Our President, in his wisdom, has identified the statements about forgoing the citizenship question from the DOJ and Commerce Department as "Fake News." So now this story officially belongs in the "fiction" category. At a minimum this unfolding story is a part of the "Survivor: White House" TV show.

It's one matter to have a Commander-in-Chief that is unhinged, and another matter altogether when the hinges themselves fall off. I've got my fingers crossed that this show will not have a sequel.

"I've got my fingers crossed that this show will not have a sequel."

Got help us all if it does.

"Got help us all if it does."

But we get tanks in the capitol!!! Making us somehow great.

You are entitled to your own opinion on Donald Trump. He can be obnoxious, no doubt. But it strikes me as completely rational to count people who belong here versus those who don't. I wonder if Trump agreeing with something makes some people automatically oppose, no matter the actual logic of the issue.

" But it strikes me as completely rational" to follow the Constitution.

To follow the Constitution, and get the most accurate count possible.

The constitution does not prohibit the citizenship question. It was last on the census in 1950. The most accurate count would be counting everyone, and being able to differentiate illegal from legal residents.

The most accurate count would be counting everyone, correct.

This question suppresses the count.

Read the court transcripts from this week. Enlightening, also HUMOUROUS.

Quote:


U.S. District Judge George Hazel: this morning I saw a tweet that got my attention. I don’t know how many federal judges have Twitter accounts, but I happen to be one of them, and I follow the President, and so I saw a tweet that directly contradicted the position that Mr. Gardner had shared with me yesterday.

Uh-ohh.

More:

Judge Hazel: If you were Facebook and an attorney for Facebook told me one thing, and then I read a press release from Mark Zuckerberg telling me something else, I would be demanding that Mark Zuckerberg appear in court with you the next time because I would be saying I don’t think you speak for your client anymore.

.

Nice legal debate you have there, be a shame if your client was an idiot who didn't know when to shut the....

"This question suppresses the count."

Depends on the purpose of the count. I agree, an illegal immigrant would be reluctant to answer it.

One of the most important purposes (and, in fact, the most important purpose) of the census is for determining representation.

We should not be including illegal aliens in these determinations.

"The most accurate count would be counting everyone, correct."

Yep, the purpose of the Census IS to get the most accurate count. And it's been fascinating watching the right-and-white wing Republicans bend themselves into their pretzel logic trying to defend their racism.

The following are undeniably true:

1: A Textualist or Originalist reading of the Constitution makes it irrefutably clear that the Founding Fathers made a distinction between 'citizens' and 'persons'. They specified 'citizens' clearly when the rules applied to citizens, and they specified 'persons' clearly when the rules applied to persons. Smart people, those Founding Fathers were :)

The Constitution is remarkably clear on this matter. It's amusing to watch the right-wing Republican's ignorance on this topic, and their hypocrisy in ignoring a Textualist|Originalist reading of the constitution is stunning (yet not surprising). I thought good Republicans were suppose to be Constitutional Originalists? Turns out, they're Originalists only when their ox isn't being gored.


2: Decade after decade, across multiple administrations and parties (both Democrat and Republican), there has been agreement that questions like this suppress census count. And across multiple administrations and parties (both Democrat and Republican), this has historically been considered undesirable...until our current administration.


3: The Supreme Court already ruled on this. There's nothing to debate. The Administration lied about their purpose, and they got caught. Simple.

Read up - the question suppresses counts of many groups, per GOP documents submitted.

The census is used for many purposes beyond representation.

Why would groups other than illegal immigrants be afraid to answer whether they are citizens and therefore get suppressed?

"Why would groups..."

Take the GOPs word for it - they were caught red-handed.

"Deceased G.O.P. Strategist’s Hard Drives Reveal New Details on the Census Citizenship Question"

"Opponents said that the Justice Department’s rationale for seeking to add a citizenship question to the census was baldly contrived, a conclusion shared by federal judges in all three lawsuits opposing the administration’s action."


Have you not been following along?

"a conclusion shared by federal judges in all three lawsuits opposing the administration’s action."

3 strikes usually means it's over, no?

3 federal judges plus the Supreme Court.

What do these people have against the Constitution? Why are wasting the DOJ's time and money!

Well, besides the inherent racism.

Jack wrote:
"Why would groups...be afraid to answer"

Using your own logic: What was the trump administration afraid to answer the reasoning behind adding the Census question? If their true reason was legally defensible, why be afraid to answer?

Your ox is being gored again...

The Constitution clearly states the Census should count all "Persons", not only "Citizens". If you have a problem with that, then change the Constitution.

Oh, and it would be helpful if you and people like you just admitted that Republican requirements for "Originalist" Constitutional interpretation is a fraud. You only want it when it serves your purpose, and you're devoid of any moral or ethical consistency on the matter.

And today, Trump's DOJ virtually got laughed out of court, with the judge allowing discovery to continue.

Which is very bad for the racists.

Legal scholar: “It's almost unheard of for the federal govt to get slapped down this fast, this decisively.”