Census Win – Supreme Court Strikes Down Activist New York Court in Census Citizenship Ruling…

The most recent reviews of media presentations for this story (The Hill and CNN) reflect MSM disappointment that SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the administration.

The U.S. Commerce Department is adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census. An activist judge in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) -framing a challenge based on the question being discriminatory- ruled that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross must submit to a deposition to discover “the motives” of the decision.

An appellate circuit panel initially agreed with the lower court and ACLU lawyers. However, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco asked the Supreme Court to stay the circuit court ruling.  SCOTUS agreed with the administration and blocked the ridiculous activist lawyers from questioning the cabinet; the supreme court does allow the plaintiffs to question the DOJ civil rights division lawyer.

(CNN) The Supreme Court blocked a deposition of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Monday in a case challenging the decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

The action is a partial victory for the Trump administration that argued such a deposition of a cabinet official is “rarely, if ever justified.” The court did, however, allow the deposition of a top Department of Justice official in the case, acting Assistant Attorney General John M. Gore of the Civil Rights Division, as well as other discovery to proceed at least for now.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas wrote to say they would have also blocked the deposition of Gore as well as related discovery.

Blocking the Ross deposition is a partial loss for a coalition of states and the ACLU, who are going to trial on November 5 and sought the deposition to bolster their argument that adding the question is unlawful and unconstitutional. (more)

Justice Neil Gorsuch filed an opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, where they dissented in the part of the SCOTUS ruling that allowed the DOJ lawyer to be questioned.

Justice Gorsuch wrote he would have granted the government’s full request and blocked all of the lower and appellate court rulings for depositions and discovery.  Writing:

“When it comes to the likelihood of success, there’s no reason to distinguish between Secretary Ross’s deposition and those of other senior executive officials: each stems from the same doubtful bad faith ruling, and each seeks to explore his motives.”

The challengers are led by New York’s attorney general and left-wing activist groups such as the ACLU.  They are claiming that President Trump’s real reason for adding the citizenship question is to reduce the representation of immigrant populations in the census.  There is no structural basis for their claim. It is not likely their challenge will succeed on the merits.  The case is schedule to go to trial November 5th.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Conspiracy ?, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Election 2018, Fabian Socialists - Modern Progressives, media bias, President Trump, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

205 Responses to Census Win – Supreme Court Strikes Down Activist New York Court in Census Citizenship Ruling…

  1. My feelings are so hurt. 😂😁😅🤣😂😁

    Liked by 17 people

    • 22 million illegals equals about 30 additional house seats/electoral college votes for Democrats.

      Liked by 35 people

      • ME Young says:

        And then the dead people. Plus the people who vote in 2 different states (the Marxist running against DeSantis in FL has a brother–resident of Chicago–who was found to have also voted in Florida). Communists will do and say anything to take over this great country of ours.

        Liked by 10 people

      • Coast says:

        And it also represents and Invasion. Our Constitution says…
        “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

        Liked by 4 people

      • Anonymous says:

        Da, comrade, is whole plan!

        Like

  2. Bendix says:

    ACLU should lose its status because it isn’t the organization it said it was when it started. NFPs shouldn’t be allowed to switch course like that.

    Liked by 30 people

    • Rhoda R says:

      Add the SPLC in there as well.

      Liked by 19 people

    • snellvillebob says:

      The ACLU and SPLC are radical arms of the CFR.

      Liked by 12 people

    • Alligator Gar says:

      The ACLU was a known Communist front organization when I was in high school and did a research paper on them. I spoke the the local FBI about them. I got some very good information. The ACLU was considered un-American. This was in the early 1980s.

      Liked by 16 people

    • sickrickfl says:

      I was a card carrying ACLU member (as well as a Lifetime NRA member – imagine both those cards in your wallet), until I researched the number of 2A cases they litigated in the prior decade (ZERO). I wrote a letter to the ACLU Pres asking why an organization dedicated to defending the Bill of Rights, was so lacking in it’s defense of one particular one. After getting some cookie cutter non-response, I cut up my card and sent it back to them – reminding them to remove me from all mailing/phone/email lists. I don’t mind you being a lefty organization – but you can’t leave a RIGHT, out of the BILL OF RIGHTS.

      Liked by 7 people

    • AustinTilItAin't says:

      They could just adjust their name to Democrat Civil Liberties Union

      Like

  3. Well, damn!..There will be a lot fewer Demoncrats showing up in the coming census!!
    Gotta love the SCOTUS.

    Liked by 35 people

    • fleporeblog says:

      What our President, Don McGhan, Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Senate Judiciary Chair Grassley have done to shape not only the Supreme Court but the District and Appellate Courts as well has been absolutely amazing 😉! We owe all four of them a giant thank you 🙏.

      These Judges will be on the Courts long after all three men have left their current positions.

      Liked by 25 people

      • There is a good article on McGahn on FoxNews today. I had not realized that he was so involved in PDJT’s campaign, for which he performed magnificently.

