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

Jul 2018
2,398
604
Earth
I asked you two questions. You attempted to answer the first (but did not) and you did not address the second.

Your attempted answer to my first question is nonsense as it talks about jurisdiction which is not what you claimed.
You need to understand the cases that explain footnote 158 in order to understand where you went wrong.
Including the limitation noted: "Some judges, however, have expressed the opinion that Congress’s authority is limited by provisions of the Constitution such as the Due Process Clause, so that a limitation on jurisdiction that denied a litigant access to any remedy might be unconstitutional. "
Judges only have the power that the legislature gives them. Naturally, they try to get as much power as possible but whatever they get is given by the legislature. Remember, it is the legislature that established the courts in the first place and pays them.
 
Jul 2015
2,724
1,153
USA
I see you're still quoting an item from a dissent of a court ruling which holds no established legal footing, without the honesty to explicitly state that it is from the dissent...
:rolleyes:



Well, in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) the court pointed out:


”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”

And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:


……we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.


The consequences of Roberts exercising a function intentionally entrusted to our elected representatives ___ deciding the reasonableness, justice and fairness of legislation and policy, while assigning to the courts the job of determining if such legislation and policy making decisions violate the terms of our Constitution ___ was eloquently summarized by Justice Thomas.


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.


The proper remedy, for those who disagree with placing the question on the ballot, was to have Congress, our elected representatives, visit the issue. Placing the question on the census form, we all agree, does not violate the Constitution. And Roberts ought to have explained this to those who disagree with putting the question on the census form. Instead, he exercised a function assigned to our elected representatives.


JWK


Our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions and set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government not authorized by our written Constitution.
 
Nov 2005
9,219
3,681
California
Well, in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) the court pointed out:
You didn't address my point at all.
Are you going to stop quoting dissenting opinion comments without explicitly noting they are dissenting opinions which carry no automatic precedent weight?
 
Nov 2005
9,219
3,681
California
FrostKing, at this stage you have back-peddled away from your earlier claim onto new claims.
I'll take that as tacit acknowledgement that your earlier claim was full of excrement.

Judges only have the power that the legislature gives them.
You repeating claims does not amount to proof of anything.
Especially when it's easily recognizable that the Constitution grants judges power without the legislature.


Naturally, they try to get as much power as possible but whatever they get is given by the legislature. Remember, it is the legislature that established the courts in the first place and pays them.
Creates the lower courts. Not SCOTUS.
Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.​
Article Three of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

As such, this comment has absolutely no merit regarding relevance towards Roberts' census opinion.
 
Jul 2018
2,398
604
Earth
FrostKing, at this stage you have back-peddled away from your earlier claim onto new claims.
I'll take that as tacit acknowledgement that your earlier claim was full of excrement.


You repeating claims does not amount to proof of anything.
Especially when it's easily recognizable that the Constitution grants judges power without the legislature.



Creates the lower courts. Not SCOTUS.
Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.​
Article Three of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

As such, this comment has absolutely no merit regarding relevance towards Roberts' census opinion.
Did you read what you posted? Who wrote the Constitution? It sure wasn't any judges.
 
Jul 2015
2,724
1,153
USA
You didn't address my point at all.
Are you going to stop quoting dissenting opinion comments without explicitly noting they are dissenting opinions which carry no automatic precedent weight?

I did address your "point". You just don't like documentation refuting your "point".

:rolleyes:


……we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess. ___ Justice Ginsburg delivering the opinion of the Court in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)
 
Last edited:
Jul 2015
2,724
1,153
USA
It may shock American citizens to learn how many extra congressional seats sanctuary states like California have received because they have swelled their population with illegal entrants. Keep in mind these extra votes California gets in Congress cancels out the votes of the representatives of American citizens in other states.

It is estimated California may get between 2 and 3 more seats in Congress because of the massive influx of illegal entrants into this sanctuary state during the past ten years.

But to prevent this type of political motivated population swelling, which is done to receive extra votes in Congress and control our federal treasury, our wise founders also demanded that each states would also have to pay a share of our federal tax burden proportionately equal to its representation in Congress.


The two fair share formulas with respect to each state’s population size are:

.
State`s Population_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No. of RepresentativesPopulation of U.S.


and …


.
State`s population_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDENTotal U.S. Population


For an example of this apportioned tax see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.


And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


In the Federalist Papers, Madison explains the purpose of tying representation and taxation by each state’s population, that it:“…will have a very salutary effect.” He observes in this paper . . .


“Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.” See Federalist No. 54



Now, look at our communist socialist states like California who now swell their states with illegal entrants to gain more representation in Congress. Would these sanctuary states continue to do so if they had to pay a proportional share of our federal tax burden relative to their state’s population size?


Communist and socialists have been very active for generations subverting the fundamental principles written into our Constitution for good government. While they have taught our children in government schools the virtues of our Constitution protecting one man, one vote, they ignore and refuse to teach them the value of one vote, one dollar and tying both representation and taxation by population size, which would have a sobering financial effect in that each state will be held accountable for the free cheese their congressional members vote for, and will receive a bill to pay their apportioned share of the free cheese tab.


JWK


The Democrat Leadership is correct! The border crisis has been manufactured. It has been manufactured by the Democrat Leadership in Congress refusing to protect our borders against an ongoing invasion.
 
Nov 2005
9,219
3,681
California
Did you read what you posted? Who wrote the Constitution? It sure wasn't any judges.
Did I say it was "any judges"?
No.

You jump around to try to hide the errors in what you are saying.
The legislature is involved in creating the lower courts. Not SCOTUS.
Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.​
As such, your comment had absolutely no merit regarding relevance towards Roberts' census opinion.
 
Nov 2005
9,219
3,681
California
I did address your "point". You just don't like documentation refuting your "point".
You lie so frequently it's banal.
You did not address my question as to whether or not you would stop quoting the dissent opinions without explicitly acknowledging they are dissent opinions. You started ranting on about anything but that question from me to you.

Are you going to stop quoting dissenting opinion comments without explicitly noting they are dissenting opinions which carry no automatic precedent weight?
It's a "yes" or "no" question that you need to answer.
 
Jul 2015
2,724
1,153
USA
You lie so frequently it's banal.
You did not address my question as to whether or not you would stop quoting the dissent opinions without explicitly acknowledging they are dissent opinions. You started ranting on about anything but that question from me to you.

Are you going to stop quoting dissenting opinion comments without explicitly noting they are dissenting opinions which carry no automatic precedent weight?
It's a "yes" or "no" question that you need to answer.
Give it a freaken break. You simply cannot accept the fact that even Justice Ginsburg disagrees with your sophomoric opinions.


……we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess. ___ Justice Ginsburg delivering the opinion of the Court in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

JWK




”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”___Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997)