Jump to content
Jason

Court Blocks Trump Administration From Asking About Citizenship in Census

Recommended Posts

I was totally read to leave a "kill yourself" comment. :isee:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But while Mr. Ross’s violations were “egregious,” he said, there was not sufficient evidence to prove, as plaintiffs in the lawsuit had claimed, that he had deliberately sought to discriminate against noncitizens and minorities that were most likely to be affected by the citizenship question. In part, he said, that was because the Supreme Court had blocked the plaintiffs from taking sworn testimony from Mr. Ross about his actions.

That's odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Removed from the context of the day, I like the citizenship question because more data is better generally. But it’s pretty obvious that the current climate towards non-citizens will ensure undercounting as people hide from the census workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they will. Personal privacy only matters to conservatives when it's an issue the Liberals are on the opposite side of.

 

What we have learned the past few decades are that conservatives only hold two permanent opinions:

  1. Lower taxes and reduce regulations
  2. Everything else opposite of liberals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

Of course they will. Personal privacy only matters to conservatives when it's an issue the Liberals are on the opposite side of.

 

What we have learned the past few decades are that conservatives only hold two permanent opinions:

  1. Lower taxes and reduce regulations
  2. Everything else opposite of liberals

Even reduced regulations is subject. They wouldn’t want to reduce regulations on say “adult” content. And while they are coming around little by little, they have been the largest voice against reduced regulations on marijuana. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

I think that's a great point, and was exactly my thought.

 

Doesn't Justice Department refuses to comply with subpoena really mean Bill Barr is refusing to comply with subpoena?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, osxmatt said:

 

I think that's a great point, and was exactly my thought.

 

Doesn't Justice Department refuses to comply with subpoena really mean Bill Barr is refusing to comply with subpoena?

And the consequence of refusal to comply with a subpoena? Referral to DOJ.

 

Nothing matters! :twothumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Even reduced regulations is subject. They wouldn’t want to reduce regulations on say “adult” content. And while they are coming around little by little, they have been the largest voice against reduced regulations on marijuana. 

Yeah, I think you could maybe specify it a bit. Maybe they only want to reduce regulations that hinder profits? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

And the consequence of refusal to comply with a subpoena? Referral to DOJ.

 

Nothing matters! :twothumbsup:

 

At what point does the House send the Sergeant at Arms to go collect people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

And the consequence of refusal to comply with a subpoena? Referral to DOJ.

 

Nothing matters! :twothumbsup:

 

Well no, there are a number of things Congress can do up to and including throwing someone directly into jail without needing DoJ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

 

Well no, there are a number of things Congress can do up to and including throwing someone directly into jail without needing DoJ. 

Having the sergeant at arms lock someone up hasn't happened since like the 30's or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Having the sergeant at arms lock someone up hasn't happened since like the 30's or something

 

That's because, as far as I can tell, nobody's been stupid enough to outright defy a lawful subpoena from Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

That's because, as far as I can tell, nobody's been stupid enough to outright defy a lawful subpoena from Congress.

 

The House held Holder in contempt, but they referred it to DOJ, and shockingly, Holder declined to prosecute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jason said:

 

The House held Holder in contempt, but they referred it to DOJ, and shockingly, Holder declined to prosecute.

 

Thanks for reminding me but also Darrell Issa was a fucking coward and house repubs knew they were bluffing. A contempt charge for failure to appear will be different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

 

Thanks for reminding me but also Darrell Issa was a fucking coward and house repubs knew they were bluffing. A contempt charge for failure to appear will be different. 

I'm not exactly brimming with confidence that house Dems will grow some stones here.

 

Where would these people be imprisoned? A federal facility (in other words, under the executive branch)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

The House held Holder in contempt, but they referred it to DOJ, and shockingly, Holder declined to prosecute.

 

I need an AG that will defend me like Holder and Kennedy!!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I'm not exactly brimming with confidence that house Dems will grow some stones here.

 

Where would these people be imprisoned? A federal facility (in other words, under the executive branch)?

 

The basement of the Alamo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2019 at 3:01 PM, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I'm not exactly brimming with confidence that house Dems will grow some stones here.

 

Where would these people be imprisoned? A federal facility (in other words, under the executive branch)?

They havn't jailed anyone in almost 100 years. The supreme court says they can't be a law enforcement body. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2019 at 2:42 PM, Anathema- said:

 

That's because, as far as I can tell, nobody's been stupid enough to outright defy a lawful subpoena from Congress.

Didn't Obamas administration ignore subpoenas all the time? Are we now going with defying a subpoena is bad? Did the board have a discussion about flip flopping on this issue? I don't remember that discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Snaynay1 said:

Didn't Obamas administration ignore subpoenas all the time? Are we now going with defying a subpoena is bad? Did the board have a discussion about flip flopping on this issue? I don't remember that discussion.

 

Once is now all the time? We had that discussion above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snaynay1 said:

They havn't jailed anyone in almost 100 years. The supreme court says they can't be a law enforcement body. 

What's the case law there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Snaynay1 said:

Didn't Obamas administration ignore subpoenas all the time? Are we now going with defying a subpoena is bad? Did the board have a discussion about flip flopping on this issue? I don't remember that discussion.

 

Your arguments are almost entirely disingenuous. Eric Holder ignoring one subpoena (which, I grant, was bad) because Republicans were dicking Obama's administration around on a bluff is not the same as what's happening here.

 

It's super weird I have to explain false equivocating and proportionality all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whelp this cuntry continues to be a fucking joke all because dipshit threw a tantrum this morning

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...