        The record of approved judges is just amazing. As POTUS said tonight, only President Washington had a higher percentage of circuit/appeals court judges confirmed.

        Liked by 15 people

        • Wisdom-it really is amazing just how much our President Trump is WINNING all the time, even in things such as lower court appointments like these that are so very important.

          Liked by 7 people

          • Peoria Jones says:

            This is why we should all be so positive. Team Trump is winning smaller battles all over the place, which go unreported by the presstitutes.

            But we are advancing in the war, and they know it – even though they refuse to speak the facts. It is so obvious in their extreme vitriol. They’re bitter losers, who just don’t get tired of all their losing.

            Liked by 6 people

      • Sunshine says:

        McGahn: When you have someone of competence and trustworthiness, they are very difficult to replace.
        My question is why did he leave two weeks before the Mid-Terms?

        Liked by 2 people

        • Jan says:

          He spent at least 30 hours being interviewed by Mueller & his crew, providing info on the millions of pages the President turned over to Mueller. McGhan is now a witness in any case Mueller brings as a result of interviews of McGahn. The Mueller crew most likely planned to do this all along; hence, so much time w/McGahn. Unfortunately, no one is bothered by Mueller’s or RR’s numerous & serious conflicts.

          Liked by 7 people

        • Sunshine–wondering the same thing myself.

          Liked by 1 person

        • lemmus1 says:

          …he did not leave two weeks before the midterms …as was announced months ago, he left almost immediately after he completed shepherding Kavanaugh through the SCOTUS confirmation vote …the timing coincided with the mid-terms solely because the Dems delayed the Kavanaugh vote for much longer than anyone expected …there is no dark issue here

          …keep in mind this guy makes a lot of money as a top-tier lawyer in private practice …he has given that up for the past three years to help Trump …he has also given up countless hours with his family and personal pursuits …he spent the time with Mueller at Trump’s direct order trying to expedite the discovery process …this guy should be a hero to any Trump supporter, not a black hat

          Liked by 2 people

      • snellvillebob says:

        President Trump’s nominees now fill a whopping 15 percent of the circuit court seats. And most are young and will spend a life time there.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Phillie_fan62 says:

        Great job Senator Grassley!

        Liked by 2 people

      • NYGuy54 says:

        Pres Trump is getting major help from Leonard Leo (VP of The Federalist Society now on leave). In fact, one could argue Leo is the most important advisor to Pres Trump when it comes to the Supreme Court. Whenever he is on TV, always good to listen to his words carefully because he talks directly to the President. Very smart man. He was brought into the WH by Don McGahn.

        https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/inside-the-mind-of-leonard-leo-trumps-supreme-court-right-hand-man

        Liked by 2 people

    • Now how rae the Dems gonna make up for the millions of potential voters they aborted in the past 4 decades?

      Liked by 3 people

      • cdquarles says:

        They imported them. The $64,000 question is why they did this. I guess they thought that they would be more successful by changing the demographics. They have successfully changed the demographics. It isn’t clear, yet, whether they’ve succeeded in their heinous mission.

        Oh, a reminder. Recall that 3/5ths clause in the Constitution? That reflects a compromise akin to what we are seeing now. Slave holders wanted all their slaves to be counted, never mind that they didn’t consider them to be full persons. They wanted this because it would provide them more power. Those who were not slave holders didn’t want them to count at all. After all, ‘property’ couldn’t vote, testify, didn’t pay taxes, and so on. Also note the difference between children and ‘property’. Children would grow up and one day be able to vote, testify, pay taxes and so on. This is true of legal immigrants as well, once they become eligible for naturalization and complete that process. Thus, said the non-slave holders, ‘property’ couldn’t be counted since the slaves couldn’t become free, particularly after the nature of slavery had changed from a time limited thing to an inherited disability. Note, too, that ‘race’ had nothing to do with this, since there were ‘white’ slaves and ‘black’ slaves at the time who served free ‘white’ and free ‘black’ owners.

        Liked by 2 people

        • The Phantom Stranger says:

          It’s quite simple. The election of Reagan marked a watershed moment where working-class whites left the Democrats for the Republicans. It’s how Reagan won 49 of 50 states in 1984. The Left saw that they were losing more and more of the white vote, and were unlikely to ever get it back. That is when they began shifting towards full-scale immigration and identity politics.

          It’s not a coincidence that the 1986 Immigration and amnesty bill was soon passed. Within a decade, California was more or less lost to growing Mexican immigration. That handed the state to Democrats. I’m not sure Republicans at the time knew what they were doing. Reagan certainly didn’t.

          Liked by 1 person

  4. feralcatsblog says:

    Requiring that one have a medical license to practice medicine is discriminatory.

