The Most Lawless Administration in History

[_Kevin Graham]

As our president prepares to announce an executive order overturning the Supreme Court's ruling on the census case, let's remember that the census is not just a bureaucratic task that the executive branch oversees. It is a fulfillment of a Constitutional mandate to direct an "enumeration" the number of people inhabiting each state (Article I Section 2).

The definition of "enumeration" has been controversial in the past, but, because it is a matter of Constitutional interpretation, the Supreme Court has always had the responsibility of interpreting it in a given case because this is the power that our Constitutional system assigns to the Supreme Court. They interpret the Constitution.

Trump has already used an executive order to nullify a legislative vote on an appropriation, one of the powers specifically delegated to the legislative branch. Today he is expected to use an executive order to nullify a Supreme Court decision--in an area clearly within the powers delegated to the Judicial Branch.

In 1957, another Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, addressed the nation on his decision to send troops to Little Rock top facilitate the integration of schools. Eisenhower had not agreed with the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board decision, but he became its chief enforcer because that is what the Constitution and the rule of law required of him. He said:

"The very basis of our individual rights and freedoms rests upon the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and insure the carrying out of the decisions of the Federal Courts, even, when necessary with all the means at the President’s command.

"Unless the President did so, anarchy would result.

"There would be no security for any except that which each one of us could provide for himself.

"The interest of the nation in the proper fulfillment of the law’s requirements cannot yield to opposition and demonstrations by some few persons.

"Mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of our courts."

Donald Trump will today do exactly the thing that Eisenhower--who spent his adult life fighting for democracy and the rule of law abroad--understood that a president must not do. I do not personally care whether or not there is a citizenship question on the census. But I do care that our government maintain the separation of powers doctrine that, more than anything else, prevents the strong executive from becoming a dictator.

If we had a functioning Congress, this would be grounds for impeachment. If we had a functioning conservative party, it would be electoral suicide. It will probably be neither, and that means we will cease to be a country governed by laws.

[Guest]

Donald Trump is clearly trying to emulate his idol, Andrew Jackson, who said, when the Supreme court ruled against his determination to force Native Americans to give up their land, said, "John Marshall has made his decision, let him enforce it." What Trump is trying to do now, is every bit as unlawful and unconstitutional as what Andrew Jackson did. I agree that for that alone, he should be impeached, just as Andrew Jackson should have been. As Kevin said or implied, if the President can simply overrule or ignore a Supreme Court decision by means of an executive order whenever he disagrees with it, we no longer have a functional republic or democracy. We have a tyranny.

[_subgenius]

As our president prepares to announce an executive order overturning the Supreme Court's ruling on the census case,....

at least pretend you have some knowledge.
You literally do not know the ruling you are speaking of here nor how the alleged exec order relates to it.
tarded doxxer u r.

[_subgenius]

...if the President can simply overrule or ignore a Supreme Court decision by means of an executive order ...

can you please cite, or quote, the ruling you are referencing here?

[_Gray Ghost]

As our president prepares to announce an executive order overturning the Supreme Court's ruling on the census case,....

at least pretend you have some knowledge.
You literally do not know the ruling you are speaking of here nor how the alleged exec order relates to it.
tarded doxxer u r.

What's the meaning of "western liberalism" again?

[_Kevin Graham]

I love how subs thinks he's insulting me by calling me a doxxer when all this does is show how butthurt he is over the fact that he no longer gets to pretend to be this educated man if mystery. He's every bit the uneducated hick we always suspected him to be.

The case had already made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which last month ruled against the Republican president’s first attempt to add the question, saying the administration’s rationale was “contrived” but leaving the door open to its possible addition if officials could offer a new explanation.

Since then, the Justice Department has sought to shake up its legal team by replacing the lawyers handling the case. On Wednesday, a second federal judge rejected the department’s efforts, saying it had to offer detailed reasoning for the change.

Attorneys within the Trump administration have been studying the census issue and intend to keep the president’s order within the confines of the Supreme Court decision, but they are cognizant that whatever action he takes is likely to be challenged in court again. The U.S. Constitution specifically assigns the job of overseeing the census to Congress, limiting a president’s authority, which could complicate any effort to add the question via presidential missive.

- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1U61D9

Trump Lied to the Supreme Court, and Four Justices Don’t Care

The White House insisted allegations that it wanted to add a citizenship question to the survey for political reasons were conspiracy theories, right up until the moment the president confirmed them.

“There is no smoking gun here; only smoke and mirrors,” the Department of Justice insisted when liberal groups uncovered evidence that the Trump administration was seeking to add a citizenship question to the census for the purpose of enhancing white voting power through redistricting. The Justice Department characterized the new evidence as resembling “the product of a conspiracy theorist.” The respondents’ “conspiracy theory” was “implausible on its face,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco echoed in a brief written for the Supreme Court in June.

