanting the question. Ross told Congress that he was acting on a request from John Gore of the DOJ, to add the citizenship question, in order to help enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That was a lie. Wilbur Ross's Senior Adviser, James Uthmeier, on instructions from Ross, sent a memo to Gore which advised him that the Trump administration wanted the citizenship question added to the 2020 Census form and that enforcement of the Voting Rights Act could be used as a valid legal argument in favor of it. John Gore then sent Ross a letter formally requesting the citizenship question be added, so that Ross would have documentation to present in court later (if need be).
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with why you don't want it on there.

They just found 1.6 million more registered voters in LA county than breathing citizens. That adds 5 seats. I've been telling people for a while, there's no way the voters are voting people like Maxine Waters in over and over. There's no way they're voting for the same people that is responsible for 60,000 homeless laying around sidewalks.

DC the same. NY the same etc. It's all rigged but not for long.
 
#629
#629
Orange_Vol1321 said:
That has nothing to do with why you don't want it on there.

They just found 1.6 million more registered voters in LA county than breathing citizens. That adds 5 seats. I've been telling people for a while, there's no way the voters are voting people like Maxine Waters in over and over. There's no way they're voting for the same people that is responsible for 60,000 homeless laying around sidewalks.

DC the same. NY the same etc. It's all rigged but not for long.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't care if that question is on there or not. I have said on here before that I thought it was a valid question and the Supreme Court seemed to think so too. The opinion of Chief Justice Roberts makes it clear that the Ross lie is the reason the question won't be added.... The moral of this story: Don't let yourself get caught in a lie in a case before the Supreme Court, chances are the Chief Justice will not like it.
 
#630
#630
MontyPython said:
Wrong. The judges followed the constitution. The Constitution requires that the census taken every ten years must be a total “enumeration” and that has long been understood as counting everyone living in America at the time the census is performed – citizens and non-citizens, legal residents and immigrant residents living in the United States without legal permission.

So, just because you don't like news, doesn't make it "fake news" and, similarly, just because you don't like the judges' decision, doesn't make them not "real judges".
Click to expand...
So how does asking whether or not they're a citizen go against being counted? You still get a total count, just with the added benefit of knowing who is and is not a citizen.
 
#631
#631
BowlBrother85 said:
I honestly don't care if that question is on there or not. I have said on here before that I thought it was a valid question and the Supreme Court seemed to think so too. The opinion of Chief Justice Roberts makes it clear that the Ross lie is the reason the question won't be added.... The moral of this story: Don't let yourself get caught in a lie in a case before the Supreme Court, chances are the Chief Justice will not like it.
Click to expand...
Speaking of Chief Justice. I've been reading about Wells Fargo foreclosing on peoples houses illegally. They fall behind and catch it up. Wells Fargo sends a letter they're satisfied but the foreclosure process never stops.

Also seen they give people hit by the hurricanes 90 or 120 days to pay. But started foreclosure process before the time they said.

These people are pissed off and been digging. Some of them are in Massachusetts. Elizabeth Warren and Justice Roberts names keeps coming up.
 
#632
#632
Weezer said:
So how does asking whether or not they're a citizen go against being counted? You still get a total count, just with the added benefit of knowing who is and is not a citizen.
Click to expand...
That is assuming that the illegal immigrants who receive the Census form, will respond to it with the citizenship question on there. Don't kid yourself, the motive behind adding that question in the first place, was to discourage the undocumented from participating in the count.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#633
#633
BowlBrother85 said:
That is assuming that the illegal immigrants who receive the Census form, will respond to it with the citizenship question on there. Don't kid yourself, the motive behind adding that question in the first place, was to discourage the undocumented from participating in the count.
Click to expand...
So you support counting them as citizens to inflate the numbers in more liberal states. I'm not surprised. When it comes to representation numbers, I'm of the opinion non-citizens should not count. Representation should be the right of a citizen. If they want to be citizens, they should follow the lawful path to citizenship. I honestly don't understand this encouragement to shuck the law.
 
#634
#634
Weezer said:
So you support counting them as citizens to inflate the numbers in more liberal states. I'm not surprised. When it comes to representation numbers, I'm of the opinion non-citizens should not count. Representation should be the right of a citizen. If they want to be citizens, they should follow the lawful path to citizenship. I honestly don't understand this encouragement to shuck the law.
Click to expand...
I didn't say a word about "counting them as citizens". They will be counted the same way that citizens are ... the Constitution says that they should be included in the Census.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#635
#635
BowlBrother85 said:
I didn't say a word about "counting them as citizens". They will be counted the same way that citizens are ... the Constitution says that they should be included in the Census.
Click to expand...

The census is to assume that those counted are here legally......millions are not and affect the electorate. Those that allow this should be held legally responsible for interfering and undermining our elections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321
#636
#636
Weezer said:
So you support counting them as citizens to inflate the numbers in more liberal states. I'm not surprised. When it comes to representation numbers, I'm of the opinion non-citizens should not count. Representation should be the right of a citizen. If they want to be citizens, they should follow the lawful path to citizenship. I honestly don't understand this encouragement to shuck the law.
Click to expand...
I think it will be like so many of our Red Hats on here; they will just lie about stuff. The Census will be no different. Unless you force people to adhere (and I'm not advocating that), then it will be more of the same.
 
#637
#637
BowlBrother85 said:
That is assuming that the illegal immigrants who receive the Census form, will respond to it with the citizenship question on there. Don't kid yourself, the motive behind adding that question in the first place, was to discourage the undocumented from participating in the count.
Click to expand...
What if every citizen decides not to fill it out?
 
Last edited:
#639
#639
BowlBrother85 said:
I didn't say a word about "counting them as citizens". They will be counted the same way that citizens are ... the Constitution says that they should be included in the Census.
Click to expand...
So that was setup in 1790. Remind again what our immigration laws were in 1790 as compared to now? Also collection of statistics in the census has been deemed constitutional before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321
#640
#640
NorthDallas40 said:
So that was setup in 1790. Remind again what our immigration laws were in 1790 as compared to now? Also collection of statistics in the census has been deemed constitutional before.
Click to expand...
I believe it is constitutional and it would have been added, if not for Wilbur Ross being exposed for the lie behind it's primary purpose. At some point, it would be refreshing to see a conservative here hold Ross accountable for blowing this. The dishonesty and incompetence of Ross is why Trump didn't get what he stuck his neck out for and wanted. Instead, we just get whining from you guys... blaming Democrats and Chief Justice Roberts.... Ross hasn't even been fired.
 
#641
#641
BowlBrother85 said:
I believe it is constitutional and it would have been added, if not for Wilbur Ross being exposed for the lie behind it's primary purpose. At some point, it would be refreshing to see a conservative here hold Ross accountable for blowing this. The dishonesty and incompetence of Ross is why Trump didn't get what he stuck his neck out for and wanted. Instead, we just get whining from you guys... blaming Democrats and Chief Justice Roberts.... Ross hasn't even been fired.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t Ross, who gives a **** about a supposed “primary purpose” when it’s completely legitimate in any regard. The problem was another activist judge going rogue and doing whatever they want.
 
#642
#642
C-south said:
It wasn’t Ross, who gives a **** about a supposed “primary purpose” when it’s completely legitimate in any regard. The problem was another activist judge going rogue and doing whatever they want.
Click to expand...
TIL the only time any of you care about constitutional correctness is when it supports your team. Those activist judge *****.
 
#643
#643
C-south said:
It wasn’t Ross, who gives a **** about a supposed “primary purpose” when it’s completely legitimate in any regard. The problem was another activist judge going rogue and doing whatever they want.
Click to expand...
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States gives a ****. Read his opinion. And it was Wilbur Ross's lie that swung that case.
 
#644
#644
BowlBrother85 said:
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States give a ****. Read his opinion. And it was Wilbur Ross's lie that swung that case.
Click to expand...

“Opinion” is the key word. It’s like you donating $5k to charity and the IRS says they only believe you did it for the write of and deny your ability to claim it .
 
#645
#645
zeppelin128 said:
TIL the only time any of you care about constitutional correctness is when it supports your team. Those activist judge *****.
Click to expand...

When? Libs are undermining the constitution at every turn and attempting to undermine anyone’s ability to adhere to it.
 
#646
#646
C-south said:
“Opinion” is the key word. It’s like you donating $5k to charity and the IRS says they only believe you did it for the write of and deny your ability to claim it .
Click to expand...
You don't care about what the Supreme Court of the US says?
 
#648
#648
NorthDallas40 said:
So that was setup in 1790. Remind again what our immigration laws were in 1790 as compared to now? Also collection of statistics in the census has been deemed constitutional before.
Click to expand...
Are you insinuating that the words and intent of the constitution should be viewed through the filter of how things have changed? I tend to agree.
 
#649
#649
C-south said:
It wasn’t Ross, who gives a **** about a supposed “primary purpose” when it’s completely legitimate in any regard. The problem was another activist judge going rogue and doing whatever they want.
Click to expand...

Provably false given the Supreme Court had an opportunity to overturn the lower court decisions and chose not to... unless, of course, you're calling Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts "rogue". LOL
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top