    Liked by 18 people

    • snellvillebob says:

      Proof is there is the shortage of black men in medical schools has reached the critical stage. (If there is such a thing)

      Liked by 1 person

      • ME Young says:

        More than 20 million black babies have been slaughtered since Roe. How many children might THEY have produced? We need to pray for an end to R v. W, and all of the destructive policies put in place by LBJ during the 60’s.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. Justice Warrior says:

    Thank you God!!!

    Liked by 16 people

  6. Mike says:

    This is a good start. Little wins add up to big wins. The war against the left will be won as many battlegrounds over the next decade. We have a long way to go.

    RBG will most like die on the court prior to 2020 and President trump will have another opportunity to put a conservative on the court.

    I’m tired of winning yet.

    Liked by 19 people

    • Mike says:

      Edit: Not tired of winning yet.

      Liked by 19 people

    • dagnyshrug says:

      I’m not sure RBG hasn’t already died on the court and dems didn’t call a good taxidermist.

      Liked by 11 people

    • cthulhu says:

      I find it distressing and ugly when I hear people calling for RBG to die soon. I’d rather have her realize the failure of her progressive project, retire, observe the operations of the court when focused on the Rule of Law rather than progressive idealism for a couple of years, repent, begin to teach originalism, and happily pass in the distant future in a state of judicial Grace — rather than focus on her past sins.

      Where I’m at, she still has about 3 hours and 20 minutes to begin her path to redemption today.

      Liked by 22 people

    • 75% chance she dies in Trumps second term, based on her current age of 85!!

      Liked by 3 people

      • Bird Watcher says:

        I think she died a long time ago. What we see is just a hologram.

        Liked by 2 people

      • If you think Kavanaugh went through hell, wait until POTUS tries to replace RBG. Not even a nun who went to Harvard Law will make it through unscathed by the Democrats.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cthulhu says:

        Let us always hope for Repentance and Grace, while maintaining a realistic outlook.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Cuppa Covfefe says:

          Amen. Even at the last minute is better than never, for eternity is a long, long time…

          Folks should look at the possibility that GOD is giving her the time to see, and turn. Remember the parable of the old widow and the judge (oddly appropriate)…

          Liked by 3 people

          • Alligator Gar says:

            I prefer the HISTORY of Jezebel myself.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Cuppa Covfefe says:

              This Jezebel?

              II Kings 9:22:

              And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is it peace, Jehu? And he answered, What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?

              and II Kings 9:36-37:

              36 Wherefore they came again, and told him. And he said, This is the word of the Lord, which he spake by his servant Elijah the Tishbite, saying, In the portion of Jezreel shall dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel:

              37 And the carcase of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field in the portion of Jezreel; so that they shall not say, This is Jezebel.

              and Revelation 2:20

              Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

              Not exactly a history worth following. More of a Stormy Daniels of her day, nay, Hill-the-BEAST, as she’s a Satanic Black Magick Illuminised Witch herself, like her archetype Jezebel…

              Like

      • Trumpeter says:

        75 percent chance she dies before 2020, based on she is 95 percent there now.

        Liked by 1 person

    • fabrabbit says:

      Mike: I thought RBG was dead.

      Like

  7. Rachelle says:

    Illegals should be counted but not used to determine how many congressional districts a state gets.

    Liked by 21 people

    • Garth Michaels says:

      Yeah, you’ve got to count them so you can know how many you’re deporting.

      Liked by 16 people

      • Lester Smith says:

        It certainly helps to have their address.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Rhoda R says:

        Why is everyone assuming that illegals would answer the census questions honestly?

        Liked by 6 people

        • Cuppa Covfefe says:

          Falsely answering a census question is a crime…

          Liked by 2 people

          • Alligator Gar says:

            And that matters to a border jumping criminal how????? They commit a crime to come here, commit a crime to steal YOUR or YOUR kid’s SSN to work, commit a crime to get a mortgage using YOUR or YOUR kid’s SSN………what’s one more crime to these scoundrels?

            Liked by 4 people

            • Peoria Jones says:

              Good grief, where is the common sense? This is the same thinking as the lefties who think that gun laws will deter criminals who don’t pay attention to the laws we already have against murdering people. SMH.

              Liked by 2 people

            • ME Young says:

              I think Cuppa is being facetious, Gar.

              Like

              • Cuppa Covfefe says:

                Actually, I’m not being facetious. Should an illegal or Permanent Resident answer the question falsely, that is grounds (or a further ground, in the case of illegals) to deport them, and revoke their grant of Residency.

                Just saying “ah, forget it, they’ve already committed 2**n-1 crimes” doesn’t justify or exonerate one more.

                The question existed on the census until 1950. Other countries have similar questions, with similar penalties for non-compliance or lies. Indeed, most countries require folks to register with the local authorities and re-register if they move. Things have gotten very lax in the USA.

                Then again, the government could have a look at Google’s hyperscale database and see instantly (as Øbozo’s folks likely did) whether someone is a citizen or not, and much, much more. Yet noone seems to have issues with that…

                Liked by 1 person

          • Cuppa, slight alteration.
            Falsely answering a LAWFUL census question is a crime.

