• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump expected to back away from census citizenship question

Erod said:
So now he's going to do it through the Commerce Department records, which will be much more accurate than a question that invites lying.

Brilliantly played.

Now we can set congressional representation based on these numbers, not the census.
Click to expand...

According to the Constitution, apportionment will be based on the census. But you know that.
 
SCrider said:
The cult members are buying it, I guess that what's really important....
Click to expand...

Imagine now the situation if Trump loses the elections and claims a win getting the support of his cult members...
 
Stealers Wheel said:
According to the Constitution, apportionment will be based on the census. But you know that.
Click to expand...

An ACCURATE census, which the Democrats are trying to circumvent.

This will provide an audit to that census. This will derail your plans.

But you knew that.
 
Erod said:
But if that census is proven to be erroneous with a proper audit like this......

He's killing your favorite ploys.
Click to expand...

An audit for what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SCrider said:
The cult members are buying it, I guess that what's really important....
Click to expand...

You can always count on the rubes being stupid enough to buy it...
 
Erod said:
An ACCURATE census, which the Democrats are trying to circumvent.

This will provide an audit to that census. This will derail your plans.

But you knew that.
Click to expand...

You've got that backwards Trumps own people admitted the reason was contrived to benefit red states. How dishonest are you going to be here?
 
SCrider said:
You've got that backwards Trumps own people admitted the reason was contrived to benefit red states. How dishonest are you going to be here?
Click to expand...

No, no, no... The wanted to make sure every whole person was counted...
 
BlueTex said:
Umm.... this move won't change apportionment at all... You see, there was a great GOP victory in the supreme court in 1999 which prohibits using anything they might collect outside of the actual census...

Department of Commerce v. United States House | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...

I heard Barr say that trump's 'citizen data' could be used for redistricting WITHIN a state, only using citizens for redistricting.
This goes against that 1999 USSC ruling you linked to.
If Barr wins that one in the USSC, I see GOPs winning every way.

Barring an under-count of 'people' in GOP states like TX, FL, and AZ, these states are estimated to gain 3, 2, and 1 CDs respectively in 2021.
I see the USSC ruling as an actually win for these GOP states, as they've gained the most 'people', with trump still able to appeal to his uneducated base.
Most Midwestern states are estimated to lose one CD, and most of them are run at the state legislative level by GOPs. Ballotpedia is exhaustive.

The GOP will have more seats from the Census and may have this potentially new gerrymandered tool of only using citizens on redistricting.
The next House looks to be even more gerrymandered than this one is, and the critical races at the state level don't favor DEMs, as per REDMAP 2010.

I can't find your post with the map of the USA showing non-citizens.
I would be appreciative if you could link that.
 
Linc said:
I heard Barr say that trump's 'citizen data' could be used for redistricting WITHIN a state, only using citizens for redistricting.
This goes against that 1999 USSC ruling you linked to.
If Barr wins that one in the USSC, I see GOPs winning every way.
Click to expand...

I think the odds of winning that one are very long given the 1999 ruling and numerous other precedents..

Barring an under-count of 'people' in GOP states like TX, FL, and AZ, these states are estimated to gain 3, 2, and 1 CDs respectively in 2021.
I see the USSC ruling as an actually win for these GOP states, as they've gained the most 'people', with trump still able to appeal to his uneducated base.
Most Midwestern states are estimated to lose one CD, and most of them are run at the state legislative level by GOPs. Ballotpedia is exhaustive.

The GOP will have more seats from the Census and may have this potentially new gerrymandered tool of only using citizens on redistricting.
The next House looks to be even more gerrymandered than this one is, and the critical races at the state level don't favor DEMs, as per REDMAP 2010.

I can't find your post with the map of the USA showing non-citizens.
I would be appreciative if you could link that.
Click to expand...


Here is the state by state data...

U.S. unauthorized immigrant population estimates by state, 2016 | Pew Research Center
 
Rexedgar said:
No, they said that the reasons the Administration cited were bogus; basically, “go back and bring a better argument.”

Then the lawyers rebelled and the Administration seems to have folded.


“WILBUR”
Click to expand...

The lawyers rebelled because coming back with a new argument would basically require admission of perjury. They lied their asses off and got backed into a corner because of it.
 
BlueTex said:
I think the odds of winning that one are very long given the 1999 ruling and numerous other precedents..
Click to expand...

I see this as an entirely different USSC from 1999, state's rights libertarian to the max, as we saw with them legalizing 'partisan' gerrymandering.
IIRC, this court ruled 5-3 against racial GM in North Carolina, with Thomas along with the liberals, as a run-up to their 5-4 ruling.

