President Trump Asks SCOTUS for Expedited Hearing on Census Citizenship Question…

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to bypass normal procedures and decide quickly about the status of a 2020 citizenship question on the Census.

Citing an emergency rule, Solicitor General Noel Francisco stated “the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.”

(WaPo) Last week, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman of New York ordered the administration to stop its plans to add the question to the survey. Furman said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross broke a “veritable smorgasbord” of federal rules by overriding the advice of career officials who said including the citizenship question was likely to cut down the response rate and make the census less accurate. (more)

The administration is informing the court the decision is needed by the end of June in order to meet the deadlines for printing the census reports.  The solicitor general is proposing arguments for April if the court accepts the urgency request.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Decepticons, Deep State, Illegal Aliens, media bias, President Trump, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

158 Responses to President Trump Asks SCOTUS for Expedited Hearing on Census Citizenship Question…

  1. HBD says:

    Will they ever learn that President Trump does not turn the other cheek?

    Liked by 17 people

    • Carrie2 says:

      HBD: And why not now a question as to citizenship that we used to have? Another reason to oust illegals!

      Liked by 10 people

      • snixy says:

        Congress districts are determined by number of CITIZENS in census – not number of WARM BODIES.

        Liked by 10 people

        • Jan says:

          This is a very crucial question because illegals DO NOT HAVE a constitutional right to vote in federal elections.

          Liked by 7 people

        • SteveC says:

          And the electoral college ‘votes’.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Daniel says:

          Yes, this is specifically what this is about. It would be nice if Sundance would make things like this clear to the readers. Some people are thinking “oh this is ridiculous” and the Democrats will fight against it pretending it’s a “moral issue.” But what they are really trying to get are more Democrats in the house “representing citizens of foreign countries.”

          Let’s not mix things up by calling them warm bodies or even “illegal/undocumented immigrants.” They are citizens of a foreign country and are not entitled to representation of government.

          Like

      • olderwiser21 says:

        Carrie – many of the illegals probably think that because they live here they ARE citizens and will report accordingly. Also, why wouldn’t they just lie anyway? I really want to know.

        Liked by 2 people

        • From NBC, who are totally against asking the citizenship question:
          Federal law provides that anyone who refuses to answer or willfully neglects to answer any of the questions in connection with any census or survey shall be fined a maximum of $100, or a maximum of $500 if the person gives false information.

          In theory, noncitizens should not fear answering census questions. Surveys are mailed to addresses, rather than to specific individuals. Not including individual names on the address label is meant to protect the confidentiality of the participating households.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Trumpstumper says:

    Hold their feet to the FIRE, Mr. President!

    I can still take a little more winning! 😉

    Liked by 21 people

  3. Dee Paul Deje says:

    Let’s see if someone still has Mr. there-are-no-Obama-judges’ balls in a vice.

    Liked by 13 people

  4. Margaret Berger says:

    Roberts has been given his orders and he doesn’t want this he sure as hell doesn’t want this if rbg retires this month.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Carrie2 says:

      Margaret, she probably is still in the hospital with pneumonia which probably could solve our problem about getting another candidate into the SC. Losing that lung lead to this condition and in her very weakened condition,who know????

      Liked by 3 people

      • Judith says:

        POTUS could very well be shining a spotlight on the Supreme Court because of the Ginzberg controversy. Yesterday, FOX ran (and quickly retracted) a picture of Ginzberg showing an expiration date of 2019. If they have Ms Ruth on ice now, they surely aren’t looking to hear cases that draw attention to this fact!

        Liked by 5 people

      • alonzo1956 says:

        Ruthie Robot is being debugged and isn’t quite yet ready for prime time. The droid should make her first public appearance in a month plus. I hate to say it but I feel the same about her as I did Mr. McStain. Some people are simply unforgivable.

        Liked by 2 people

    • RedWave 2020 says:

      AFAIK it only requires 4 justices to hear a case. Conservatives may be holding out till Ginsburg is gone as Roberts may/likely will screw this one up again.
      Conservative judges may be playing along only to hear this once RBG is gone than it’s any easy 5-4 win.

      Like

      • lemmus1 says:

        No, without RBG it could well be a 4-4 split which would uphold the NY judge. Roberts cannot be trusted.

        If RBG passes you will see an immediate impeachment started in the House. The Dem demand will be that Trump can’t name a new Justice while under impeachment, which they will string out forever.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Louisiana Tea Rose says:

          Agree 100%, but then Trump gets to open a can of whoop-ass. Thats why he has been keeping his powder dry. Deploy your big weapons when they REALLY count….

          Liked by 2 people

        • dr D says:

          I’m no expert, but believe it’s the Senate that has the role of “Advise and Consent”. Yes, the dems can try to block it with impeachment, but Mitch (and Lindsey) have been pretty strong with the judicial nominations.

          Like

  5. sDee says:

    Again Trump goes after the planks of the Globalist agenda. If one has to declare citizenship on the census, ten’s of millions of illegals and other non-citizens will not be sending them in. Tens of millions of illegals will not impact precincts lines and government find distribution.

    Liked by 18 people

    • sDee says:

      precinct Iines and government fund distribution.

      Liked by 4 people

    • dd_sc says:

      Losing millions of illegals could cost California a couple of House seats.

      Liked by 18 people

      • Carrie2 says:

        And definitely Kamala as prez.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Tiffthis says:

        That would be a dream come true @dd_dc

        Liked by 3 people

      • Peoria Jones says:

        This ^^^ is the hill we’re fighting for.

        Liked by 5 people

      • JohnCarlson says:

        Or 3 or 4 or 5. Maybe even more. And electoral votes. All that they never should have had in the first place.

        Liked by 8 people

      • Exactly,which is why the Dems do not want that question on the census. Probably not just California.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Rachel Guess says:

        Assuming that there are 22 million illegal aliens here, as according to previous articles, that works out to be roughly 29-30 House seats, and probably the majority of them in cali. Several districts could also lose federal funding as well if the census numbers of illegals were not reported.

        My take on the issue is if you are here illegally, you do not deserve to have legislative representation. Add the question to the census and then pull an obama by claiming they have already been printed, too bad nothing can be done to stop it.

        Liked by 9 people

        • James Carpenter says:

          Hey, so what if I’m a citizen from three galaxies away and I just flew in from Planet Dune to sell sand worms on the black market? You stick a census questionaire in front of my face or start asking a bunch of questions from a clip-board and I’m gonna tell you whatever I think you want to hear. You can’t prove shite on the fly either way in any case. I sure as Hell am not going to risk my lucrative enterprise, no sir!

          Liked by 1 person

          • piper567 says:

            the Q is just a formality imo.
            if DoJ had the personnel to follow fraud, there is bigger fraud to follow elsewhere.
            in CA, the census-takers will all be Dem shills, and will simply check the box as YES, and ignore the legalities.
            Same thing in other regions where, if there were a penalty for lyng, the # of illegals constitutes fraud.
            In all of the Sates and Counties/precincts where the fraud occurs so as to affect Elections, I have trouble believing it will not continue.

            Liked by 2 people

        • Crabby says:

          I greatly depends on the distribution of those illegals as to how many seats it would affect.

          Liked by 2 people

        • WSB says:

          I suspect there are 30 to 40 million.

          Liked by 2 people

      • SteveC says:

        My guess is 10 or more seats. Based on SoKal, more than a quarter are not citizens.
        And don’t forget that all the H1B visa holders would not be included in the census numbers as citiziens, even though they aren’t illegal – though the H1B process as it exists now certainly is.

        Like

    • olderwiser21 says:

      sDee – why wouldn’t the illegals just lie about their status on the census? What’s stopping them, do you know?

      Like

      • RedWave 2020 says:

        They may get scared and not return the forms.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Rachel Guess says:

        The census form is signed under penalty of perjury. If they lie on the form, they risk being tried for it. If you were in their position, would you choose to lie on the form and risk being caught and charged, or simply toss the form into the trash can, perhaps later claiming you never received it, without the risk of any penalty?

        Liked by 3 people

        • SteveC says:

          And all it would take is Federal spot-checking in a state as corrupt as Kali to stop a lot of it.

          Like

        • platypus says:

          If there is no benefit (fed check) provided for filling out the form, then why would anybody fill it out? Answer: only citizens can possibly possess ‘citizenship’ attitudes and values that tend to urge compliance. In short, no others need apply unless somebody lies to the potential ‘fill-out-er’ (person filling out). In California, I wonder what lies are told to fillouters to get them to fill it out. (maybe … if you don’t fill it out, you’ll be deported)

          Like

        • olderwiser21 says:

          Probably toss then plead ignorance – kinda like when they “forget” to show up in court for their immigration hearings. Thanks for the info, Rachel..

          Like

  6. duchess01 says:

    WooHoo, Mr. President – Do not back down – Go get ’em!

    Liked by 11 people

  7. Jederman says:

    What he should be asking the SCOTUS is how in blazes can a “District” judge make a ruling that applies to the entire country?

    Liked by 22 people

  8. alliwantissometruth says:

    “of federal rules by overriding the advice of career officials who said including the citizenship question was likely to cut down the response rate”

    Yeah, cut down the response rate of illegal aliens and non-citizens, who have absolutely no right to be counted

    Typical, “career officials” advise against it. It’s those career officials who love big government and could care less who’s counted

    Liked by 12 people

    • alliwantissometruth says:

      “couldn’t care less”

      Liked by 2 people

    • stablesort says:

      Something about taxation without representation. As far as I know, non-citizens are not excused from paying taxes.

      Liked by 2 people

      • dutzie60 says:

        Then put two choices on it – citizen — non-citizen. Seems like that would be fair – count them, check if legal or illegal, then start deporting!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Zoe says:

        You are hilarious. The people of this country have been taxed without representation for a long time. The reps and senators represent their donors and only their donors. They only pay attention to their constituents when it is time to vote again.

        Liked by 3 people

        • stablesort says:

          You’re correct, Zoe, we as a nation have forgotten our founding principles and it is high time that we all relearn what they were and then reestablish them. One of the foremost among our founding principles is the importance of the individual and his sovereignty. Nothing protects the individual more than his right to representation in the government as well as his responsibility to produce value for the world.

          Open borders are actually very beneficial as long as those who come to our country are responsible, self-supporting and contribute to our nation’s wealth. They should be able to vote in our elections.

          Our welfare system, though, cannot sustain itself among our own population let alone in the presence of an open border policy. Nor can we afford to give the vote to those who are not responsible for their own welfare. Hence, we’ve run off the rails with very poor policies of who can work and who can vote and who can stay and who most go. Making employers determine the background of all employees, for instance, is nonsense; if they’re at the company’s door, they should be hired, period.

          With nearly four generations of welfare families, our freedom and liberty is all but gone. President Trump is trying to restore it, but our welfare population is winning the battle when it comes to our elections not only votes cast but in votes counted. We have been thoroughly corrupted by our own misplaced generosity.

          Like

    • starfcker says:

      Those career embeds, just like the MSM media, are the enemies of the people.

      Liked by 3 people

  9. sDee says:

    A sad state of America that such a thing is even questioned, let alone considered a Constitutional issue. The federal court system is a nightmare.

    “This is a civil war.

    But it’s not guns that make a civil war. It’s politics.

    Guns are how a civil war ends. Politics is how it begins.

    I know you’re all thinking about President Trump. ”

    Daniel Greenfield. This Civil War
    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2018/01/this-civil-war-my-south-carolina-tea.html

    Liked by 15 people

  10. Bogeyfree says:

    If RBG were to pass in the next couple of weeks and with arguments possibly happening in April, does that give PT time to get Amy in to ensure we can offset any more possible “rogue” voting by Roberts?

    I wonder if PT knows something we don’t??

    Liked by 5 people

  11. Mike in a Truck says:

    Illegal’s dont have a right to anything let alone be counted as citizens. Correction:They have the right to leave.GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY!

    Liked by 11 people

  12. California Joe says:

    The Leftist Obama judge needed 277 pages to justify his decision against President Trump. That tells you everything you need to know about the legitimacy of the ruling!

    Liked by 6 people

  13. Justin says:

    It makes no sense that non-citizens would get representation in our government, which is what this is ultimately about. How many extra House reps does California have that they otherwise wouldn’t? 5 or 6?

    Democrats want to make sure that our votes count about 1/3 of the votes of a sanctuary district’s citizen.

    Democrats are literally destroying everything they can these days at an ever faster pace. Don’t like something? File a lawsuit. File another lawsuit. Don’t get your way? File a lawsuit or just ignore the law.

    This won’t get resolved peacefully, unfortunately, short of secession, which I would argue liberals have already done unofficially.

    Liked by 5 people

  14. Scott says:

    Still don’t know how a district court judge has authority to make a decision to begin with.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Scott, I’m with you.
      Does anyone know if these “rulings” simply come out of thin air because the judges have been asked to issue it, or has an actual case made it’s way to the court, been ruled on, and issued an opinion backing up the decision?

      Article III, Section 2 provides that federal courts (all of them) have the authority to hear ONLY “cases”! It describes only ten(10) types of cases the courts can hear and “disputes with the President” is not one of them.

      Liked by 3 people

      • platypus says:

        Every federal court, other than the supreme court, is a statutory court. I cannot see any theory which says a created entity can have authority over a constitutional entity.

        BTW, I consider Marbury versus Madison to be not only wrongly decided but mostly dicta.

        Like

  15. ROBERTS CAN BE “REMOVED” …
    • POTUS is withholding his FISA-ABUSE LEVERAGE …
    • Until he replaces Ginsberg …
    • At which point we have a 5-3 Conservative Bench (excluding Roberts)
    • Permitting AG Barr to investigate Roberts’ violation of his oath of office
    • For permitting a corrupted FISA Court to participate in FISA Abuses
    • Even after the Chief FISA Judge issued a 99-page report chronicling the FISA Abuses
    • And Roberts took ZERO action to eliminate the Abuses or hold the Perps accountable

    Liked by 19 people

  16. snarkybeach says:

    does the hearing come with an RBG proof of life?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Paul Tibbets says:

      No kidding, how many years will she be recovering at home but working hard on the SCOTUS?

      Liked by 4 people

      • olderwiser21 says:

        Justin – considering RBG’s current health issues and age I would bet dollars to donuts she is on life support even as we speak. I have seen elderly people deal with injuries and surgeries such as she had. It may take a couple of weeks, but she is on her way out. We are being lied to about her condition either way, that’s for sure.

        Liked by 2 people

  17. Trump's Hammer says:

    I can’t imagine where the Constitution prohibits asking if you’re a citizen on a census form

    but then, Obamacare was never actually constitutional either. The rogue judges just decide what’s legal or not on their own.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Trump’s Hammer,
      You are not describing the concept of our Constitution as one of “enumerated” powers only as we were given. The disrespectful treatment of it by legislators and judges is completely another question though.

      Ask the question this way: “Where in the Constitution is there any authority for the federal government to ask if you are a citizen?”

      Check out Art. 1, Section 2, clause 3 and see.

      If it’s not there, then they do not have that permission from us to ask. To get that permission lawfully, an amendment is needed and the President is not involved in amendments.

      Liked by 1 person

      • sascales says:

        “If it’s not there, then they do not have that permission from us to ask.”

        Several others have pointed out that the original intent of the Constitution is to count citizens. The enumerated “Persons” in clause 3 are those who are a part of “We the People”, not visitors or intruders, legal or illegal. So, counting only citizens actually is “there”.

        And were that not enough, that same clause states that the enumeration (census) shall be made, “in such Manner as they shall by Law direct”, “they” being Congress.

        I recognize there is little chance that today’s Congress would ever direct that citizenship should be questioned, but based on the clear original intent and the fact that the citizenship question has appeared on previous census, I think it is worth fighting for. That is, assuming we have a Supreme Court that upholds the Constitution.

        Like

  18. paulmafinga says:

    “Secretary Wilbur Ross broke a “veritable smorgasbord” of federal rules by overriding the advice of career officials …”

    OH THE HUMANITY!!!

    Liked by 6 people

  19. Publius2016 says:

    A nation will not survive who cant ask if someone is a citizen!

    Liked by 6 people

  20. Margaret Berger says:

    Carrie, I was being coy. Honestly, under her current health circumstances I wouldn’t be shocked to hear that rbg has retired from everything any day now.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Anon says:

    “Obama judge” again.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Sean Supsky says:

    President Trump, can use the citizenship question to enforce Article II of the 14th Amendment, thereby erasing all non-citizen votes.

    Liked by 4 people

    • perpetuaofcarthage says:

      Please explain?

      Like

      • Sean Supsky says:

        Section II of the 14th Amendment states:

        Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

        Like

      • Sean Supsky says:

        Basically, it says that votes by citizens shall not be trampled, or infringed, in any shape, way, or form. illegals voting, causes citizens votes to be negated, which is directly against the 14th Amendment, and all illegal votes will be erased, or not counted, thereby reinstating the citizens’ vote.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Comrade Mope says:

          Monday, April 4, 2016

          A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that illegal immigrants and other noncitizens can be counted when states draw their legislative districts, shooting down a challenge by Texas residents who said their own voting power was being diluted.
          *******
          Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court, said even though only eligible voters are supposed to cast ballots, elected officials represent all people within their districts, and it is that act of representation, not the election itself, that the boundaries are drawn to.
          https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/4/supreme-court-illegals-count-apportionment/

          Here is a case of leftists getting what they want and not liking it. If the Notorious RBG, writing for the court, can say illegals can be counted for apportionment, it will be very difficult for the leftists to contradict RBG on her deathbed to say the illegals should not be counted in the census. It is the same method of counting.

          Like

          • Robert Smith says:

            I say this without reservation, that if RBG is not yet dead she suffers until passing for the ills inflicted upon our country.

            Like

  23. lydia00 says:

    I don’t trust Roberts or Kavanaugh who seems to be Roberts’ boy now. They are both kicking controversial cases down the road. My guess is they vote against the question. However, we should only appropriate congressional seats based on “citizens” that are legal in a district. Could it be a can of worms either way?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Robert Smith says:

      Hard to say what is up with Kavanaugh since he just started. But if he thinks Trump will shirk from the messy jobs of cleaning up corruption Kavanugh only needs to look at Trump withstanding the fire of the confirmation hearings. Everyone else would have bailed on him.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. Justin Green says:

    Remember when Congress represented Americans? I don’t.

    Liked by 5 people

  25. L4grasshopper says:

    Look….I’m currently doing research using past Censuses. Many of them have all sorts of immigration info on them, like where born; when immigrated; where your parents were born; when were you naturalized.

    Asking immigration questions was common on many past Censuses. No way it’s nor permitted.

    Hell…the “long form” used NOW has the question!

    Liked by 6 people

  26. NJF says:

    Get it done!

    Liked by 5 people

  27. Kent says:

    Let’s see…how can we incite illegals to self deport?

    Maybe we should have a system where all employers are required to verify the identities and citizenship status of all job applicants….which is already in place for persons born here…

    What we wish to weed out are the twenty million illegals…probably more…in this nation…

    If they can’t get a job they have no reason to stay….anchor baby or not…..

    Any suggestions what we could do to force employers not to hire illegals?

    Surely SOMETHING is in place….and being IGNORED?

    Pack the anchor babies down the road and their families with them? Let them fill out the paperwork and prove educational and medical qualifications to enter this nation legally and minimize their utilization of the public dole?

    Isn’t there some way to accomplish this?

    Like

  28. Sentient says:

    Can this expedited procedure be used to get a faster ruling on DACA? It would light a fire under the Dems of their knew that SCOTUS was taking up DACA this term.

    Like

  29. Robert Smith says:

    I like it.