            The only lawful (i.e. constitutional) questions allowed on the census is how many are in the household and if any of us are Indians. That’s it. Our government has been violating this law for eons.

            If we are to abide strictly to the rule of law (Article VI, clause 2), it will take an amendment to add citizenship status to the census, not a law, and certainly not a “law” made by any administrative department like the commerce department. They are not Congress.

            Liked by 2 people

            • mr.piddles says:

              Plus… The Left and The Democrats have already declared that Trump’s presidency is illegitimate… and the Electoral College is illegitimate… and the Supreme Court is illegitimate… and most of the Constitution is illegitimate… and… stop me when we’ve gotten to “census”…

              Liked by 3 people

            • Hiker Mike says:

              I believe you’ve totally miss the mark on this one.

              Article VI of the US Constitution deals with national debt, oaths of office and national supremancy.

              Article I sec. 2 describes when and how the census is taken and I refer you to this in paragraph 3 second sentence which states….

              “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the fisrt meeting of the Congress of the United States and within every subsequent term of ten years, IN SUCH MANNER AS THEY SHALL BY LAW DIRECT

              It appears as stated in the Constitution that any question can be included in the census including one about citizenship as shall be directed by law and remember the Commerce Dept has been tasked by law to oversee the census.

              So the question pertaining to citizenship is constitutional in MHO.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Hi, Hiker Mike! Glad to see you. I hope I have not missed the mark as far as it would appear. We just take two approaches to meanings in the Constitution and that’s fine.

                Starting with the last comment about the Commerce Dept being tasked. They may be tasked with anything except making law. Art. 1, Sec. 1, clause one says that Only Congress can make law. There is no place that I found in the Constitution where we gave Congress permission to delegate any law creating power. That eliminates ANY law made by any executive department office or agency. They are not Congress. This is how bad laws are made by someone other than those we vote for and hold accountable.

                My reference to Art. VI, section 2 was a reference that not just any law made is to be considered final. The laws made have to be “in pursuance” of the Constitution. And here we have an executive department agency “tasked” with amending the Constitution with the law.

                I know you look at it differently and that’s fine. Since I started typing this, I’m going to wrap it up as there have been many phone calls and I have spent way too much time on this.

                It would be worth it to get an English teacher who could diagram a sentence to see the “laws” referred to is about the “manner” or the “Enumeration”.
                Getting time for happy hour here. Ha!!

                Like

            • lemmus1 says:

              …respectfully, this is simply wrong, the constitution says what must be included but does not otherwise limit the census questions …it is up to Congress to determine that and the current statutes place the determination of questions within the responsibility of the Treasury so long as they notify Congress at least two years before each census …Congress may change the questions at any time …there have been several SCOTUS decisions that are definitive in the matter, the most pertinent dating to 1870

              Liked by 1 person

              • Lemmus,

                I know it looks that way. But show me a single SCOTUS decision that is in “pursuance” (Article VI, clause 2….again) of the Constitution that gives Congress permission to amend the Constitution with a law (or a rule made by an administrative agency that is not Congress).

                Since most SCOTUS decisions since the early 1900s are contrary to the intentions of the founders and the Constitution, these are the last place to look for authority.

                The whole concept of a Constitution of “enumerated” powers is that it does in fact limit what subjects the federal government may address.

                I understand that is a hard concept to accept, but the Federalist Papers bear this out and they were written by the founders. Check out Federalist #33 and 78. Once you accept the concept, the light goes on!!!

                Like

              • Please understand. I would love for the citizenship status be included…………..just do it the lawful way………with an amendment….not a rule made by an unelected, unlawful, unconstitutional office or agency.

                Like

                • lemmus1 says:

                  …with all due respect, you are positing that the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau are “unlawful, unconstitutional” and thus apparently unable to make rules based on and required to enforce laws passed by a duly elected Congress, signed by a duly elected President, and reviewed and accepted as constitutional on many occasions by the SCOTUS over the past 2 1/2 centuries …and thus, apparently, that every single regulation ever written by any Executive branch office is inherently unconstitutional and requires a Constitutional Amendment to be legal

                  …not wasting my breath …like arguing the age of consent with a Wahabi Mullah …and you’re the mullah, not me, eh

                  Like

                • Sorry, Lemmus. I re-read what I sent and what I said was incorrect. You were correct.

                  Of course those two offices are constitutional as they are provided for in the Constitution. You were not wasting your breath.
                  You help me stay on point by correcting me.
                  I meant to say (and let emotions carry me away sometime) that those same offices just do not have lawful authority to create laws to begin with. SCOTUS rulings cannot change that fact.

                  Art. 1, Sec. 1, clause one says that ONLY Congress may make law. They can recommend anything they want. They just cannot make rules than can be enforced by an authority( i.e. laws)….constitutionally, lawfully.

                  They are not Congress.

                  Would you agree there is no authority in the Constitution for Congress to DELEGATE their law-making authority? And any opinion to the contrary by SCOTUS must also be unlawful. In Federalist #33 and 78, Hamilton confirmed that.

                  Just because SCOTUS in Roe vs. Wade decided abortion was constitutional does not mean that it is.

                  Like

    • Curry Worsham says:

      For the purposes of congressional representation, Illegals should count as zero fifths of a person.

      Liked by 14 people

    • Uncle Al says:

      I can think of only one good reason to count the illegals: ICE budgeting/staffing.

      Liked by 11 people

  8. Sentient says:

    This is an important step in the process of changing the allocation of congressional delegates to be based upon the number of citizens within each state, as opposed to mere denizens. In other words, no more counting illegals and rewarding states that harbor illegals with extra seats in the House. It will have a follow-on effect in how Electoral Votes are allocated. Yuge.

    Liked by 37 people

  9. Matt Transit says:

    Wasn’t this the same type of bs that one of these “courts”, used not too long ago, when POTUS was trying to stop, TERRORISTS, from entering this nation?
    May Almighty God Bless and Protect President Trump.

    Liked by 15 people

  10. Sunshine says:

    If anyone can find a way to dispose of these groups such as the SPLC, ACLU… all under the same umbrella, through Bar association or serious civil lawsuits, please, just get rid of them. They’re becoming a bit much intrepid.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Ray Runge says:

      And a clear case of celebration and a large helping of Winnamins thanks to the Supremes.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Sunshine says:

        Let’s hope. These groups are all Far-Left-Wing lawyers. The only way is through the Bar Association through a series of Supreme Court defeats.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Alligator Gar says:

          Call the National Lawyers’ Guild, the ACLU, the SPLC, etc. what they are, Communist front organizations. Get a Congressional resolution passed that they are this. Ensure that no one can send funds to them or they are suspected of funding Communism. Make funding Communism a federal felony with a 10 year minimum sentence in a SuperMax……see how this works? Terrorism isn’t the only way to skin a cat.

          Liked by 2 people

    • Gil Stonebarger says:

      the time for that path has come and gone my friend

      Like

  11. felipe says:

    Ah. Noel Francisco requested the stay until the SC could opine. I’m assuming this is the same Noel Francisco that is, I think, next-in-line behind Rod Rosenstein?

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Kent says:

    The census counts illegals as citizens thus allowing them to ‘vote’ according to the electoral college…population determines the electoral vote…..the dims want their vote to count in the popular vote too…

    Illegals have no right to even be here….they are ILLEGAL….why should they be counted for the electoral vote? They have no right….

    Liked by 23 people

    • cthulhu says:

      This is a problem that goes back to the founding of our nation — and people usually come at it backwards. In the original Constitution, slaves were to be counted as 3/5 of a person. This is frequently portrayed as being a slight against slaves by southern states…….but southern states wanted slaves counted as 1 person. Had a southern state that was 50% free men and 50% slaves been allocated House districts based on total population, each such southern citizen could have twice the vote of any northern citizen because *slaves couldn’t vote*.

      The initial northern “offer” was to apportion House seats by counting people who *could* vote (i.e. non-slaves) — which would have counted slaves as 0/5 of a person.

      The 3/5 compromise shows up the horsetrading, compromise, and hypocrisy of both sides — and, accordingly, is seldom discussed honestly.

      Liked by 10 people

      • feralcatsblog says:

        See the ignoramus Condi Rice.

        Condi Rice: “We should note that unlike in our Constitutional Convention, the Iraqis have not made a compromise as bad as the one that made my ancestors three-fifths of a man”

        Liked by 2 people

        • feralcatsblog says:

          Jewish World Review April 4, 2008 / 28 Adar II 5768
          Condi is a dangerous incompetent
          By Diana West

          http://jewishworldreview.com/0408/west040408.php3

          “Considering her remarks about America’s “birth defect” — an egregious term for any secretary of state to use about a nation that has brought more liberty to more races, colors and creeds than any in history — I am struck anew how deeply Rice’s vision of race in America, or, perhaps, in segregated Birmingham, affects her vision of America in the wider world. It is as if Rice sees American influence as a means by which to address what she perceives as disparities of race or Third World heritage on the international level.

          This would help explain her ahistorical habit of linking the civil rights movement to the Bush administration’s effort to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, in a 2003 speech to the National Association of Black Journalists, she argued that blacks, more than others, should “reject” the “condescending” argument that some are not “ready” for freedom. “That view was wrong in 1963 in Birmingham and it’s wrong in 2003 in Baghdad,” she said. In 2006, she made a similar point. “When I look around the world and I hear people say, `Well, you know, they’re just not ready for democracy,’ it really does resonate,” Rice told CBS’s Katie Couric. “It makes me so angry because I think there are those echoes of what people once thought about black Americans.”

          There’s something shockingly provincial at work here. In seeing so much of the world through an American prism of race, Rice has effectively blinded herself to historical and cultural and religious differences between Islam and the West. To put it simply, neither Baghdad nor Gaza is Birmingham. And nothing in all of history quite compares to Philadelphia. “

          Liked by 2 people

          • cthulhu says:

            I’m generally fond and well-disposed towards Condi. Doesn’t mean I’d follow her anywhere.

            Liked by 2 people

            • mopar2016 says:

              Condi worked on the failed North American Union farce for Dubya back in 2005.
              I’m glad it didn’t work out, I really don’t want to be one country with Mexico and Canada.

              Just imagine what the census would’ve looked like if Dubya had his way.

              Like

        • cthulhu says:

          Exactly. Down is up, and up is down — the 3/5 compromise is, indeed, a shameful cave to slaveholders….because, if the north had stuck to their beliefs, representation in the national House of Representatives would have been proportionate to the humans living within each state that such state considered fully human. Under chattel slavery, slaves don’t count. There would have been far fewer Reps from the south if the 3/5 compromise had never happened.

          Both my parents had bachelor’s in Math. Mom went academic and Dad went engineering. But it means that I cannot unsee what the 3/5 compromise really means.

          Liked by 1 person

    • cthulhu says:

      …..and, as a follow-on to be clear. Leftists with large immigrant populations in the shadows want immigrants to be counted for Representative districts not because they want to give them a say — but because they can magnify their interests without facing a voter backlash.

      Liked by 5 people

    • soozword says:

      Illegals mostly serve as wage slaves which is why they are so coveted by business and home owners who use them for cheap labor. I’m totally for not counting them in the Census, but if we do end up having to count them I would say go back to the 2/3 rule to make it clear we DO have a form of slavery in the U.S.

      Like

  13. Lactantius says:

    We need to clear up this slippery notion that if you reside as a non-citizen in the United States you are automatically equal to citizens of the United States.

    Liked by 19 people

    • MAGADJT says:

      Agree. Sanctuary cities or states, which encourage illegal immigrants to come, also facilitate a fraud on other states’ citizens, because population as calculated by the ten year census determines allocation of states’ representation in the House, as well as federal funding for many programs.

      Liked by 11 people

    • rf121 says:

      Woe there. You best split that up between illegal and legal non-citizens.

      I was a legal resident, non-citizen when I entered the US Navy. I paid taxes but could not vote. I earned my citizenship through my service unlike many of the ungrateful punks who disrespect this country everyday. Too many don’t appreciate the fact that they were born in the US and lucked out by not being born in one of the many shit holes that make up the rest of the world.

      Liked by 10 people

      • cthulhu says:

        Hello, Navy! Thankful for your service and happy to have you aboard with us. I, myself, haven’t served, but proud of my uncle and cousin in Marines and CPO, respectively.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Serena says:

        Thanks for your service rfi21.

        Like

      • George Humphries says:

        I respect any person who follows the rule of law. You certainly did and I thank you – for your service – for your honesty – for your commitment. Welcome aboard the good ship US.
        Would it were possible for you to address the incoming invaders!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Alligator Gar says:

        How does it make you feel to basically be like the German foederati in the Roman Army–trading your military skill for citizenship in a foreign country? I don’t like that, as an American. It seems exploitative to me. I appreciate your willingness to do so, of course! But I don’t like to see my country exploiting citizens of other countries for their military prowess in exchange for citizenship–it’s just shy of reinstating slavery in my book, and this country has done enough of that!

        Once again, many thanks for your willingness to serve. I am proud to call you fellow citizen.

        Liked by 1 person

        • lemmus1 says:

          …how is it “exploitative” to offer citizenship in return for service to our country …a soldier puts his life on the line so that others may enjoy the freedom he provides …how could we not honorably offer citizenship in return …we have done so throughout our history and it has served this nation well …I see no correlation to “slavery” in a contract between two consenting parties from which both benefit to their own satisfaction.

          Like

  14. Garth Michaels says:

    The satisfaction of seeing a leftist hack imitating a judge get overturned by SCOTUS is indescribable. Oh, hell yeah, I’m gloating that lawlessness was negated. This is only one of many, many more to come!

    Liked by 13 people

  15. Sherri Young says:

    Have a look at the 1870 census form. There is a column for male citizens 21y/o and up and another column for male citizens 21y/o and up who were ineligible to vote for reasons other than rebellion (Confederates) or other crime.

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/genealogy/charts-forms/1870-census.pdf

    We need to know how many citizens we have and where they are distributed.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Alligator Gar says:

      Not all Confederates were ineligible to vote, Sherri. If they swore allegiance, they were granted full rights. I had one hold-out great-great-great uncle who never, ever took that oath. God bless him.

      Liked by 3 people

  16. CathyMAGA says:

    Since when is it unconstitutional or unlawful, to ask if someone is a citizen in this country. I mean this stuff is just getting ridiculous.