Democrats screwed up switching from racial to partisan, though Roberts previously supported racial GM.
So, is it racial GM to eliminate non-citizens from redistricting, will it matter to THIS court, and will Thomas flip back?


Here is the state by state data... U.S. unauthorized immigrant population estimates by state, 2016 | Pew Research Center
Click to expand...

Thank you. I've been looking at some of the ACS data before I saw you mention it in other posts. Here's the best link I could find so far.

115th Congress Members Guide with Elections and Demographic Data by District - Google Sheets

Scrolling across to ACS Citizen Voting Age Population, and choosing Arizona, CDs 03 and 07 stand out.
First, they have far less citizens. Second, their % voting is well below the national average.
These stats are just as alarming in your state as well as FL.
 
poweRob said:
I wonder why he is running away from this since his lackey Barr said it was legally okay... DESPITE the SCOTUS saying otherwise.

Trump expected to back away from census citizenship question, direct Commerce to seek data through other sources

President Donald Trump is expected to issue an executive action Thursday directing the Commerce Department to obtain citizenship data through means other than the US census, according to two people with knowledge of the plan.

These people said Trump is expected to table his effort to add a question about citizenship status to the 2020 census, setting aside his demands last week to continue pursuing the issue despite a Supreme Court order blocking it.​
Click to expand...

I would hate to be a Trump supporter. He abandons everything hard.
 
Linc said:
I see this as an entirely different USSC from 1999, state's rights libertarian to the max, as we saw with them legalizing 'partisan' gerrymandering.
IIRC, this court ruled 5-3 against racial GM in North Carolina, with Thomas along with the liberals, as a run-up to their 5-4 ruling.

Democrats screwed up switching from racial to partisan, though Roberts previously supported racial GM.
So, is it racial GM to eliminate non-citizens from redistricting, will it matter to THIS court, and will Thomas flip back?




Thank you. I've been looking at some of the ACS data before I saw you mention it in other posts. Here's the best link I could find so far.

115th Congress Members Guide with Elections and Demographic Data by District - Google Sheets

Scrolling across to ACS Citizen Voting Age Population, and choosing Arizona, CDs 03 and 07 stand out.
First, they have far less citizens. Second, their % voting is well below the national average.
These stats are just as alarming in your state as well as FL.
Click to expand...

It seems like you arguing that they will reverse Evenwel v. Abbott? Why would they reverse a ruling from 3 years ago?
 
BlueTex said:
It seems like you arguing that they will reverse Evenwel v. Abbott? Why would they reverse a ruling from 3 years ago?
Click to expand...

I see it ruled that states ‘may’ use total population for redistricting, but did not rule on whether states could use ‘just citizens’ to redistrict. I could be wrong, but I thought I heard Barr say States could use Citizens only to redistrict.
 
BlueTex said:
An audit for what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

For places like California, who try to count illegals to affect House congressional balance.
 
Erod said:
For places like California, who try to count illegals to affect House congressional balance.
Click to expand...

They ARE counted for apportionment.... there is no trying about it... not even the administration has tried to argue they can be excluded from the count for apportionment...
 
poweRob said:
I wonder why he is running away from this since his lackey Barr said it was legally okay... DESPITE the SCOTUS saying otherwise.

Trump expected to back away from census citizenship question, direct Commerce to seek data through other sources

President Donald Trump is expected to issue an executive action Thursday directing the Commerce Department to obtain citizenship data through means other than the US census, according to two people with knowledge of the plan.

These people said Trump is expected to table his effort to add a question about citizenship status to the 2020 census, setting aside his demands last week to continue pursuing the issue despite a Supreme Court order blocking it.​
Click to expand...

 
Fletch said:
I have been a regular critic of yours so let me be the first to congratulate you on making an honest post. You are exactly right. This issue is about political power and democrats wanting as many illegals as possible to flood across the border in order to gain seats in the House.
Click to expand...

That's only because you are regularly wrong.
 
Deuce said:
The lawyers rebelled because coming back with a new argument would basically require admission of perjury. They lied their asses off and got backed into a corner because of it.
Click to expand...

That's why Trump wanted to send in another set of lawyers.

When you argue for a particular ruling and you lay out your reasons for the ruling you want, you really don't get to change the reasons when the ruling goes against you. Lawyers are required to lay out ALL of their reasons in the first argument. They don't get to pull out new reasons as the appeals move along. The question will always be asked if this is done: Why didn't you bring this [reason] up the last time we considered your petition?

As an aside, this is true of health insurance denials as well. If you have ever been denied a health insurance claim, you received that denial via an EOB (Explanation of Benefits). On that form, the insurance company has to describe the reason for the denial. If you can demonstrate the reason for the denial is bogus, the insurance company is not allowed to then later deny the same claim for other reasons. In other words, they have to pay the claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom