• 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!

Eric Holder weighs in on census.

KLATTU

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,899
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Constitution does not require citizenship question. This is purely political. Trump Administration is trying to rig the 2020 Census (to protect gerrymandering) by intimidating people. Don’t be fooled-some states will unfairly lose funds and representation. We will sue.
https://twitter.com/demredistrict/status/978490568182509569

Some legal logic there huh? LAFFRIOT

Hard to believe he was Attorney General.
 
KLATTU said:
Constitution does not require citizenship question. This is purely political. Trump Administration is trying to rig the 2020 Census (to protect gerrymandering) by intimidating people. Don’t be fooled-some states will unfairly lose funds and representation. We will sue.
https://twitter.com/demredistrict/status/978490568182509569

Some legal logic there huh? LAFFRIOT

Hard to believe he was Attorney General.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.
We have to remind ourselves that Eric Holder has gone on record stating that he joined up with the Trump resistance movement and he was also hired by the state of CA. for legal battles against Trump. He also was a big promoter of CA becoming a sanctuary state.
 
KLATTU said:
Constitution does not require citizenship question. This is purely political. Trump Administration is trying to rig the 2020 Census (to protect gerrymandering) by intimidating people. Don’t be fooled-some states will unfairly lose funds and representation. We will sue.
https://twitter.com/demredistrict/status/978490568182509569

Some legal logic there huh? LAFFRIOT

Hard to believe he was Attorney General.
Click to expand...

“Make no mistake – this decision is motivated purely by politics. In deciding to add this question without even testing its effects, the Administration is departing from decades of census policy and ignoring the warnings of census experts.”
Click to expand...

Of course it's motivated by politics. It's all a part of partisan political gamesmanship that has become the norm in Washington. Holder is right.
 
KLATTU said:
Constitution does not require citizenship question. This is purely political. Trump Administration is trying to rig the 2020 Census (to protect gerrymandering) by intimidating people. Don’t be fooled-some states will unfairly lose funds and representation. We will sue.
https://twitter.com/demredistrict/status/978490568182509569

Some legal logic there huh? LAFFRIOT

Hard to believe he was Attorney General.
Click to expand...

The census included a question on citizenship under Clinton, and all other countries in the world include that in their census. The population should for purposes of establishing the number of representatives a state or region has in Congress be based on the number of citizens in those places.

Democrats hate the Constitution and the law if it gets in their way. They hate simple common sense if it confounds them.
 
LowDown said:
The census included a question on citizenship under Clinton, and all other countries in the world include that in their census. The population should for purposes of establishing the number of representatives a state or region has in Congress be based on the number of citizens in those places.

Democrats hate the Constitution and the law if it gets in their way. They hate simple common sense if it confounds them.
Click to expand...

Wrong, not every single census asked citizenship only the long version which the majority of Americans did not receive.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597436512/fact-check-has-citizenship-been-a-standard-census-question

The last time the Census Bureau asked all U.S. households a question about U.S. citizenship was in 1950


In 1970, the Census Bureau began sending around two questionnaires: a short-form questionnaire to gather basic population information and a long form that asked detailed questions about everything from household income to plumbing. The short form went to most households in America. The long form was sent to a much smaller sample of households, 1 in 6. Most people didn't get it.

Starting in 1970, questions about citizenship were included in the long-form questionnaire but not the short form. For instance, in 2000, those who received the long form were asked, "Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States?"


The 2000 long-form survey, sent to a subset of Americans, asked about citizenship. The more widely distributed census short form that year did not.

The short form kept it simple: name, relationship, age, sex, Hispanic origin, race, marital status and whether the home is owned or rented.
Click to expand...
 
trixare4kids said:
Yes, it is.
We have to remind ourselves that Eric Holder has gone on record stating that he joined up with the Trump resistance movement and he was also hired by the state of CA. for legal battles against Trump. He also was a big promoter of CA becoming a sanctuary state.
Click to expand...

His legal reasoning is classic, isn't it?The Constitution doesn't require ,therefore I'm suing . LAFFF

and Of course being the principled liberal ( I know -oxymoron) his comments are based on politics. Noooo, not at all.He's above all that.{ Derisive snicker}
 
KLATTU said:
His legal reasoning is classic, isn't it?The Constitution doesn't require ,therefore I'm suing . LAFFF

and Of course being the principled liberal ( I know -oxymoron) his comments are based on politics. Noooo, not at all.He's above all that.{ Derisive snicker}
Click to expand...

He's a hypocrite, for sure.
 
LowDown said:
The census included a question on citizenship under Clinton, and all other countries in the world include that in their census. The population should for purposes of establishing the number of representatives a state or region has in Congress be based on the number of citizens in those places.

Democrats hate the Constitution and the law if it gets in their way. They hate simple common sense if it confounds them.
Click to expand...

Well said. I've noticed that rules for thee but not for me applies to today's progressive Democrats. :cool:
 
LowDown said:
The census included a question on citizenship under Clinton, and all other countries in the world include that in their census. The population should for purposes of establishing the number of representatives a state or region has in Congress be based on the number of citizens in those places.

Democrats hate the Constitution and the law if it gets in their way. They hate simple common sense if it confounds them.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who hates that the Constitution says "people" and not "citizens."
 
KLATTU said:
Constitution does not require citizenship question. This is purely political. Trump Administration is trying to rig the 2020 Census (to protect gerrymandering) by intimidating people. Don’t be fooled-some states will unfairly lose funds and representation. We will sue.
https://twitter.com/demredistrict/status/978490568182509569

Some legal logic there huh? LAFFRIOT

Hard to believe he was Attorney General.
Click to expand...

Well he is a laywer, this is how they get paid, making up lawsuits. And itll cost the taxpayers a lot to defend against it. And then the 9th circuit will probably put a stay on it, and then some higher court will overturn it. And in the end it probably wont matter whether it was done or not. Also note that he didnt state a legal argument. Meanwhile federal code gives wide latitude to the Census Bureau

(a) The Secretary may collect decennially statistics relating—
(1) to the defective, dependent, and delinquent classes; and
(2) to crime, including judicial statistics pertaining thereto.
(b) The statistics authorized by subsection (a) of this section shall include information upon the following questions, namely: age, sex, color, nativity, parentage, literacy by race, color, nativity, and parentage, and such other questions relating to such subjects as the Secretary deems proper.
(c) In addition to the decennial collections authorized by subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the Secretary may compile and publish annually statistics relating to crime and to the defective, dependent, and delinquent classes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
Of course it's motivated by politics. It's all a part of partisan political gamesmanship that has become the norm in Washington. Holder is right.
Click to expand...

By definition anything the government does is, at its root, motivated by either politics or bureaucratic self-interest. This question, as with the controversy over gerrymandering, is does something political make sense from a non-partisan viewpoint?

Holder's desperate chicken little panic over doing something that has been done before is not serious; he knows it (unless he is lying to himself) and certainty we know it. This isn't a tough call:

1) All countries have a vested interest in enumerating their citizens, as opposed to others. As progressives-liberals are fond of reminding us, if other "advanced" nations do it then we are backward. Well, not only do all advanced countries do it (European and Common-wealth) but so does everyone else.

2) And the liberally exalted UN...yep, it to recommends it for all nations.

3) And the US used to do it, from 1820 to 1950. No one found it illegal then. We continued to do it for one out of six census questionnaires, till 2000. No one found it illegal to ask the question then (including then Deputy AG Holder). And we continue to do it on a small sampling of the American Community Surveys.

3) Given the deep controversy over immigration, legal and illegal, it only makes sense to know who and how many citizens there are, as well as their location.

But of course, there are folks who don't want to know, so they want to play where's Waldo the Citizen.

Sad.
 
Last edited:
KLATTU said:
Constitution does not require citizenship question. This is purely political. Trump Administration is trying to rig the 2020 Census (to protect gerrymandering) by intimidating people. Don’t be fooled-some states will unfairly lose funds and representation. We will sue.
https://twitter.com/demredistrict/status/978490568182509569

Some legal logic there huh? LAFFRIOT

Hard to believe he was Attorney General.
Click to expand...

1) Gerrymandering is favorite activity of both parties

When Pennsylvania Democrats went to the Supreme Court in 2004 to ask that Pennsylvania’s GOP-drawn congressional map be struck down as an unfair partisan gerrymander, they drew opposition from an unexpected source: fellow Democrats.

Alabama Democrats told the court in a brief they were concerned that ending partisan gerrymandering would “undermine … the ability of African Americans in Alabama to continue the effective exercise of their newly won ability to participate in the political process.”

In 2001, they pointed out, “African-American representatives pulled, hauled, and traded with their white colleagues” to achieve greater representation.

In short, political gerrymandering — in which it was taken for granted that Democrats sought an advantage — helped maximize the voice of African Americans.
Click to expand...


2) What is the purpose of racist questions on race if not political.


3) I cant wait for the sex question, they will need a full sheet just to list them and more keep coming every day.
 
jonny5 said:
Well he is a laywer, this is how they get paid, making up lawsuits. And itll cost the taxpayers a lot to defend against it. And then the 9th circuit will probably put a stay on it, and then some higher court will overturn it. And in the end it probably wont matter whether it was done or not.
Click to expand...

YEah that's the sad part. We all know you can shop around for liberal judge who will entertain any nonsense as long as it supports a pet left wing cause. That's why it's SO important not to let liberals control the SC.
 
maxparrish said:
By definition anything the government does is, at its root, motivated by either politics or bureaucratic self-interest. This question, as with the controversy over gerrymandering, is does something political make sense from a non-partisan viewpoint?

Holder's desperate chicken little panic over doing something that has been done before is not serious; he knows it (unless he is lying to himself) and certainty we know it. This isn't a tough call:

1) All countries have a vested interest in enumerating their citizens, as opposed to others. As progressives-liberals are fond of reminding us, if other "advanced" nations do it then we are backward. Well, not only do all advanced countries do it (European and Common-wealth) but so does everyone else.

2) And the liberally exalted UN...yep, it to recommends it for all nations.

3) And the US used to do it, from 1820 to 1950. No one found it illegal then. We continued to do it for one out of six census questionnaires, till 2000. No one found it illegal to ask the question then (including then Deputy AG Holder). And we continue to do it on a small sampling of the American Community Surveys.

3) Given the deep controversy over immigration, legal and illegal, it only makes sense to know who and how many citizens there are, as well as their location.

But of course, there are folks who don't want to know, so they want to play where's Waldo the Citizen.

Sad.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who thinks it's illegal.
Lots of thins were legal back in the early 1800's, but aren't now.
The issue is how honest the responders will be, or whether they will respond at all.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not sure who thinks it's illegal.
Lots of thins were legal back in the early 1800's, but aren't now.
The issue is how honest the responders will be, or whether they will respond at all.
Click to expand...

If non citizens dont respond, what does it matter? They shouldnt count for state representation anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom