The Roberts census opinion is an attack on our representative system of government

Jul 2015
2,616
1,114
USA
#1
Just for the record, the Administrative Procedure Act, (APA) which was used to justify Roberts’ opinion, is a clever device created by our Washington Swamp Creatures to undermine our representative system of government, and allow unelected activist judges and Justices to second guess and overturn policy making decisions and legislation which rightfully rests with Congress and our Executive branch of government, that is, unless Congress itself, our elected representatives, decide to intervene and strike down a policy judgement made by the Executive branch.


In this case, the APA was used to overturn the consequences of an election and a policy making decision made by our President which is objected to by those who lost the election.

This is not rocket science to figure out. Just read the entire Court OPINION which documents the whining and frivolous objections of those who ran to the Court over a question which is admitted by all parties does not violate the terms of our Constitution.



Justice Thomas, in his dissent, identifies the can of worms opened by Justice Roberts:



"Now that the Court has opened up this avenue of attack, opponents of executive actions have strong incentives to craft narratives that would derail them. Moreover, even if the effort to invalidate the action is ultimately unsuccessful, the Court’s decision enables partisans to use the courts to harangue executive officers through depositions, discovery, delay, and distraction. The Court’s decision could even implicate separation-of-powers concerns insofar as it enables judicial interference with the enforcement of the laws. In short, today’s decision is a departure from traditional principles of administrative law. Hopefully it comes to be understood as an aberration—a ticket good for this day and this train only"


Because the Secretary’s decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census was legally sound and a reasoned exercise of his broad discretion, I respectfully dissent from Part V of the opinion of the Court."




The bottom line is, the Roberts’ decision is an outright attack on our democratic system and attempts to overturn the consequences of our last election.



This whole case is summed up as follows:

"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)



JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." –Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
 
Nov 2018
3,934
1,958
Inner Space
#4
Just for the record, the Administrative Procedure Act, (APA) which was used to justify Roberts’ opinion, is a clever device created by our Washington Swamp Creatures to undermine our representative system of government, and allow unelected activist judges and Justices to second guess and overturn policy making decisions and legislation which rightfully rests with Congress and our Executive branch of government, that is, unless Congress itself, our elected representatives, decide to intervene and strike down a policy judgement made by the Executive branch.


In this case, the APA was used to overturn the consequences of an election and a policy making decision made by our President which is objected to by those who lost the election.

This is not rocket science to figure out. Just read the entire Court OPINION which documents the whining and frivolous objections of those who ran to the Court over a question which is admitted by all parties does not violate the terms of our Constitution.



Justice Thomas, in his dissent, identifies the can of worms opened by Justice Roberts:



"Now that the Court has opened up this avenue of attack, opponents of executive actions have strong incentives to craft narratives that would derail them. Moreover, even if the effort to invalidate the action is ultimately unsuccessful, the Court’s decision enables partisans to use the courts to harangue executive officers through depositions, discovery, delay, and distraction. The Court’s decision could even implicate separation-of-powers concerns insofar as it enables judicial interference with the enforcement of the laws. In short, today’s decision is a departure from traditional principles of administrative law. Hopefully it comes to be understood as an aberration—a ticket good for this day and this train only"


Because the Secretary’s decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census was legally sound and a reasoned exercise of his broad discretion, I respectfully dissent from Part V of the opinion of the Court."




The bottom line is, the Roberts’ decision is an outright attack on our democratic system and attempts to overturn the consequences of our last election.



This whole case is summed up as follows:

"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)



JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." –Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
Probably would be better to establish a national ID system and require all citizens to carry papers if you really want to accurately know the number of citizens.
 
Likes: Clara007
Jul 2008
18,715
12,466
Virginia Beach, VA
#7
Ah! The perils of a powerful court. Just because Congress can do 'something' doesn't mean they WILL do 'something'.
Exactly. When it became apparent that bans on same sex marriage were going to be struck down by the courts the GOPers floated the idea of taking marriage cases out of the hands of the courts. It never happened.
 
Likes: Clara007
Jul 2015
2,616
1,114
USA
#8
It is absolutely incomprehensible that those who object to our elected President wanting to ask "Is this person a citizen of the United States" on our census form, allege doing so is "arbitrary and capricious", while they embrace unelected judges and Justices imposing their mere whims and fancies as the rule of law, .eg., homosexual marriage.. Of course, these same mindless hypocrite wonders never complained when their Messiah, Obama, had his Census Bureau asked the very same question in 2015.


:rolleyes:



"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.”
U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)
 
Jul 2008
18,715
12,466
Virginia Beach, VA
#9
It is absolutely incomprehensible that those who object to our elected President wanting to ask "Is this person a citizen of the United States" on our census form, allege doing so is "arbitrary and capricious", while they embrace unelected judges and Justices imposing their mere whims and fancies as the rule of law, .eg., homosexual marriage.. Of course, these same mindless hypocrite wonders never complained when their Messiah, Obama, had his Census Bureau asked the very same question in 2015.


:rolleyes:



"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)
When documents show that the reason for the question is not what the administration claimed and that the REAL reason was to intentionally get incorrect data to benefit the political party in power then I don’t understand how anyone can see it as anything BUT capricious.
 
Likes: foundit66
Dec 2015
16,536
15,400
Arizona
#10
When documents show that the reason for the question is not what the administration claimed and that the REAL reason was to intentionally get incorrect data to benefit the political party in power then I don’t understand how anyone can see it as anything BUT capricious.
AND there's more trouble on Paradise Island (Trumpworld). The once despised and rejected DOJ has tried a new maneuver-- a request to switch its legal team midway through a case challenging the Trump administration’s effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
On Sunday, the Justice Department said it was replacing the legal team defending the citizenship question. It offered no explanation for the change, which came in the middle of a prolonged clash over whether the administration’s arguments for adding the question could be believed.
But on Tuesday, as a new team of lawyers began to notify the court of its appearance in the case, Judge 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. He excepted only two lawyers on the team who had already left the department’s civil division, which was overseeing the lawsuit.
“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.”
(Oh that uppity judge!)
Dale Ho, the A.C.L.U.’s lead attorney on the case. “The Trump administration is acting like it has something to hide, and we won’t rest until we know the truth.”
TRUMP: So now the Obama appointed judge on the Census case (Are you a Citizen of the United States?) won’t let the Justice Department use the lawyers that it wants to use. Could this be a first?
Judge Rejects Justice Dept. Request to Change Lawyers on Census Case