    Hey, Supreme Court show you’re not working against Trump or the citizens’s interest. You just shunted aside one issue, rule on this matter of urgent importance.

    Like

  30. citizen817 says:

    I don’t trust anyone that the Bush clan first nominated to a position on any court. Why are most people so sure that Kavanaugh provides the swing vote in favor of conservatism or Trump?

    Example:
    In December 2018, as a swing vote, Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice Roberts and the court’s four more liberal justices to decline hearing cases brought by the states of Louisiana and Kansas, which sought to block women from choosing to receive Medicaid-funded medical care from Planned Parenthood clinics…

    Kavanaugh cannot be trusted!

    Liked by 1 person

  31. simicharmed says:

    Aside from pure corruption; it truly escapes a logical mind, why simply having a question of Citizenship would ever (in any circumstance) be an issue on a US Census form..

    It seems these fake legislators, jurists, etc have also lost sight of simple language.

    Nation, Borders, Census, Citizenship, Citizen, Identification, Social Security Number, Proof….well…all of it WE US Citizens are REQUIRED to provide throughout our “Free Lives” in our “Free Country”.

    Imagine telling your employer they cannot ask for any of the qualifications they require….your Medical Provider cannot ask anything whatsoever….your Bank cannot request your ID….the Airport cannot ask for ID….the IRS cannot ask for SS #’s for your 27 dependents or yourself….the USCIS cannot ask for anything other than the photo you provide them for your passport…

    The list of the aforementioned increases exponentially for all the “Verification” we “Citizens” must continue to provide constantly in our “Free Nation”! Pathetic!

    Liked by 1 person

  32. franuche says:

    Broke a “veritable smorgasbord” of federal rules? Oh, ok. We’re any laws broken? No? Oh, then eff off.

    Like

  33. Nessie509 says:

    This is a tough case to win.
    The original census included the 3/5ths compromise for counting slaves. The issue whether they were, or weren’t citizens wasn’t at issue.
    They were a person and counted.
    Not hard to imagine the Courts determining that non-citizens are counted as persons

    Like

  34. TMonroe says:

    “Last week, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman of New York ordered the administration to stop its plans to add the question to the survey. Furman said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross broke a “veritable smorgasbord” of federal rules by overriding the advice of career officials who said including the citizenship question was likely to cut down the response rate and make the census less accurate.”

    So, a census — which is designed to count citizens — that asks questions allowing to count actual citizens would be less accurate if the question in question were to be asked. Paging George Orwell.

    Liked by 1 person

    • WSB says:

      I posted this earlier, but will repost here.

      If anyone can clarify the 14th Amendment…it seems to have a response to a citizen’s right to vote being hampered in any way, recalculating the proportions of the count of citizen voters. And I only find the gender clarification in the 19th Amendment, so this amendment would cover both male and female citizens who are voters.

      Number 2, specifically. Also, what is the definition of persons or we the people of the United States?

      “1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”

      Like

      • Daniel Wright says:

        The 14th was meant to grant freed slaves citizenship over the objections of the Democrats. Related papers of the time pointed out that it didn’t apply to the children of foreign diplomats or people here as visitors: Therefore,how anyone can say that the 14th applies to the children of foreign invaders is beyond logic.

        Liked by 1 person

  35. Brant says:

    Hmmm. I wonder if the Dimocrats would ask for a 3/5 compromise. They did once before.

    Like

  36. Daniel Wright says:

    Why does it seem that all leftist judges want foreigners to have the right to vote in the USA? Also,I thought that judges were supposed to be neutral and non-partisan,just as the press is……LOL!!!

    Like

  37. Boy the libs are going to wish RBG retired 5 years ago. That arrogant narcissist refused to give up her seat on the Supremes to a younger liberal. Now her selfish decision could cause structural reductions in illegal immigration and all it’s downstream impacts.

    Every morning it gives me pleasure to know that whenever Ginsberg hears a Trump Tweet, she lives with the repercussions of her failure. Then I reflect on Hillary’s daily humiliation.

    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