    Liked by 16 people

  17. emet says:

    ACLU represents illegal aliens and anyone who hates POTUS
    Judicial Watch represents US citizens and legal residents

    Liked by 7 people

  18. Apollo says:

    Disappointed that Kav didn’t join Gorsuch and Thomas.

    Gorsuch really is a gem, one of PDJT’s finest moments.

    Liked by 4 people

    • lemmus1 says:

      …there is no record that Kavanaugh participated in the vote …it may have been orally argued in the week before he joined the court …we know only that at least 5 justices voted to overturn the appellate court, but only because a 4-4 split would have affirmed the appellate court instead …its appears that RG was the one who granted the stay that put it on the courts docket in the first place

      Like

  19. 335blues says:

    The SC told this activist judge, and the SDNY, to go to hell, in nicer words.
    I second the motion.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. 335blues says:

    The SC told this activist judge, and the SDNY, to go to hell, in nicer words.
    I second the motion.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. CA M says:

    If you’re in a foreign country illegally, would you even want to fill out a census report?!

    Liked by 2 people

    • covfefe999 says:

      If you are told to, I suppose. These things are used for federal funding and redistricting and other stuff. Scammy community leaders might encourage illegals to fill out forms to plump up the numbers.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Your Tour Guide says:

        Census stuffing. Up the head count, recount the area, increase
        the # of reps in the U.S. house.

        Same logic applies in state legislatures. Whoever has the best
        census stuffing gets the most state senators, state reps. You
        can zone in votes by making high percentage of your housing
        stock multi family.

        Look for persons per square mile ( by county) to figure out if
        census stuffing is going on. I noticed years ago that Maryland
        is way guilty of the practice.

        Like

  22. TreeClimber says:

    Why would he want to “lose” the illegals? If anything it bolsters his position of “Look how many there are, get them out!”

    Can you imagine the economy if we managed to get rid of all the illegals? No stops!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Kathy Partridge says:

      If the illegals were all gone tomorrow, think of how much money could be paid toward the national, ever increasing, dept. Amazing!!!

      Like

  23. JX says:

    Meanwhile…

    A New Hampshire judge on Monday put on hold a law requiring some voters to present proof of residency when they register, saying it would lengthen lines at polling places and make it difficult for students, disabled voters and others to cast ballots. – https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-new-hampshire/judge-bars-new-hampshire-proof-of-residency-requirement-for-new-voters-idUSKCN1MW2Y8

    Presenting proof of residency when they register will cause long lines a polling places.

    Judge Kenneth C. Brown should be impeached, disbarred, and made destitute. I am disgusted by this non-stop subversion.

    Liked by 12 people

    • fabrabbit says:

      JX: OMG, long lines? I’ll bet they wait in long lines on Black Friday at Walmart. no offense to Walmart.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Cuppa Covfefe says:

        Maybe have them present proof of residency when they go to pick up their welfare checks, EBT cards, or to apply for them. That would make them think twice (or at least once)…

        Liked by 1 person

    • Alligator Gar says:

      As if the students don’t have to get out their IDs to get into a football game or student venue for entertainment. And, have they tried to go to a doctor appointment recently? Disabled have to stay in line with ID and insurance card to get checked in. This is insanity.

      Liked by 1 person

    • nhgardengram says:

      Do you have enough friends to picket his office and get on the news? That way, more NH voters will see what is going on. So glad you brought this to our attention.

      Like

      • lemmus1 says:

        …the rest of the story …it is very common for thousands of Mass voters to drive over to NH on election day to vote there …the last count was for more than 6K such votes cast …the ID law was passed to get rid of that …he will be over-ridden, the only question is when

        Like

  24. joeknuckles says:

    Why not ask, instead, what was Obama’s motive to eliminate the question?

    Liked by 12 people

  25. JMP says:

    I noticed the CNN report said “reinstate”, when was it taken out?

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Bone Fish says:

    Hi, they’re not here right now but I’ve been sleeping on their couch since last week.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Herbert Kroll says:

    ‘Citizenship’ is a concept the Wan Wei Party (also known as ‘UniParty’) really, really loves. Their idea is to take away citizenship of those who do not act according to the rules of Social Justice, as determined by a Social Justice Court, outside of the judiciary. They do not want President Trump to set out the rules, thereby getting in their way, i think. Examples of such an uncontrolled parallel legal system are the Family Court in the UK, the former Courts of Violence against Women in Spain during the reign of the socialist party led by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (2004-2011) or the current Social Justice Tribunals in Ontario, Canada.
    https://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/spanish-feminist-establishment-is-shaking/

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Serena says:

    Winning!!!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • TwoLaine says:

      That is exactly what I said last night when I saw this story and immediately posted it to CTH’s Daily Presidential yesterday. The minute I found it, I could already hear the wailing of the UNIParty.

      Liked by 2 people

  29. dawg says:

    “They are claiming that President Trump’s real reason for adding the citizenship question is to reduce the representation of immigrant populations”

    The psychological projection here is unbelievable. It is precisely for THIS reason that the left is attempting to BLOCK the citizenship question.