The conservative justices on the Supreme Court apparently found this argument very persuasive. The evidence that the Trump administration had consciously sought to use the census to strengthen white voting power was ultimately not a part of the case before the Court, which came down to whether the Trump administration had violated administrative law by misrepresenting its motives in adding the citizenship question.

Nevertheless, Justice Clarence Thomas mocked a lower-court judge for concluding, as did a majority of the Court, that the Trump administration misled the public when it said it wanted to add the citizenship question to better enforce the Voting Rights Act. “A judge predisposed to distrust the Secretary or the administration could arrange those facts on a corkboard and—with a jar of pins and a spool of string—create an eye-catching conspiracy web,” Thomas wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Thomas even went so far as to accuse the majority of echoing “the din of suspicion and distrust that seems to typify modern discourse.” Justice Samuel Alito, for his part, argued that it was no business of the Court if the government had lied about a decision affecting the entire country.

Then Donald Trump himself confirmed that the “conspiracy theory” put forth by groups challenging the legality of the citizenship question was true.

“Number one, you need it for Congress for districting, you need it for appropriations, where are the funds going, how many people are there, are they citizens or not citizens?” Trump told reporters on Friday, explaining why the administration was reversing its original decision to abandon the citizenship question. That statement not only confirms that the majority in the census case was correct, it proves that the dissenters were defending a lie, while accusing their opponents of bad faith. Ironically, this sort of behavior is all too typical of Trump backers like Thomas.

[_MeDotOrg]

A curious byproduct of all of this is the integrity of the legal representations made by the Justice Department. DOJ lawyers insisted on numerous occasions that June 30 was a hard-and-fast deadline. The courts and the parties relied upon those representations. Time is of the essence,” Judge Thurman wrote, “because the Census Bureau needs to finalize the 2020 questionnaire by June of this year.”

The Solicitor General also invoked the June 30 deadline as the basis for his extraordinary request for the Supreme Court to grant certiorari “before judgment” (i.e., to take the case before the court of appeals could consider it). “The Census Bureau must finalize the census forms by the end of June 2019 to print them on time for the 2020 decennial census,” the SG explained to the Court.

So, the case was expedited at the request of the DOJ lawyers, who said June 30th was the absolute last, swear-to-God LAST DAY before the Census printing began. The Supreme Court ruled that the arguments provided by the Justice Department Lawyers, that the data was needed to enforce the Voting Rights act was (ahem) disingenuous.

But after the Supreme Court ruling, the date of June 30th, the goal line repeatedly stated by the DOJ, has suddenly moved. The Justice Department's answer was to simply remove the lawyers who had been arguing the case. A new set of lawyers could come in and argue with a (somewhat) straight face that they personally had never said June 30th was the deadline.

Can we stop and examine what this means? It means that the arguments made by Justice Department lawyers are the responsibility of the lawyers themselves, NOT the Justice Department. If an argument doesn't work, DOJ can just send in a new set of lawyers to argue a different argument. That is how fungible truth becomes in the William Barr division of the Trump administration.

But Barr's attempt to run an end around by replacing all the DOJ lawyers failed. United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman barred the old lawyers from leaving until they met a legal requirement to satisfactorily explain their departure and show that it would not impede the case. “Defendants provide no reasons, let alone ‘satisfactory reasons,’ for the substitution of counsel,” he wrote, adding that their written assurance that the switch would not disrupt the case “is not good enough.”

So to review: After the Justice Department specifically requests an expedited review of the case because of the June 30th deadline, the Supreme Court rules that the arguments provided by the DOJ for the addition of the Citizenship question were unsatisfactory. In response, the Justice Department wants to replace all of the lawyers on the case, because the lawyers made arguments that the Department of Justice no longer wants to honor.

When is this okay?

[_moksha]

I think Trump is proposing compiling a database from other federal agencies use of census data to enable voting districts to be drawn up to exclude possible immigrants who might not vote Republican. Can't fault a blowhard President's partisan wishes, can you?

[_Brackite]

Federal judge permanently blocks Trump admin from adding citizenship question to 2020 census


(CNN) — A New York federal judge has issued an order definitively blocking the Trump administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census in any form, despite the administration's insistence it has abandoned plans to add a question on the census.
Judge Jesse Furman, in his two-page order, also indicated the seriousness with which the court will continue to monitor this controversial issue, saying, "The Court will retain jurisdiction in this case to enforce the terms of this Order until the 2020 census results are processed and sent to the President by December 31, 2020."
President Donald Trump announced last week that he will seek citizenship information from agencies that already collect the data following the following the Supreme Court's decision in June that kept a lower court's order to block a citizenship question from the census in place.

[_subgenius]

I love how subs thinks he's insulting me by calling me a doxxer when all this does is show how butthurt he is over the fact that he no longer gets to pretend to be this educated man if mystery. He's every bit the uneducated hick we always suspected him to be.

you're the only one around here living a lie....mostly because you are a liar...and a doxxer....and an online stalker...and....