    Their goal is to increase population in order to gain more Representatives from blue states in the House, AS WELL AS ELECTORS IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

    The more people in a state, the more Representatives in the House it will have. The total number of reps is always 435, but its proportional to the population. If the population of California continues to explode, they will get another rep and one will be taken from another low population state. As of 2010, California has 53 Reps. Seven states only have 1 Rep in the House.

    The number of electors each state gets in the electoral college is based on its representation in Congress.

    This is the whole point of sanctuary cities. Bring ’em in and count ’em. Now we get more Representatives in the House and Electors in the Electoral College.

    Liked by 2 people

  30. jeans2nd says:

    This actually bodes dire for Mueller and the SpyGate Party as well. One of the reasons for Mueller et al’s existence is to determine POTUS’s “motive” for firing Comey, hence the “obstruction of justice” charge.

    That is one of AG Jeff’s mantras lately, that “motive,” “intent,” or deliberations behind decisions in the Executive Branch are irrelevant, only whether actions are lawful is relevant. AG Jeff has been arguing that what transpired in the Executive Branch behind the scenes is off-limits to those determining if actions are lawful (have not listened to all those boring speeches for naught…)

    Seems both POTUS and AG Jeff scored victories here.
    Not so good for Congress finding out the truth behind SpyGate, though.

    Liked by 3 people

  31. Deplorable Patriot says:

    If the logical progression of this question plays out, that non-citizens are not counted in Congressional Representative distribution, how many seats is California going to lose?

    Like

    • JoAnn Leichliter says:

      Illegal non-citizens are just that, and there is no reason for them to be counted when apportioning representation. They should, in effect, be considered not to be here at all.

      Liked by 1 person

  32. TwoLaine says:

    Q: What were you thinking when you fired Sally Yates?

    A. None of your business.

    Q: What were you thinking when you fired James Comey?

    A: None of your business.

    Q. What were you thinking when you added the U.S. Citizenship question back to the U.S. Census.

    A. None of your business.

    The Reuters Report I posted last night was hilarious. It said his “career staff disagreed with the decision”. Yeah? SO?????? Your point, if you have one?

    The career staff wasn’t chosen by the President of the United States to be the Cabinet member in charge of staff, career or otherwise. That was Wilbur Ross. We appreciate your input, Thank You, but you are overridden by The Boss.

    This is the problem with The Swamp. The career staffers think they run the show. And in many places they do. DOJ is one of them. Run by committee, NOT by the person appointed for the job, to lead, and not from behind.

    Liked by 4 people

  33. JoAnn Leichliter says:

    I think the stay lasts only until roughly Oct. 29th. Presumably the SC will then hand down a final decision.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Zippy says:

    So, why won’t they simply lie? Do the census takers require proof of citizenship if they do? I very seriously doubt it.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. JimmyB says:

    Kicked in the nads again!
    I don’t get tired of winning!!!!!

    Can you say MAGA!

    Liked by 1 person

  36. NJ Transplant says:

    This lawsuit is as bad as the Obama administration suing states for requiring voter ID. Without the illegal vote, the Dimms can’t win.

    Liked by 3 people

  37. 6x47 says:

    Imagine how many seats California stands to lose … there are literally MILLIONS of illegal aliens there potentially being counted for representation.

    If there are 3 million illegal aliens in California out of 39 million residents, removing them from the count for representation is 7.6% which means California currently has 4 representatives more than they should.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Cuppa Covfefe says:

      I think Kalifornistan might flip from Blue to Red if all the illegals (and dead, and duplicate, and bussed-in, and all-of-the-above) were eliminated.

      Having said that, flipping New York is more important. Long, long ago when I lived in CA, I hated that most elections were already decided (thanks to NY) before the polls closed in CA… But California needs to change, and soon.

      Like

      • 6x47 says:

        If California wanted to matter it should award its presidential electors by Congressional district instead of winner take all.

        There are 39 Democrats and 14 Republicans in the California delegation. Remember how much time President Trump spent up in Maine chasing that 1 elector? Republicans would be all over California chasing 14.

        Like

  38. Fools Gold says:

    Thank God Trump is in charge and appoints constitutional judges to the SC.

    Like

  39. Pasaran says:

    Will the 2020 census have consequences for the november 20 elections or just for 2022, 24.. ?

    Like

  40. Swimming Pigs says:

    Wasn’t the citizenship question removed a few short years ago? This is simply re-instating it, not sure why there is such a big fuss.

    Like

  41. Akindole says:

    #Winning

    RBG developing more and more plaques and tangles every day.

    #PendingWinning

    Like

  42. NYGuy54 says:

    Hmmm Noel Francisco. He would be a great AG. Friend of Ted Cruz. On the record …he thought the FBI was too soft on Pickles.

    Like

  43. shipley130 says:

    Do U.S. laws stipulate that illegal aliens are allowed to be represented as fully legal immigrants?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s