Transcript From Today’s Judicial Teleconference on Census Questionnaire…

After DOJ lawyers representing the Commerce Department informed the court and all parties the 2020 Census was being printed yesterday without the citizenship question, President Trump sent out a tweet today seeming to contradict the announcement by DOJ lawyers:

After reviewing the tweet from President Trump, the Maryland District court called an emergency telephonic hearing.  Here is the transcript [Cloud pdfScribd pdf]:

This entry was posted in AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Illegal Aliens, media bias, Mexico, President Trump, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

262 Responses to Transcript From Today’s Judicial Teleconference on Census Questionnaire…

  1. L. E. Joiner says:

    Naive question: What’s to stop illegals from lying and saying they are citizens? Any proof required?


    • Zippy says:

      Social Security numbers would allow easy automated checks of their fraudulent use, especially if crossed against death records from each state. HOWEVER, while your SSN is required for virtually anything else you do where you interface with government, it is SPECIFICALLY NOT on the census forms. Even making it optional on the census form would provide a way to roughly estimate the presence of illegals by counting the number of responses where SSN wasn’t given.

      And, BTW, the requirement that ones SSN isn’t to be used for anything other than Social Security related purposes is moot simply because it has been so widely violated.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Jeannette Mirabal says:

      A person can be found inadmissible for a false claim to citizenship. Thus, falsely answering YES on the census and lying about it at an immigration interview will have serious consequences.

      I read the Supreme Court decision this morning- I surmise the RATS found very dirty dirt on Justice Roberts through the illicit spying. First, Roberts produces the twisted ACA decision and now this monstrosity. Thomas is correct in concluding this opens the door for any agency decision to be questioned.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Rachel Guess says:

      Lying on the census would open them up to federal charges, making them eligible for deportation.


    • Doc Moore says:

      It seems pretty obvious that anything that allows illegals to stay illegal is perfectly acceptable to the courts and Liberal parasites of the nation. Of course we could have a census and elections that are accurate, honest and safe, but to do so one would have to eliminate ALL of the current DNC and Democrat congressional leadership.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Revised question on census: Please provide a social security number for all adults over 18 living in your household. Any adult listed in your household without a valid social security number will be considered an undocumented alien(non-citizen).


  2. repsort says:

    Looks like a bungled cluster-f@#$, to me. Don’t bother trying to argue 4D chess, or some awesome strategery.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. HamburgerToday says:

    Deference to the judiciary and ‘immigrant advocates’ is this case is not in the interest of American citizens. I take POTUS’s twee to indicate Miller, et all are trying to figure out an effective Plan B.

    The idea that SCOTUS would come up with some vague excuse for preventing the Executive Branch from doing what has been done many, many times before — add a question to the Census — is mind-boggling.

    A *legal* immigrant should have *no* problem answering the question, so this is *all* about illegal immigrants being counted for the purposes of apportionment or not.

    So, now, the Executive Branch officers of the USA are being prevented from doing their job because some bunch of illegal immigrant advocates and 5 imbeciles from SCOTUS think the ‘justification’ for adding a particular question to the Census is dubious.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Zippy says:

    Joshua Gardner, Special Counsel

    MR. GARDNER: I can tell you that I have confirmed that the Census Bureau is continuing with the process of printing the questionnaire without a citizenship question, and that process has not stopped.


    So, there you go.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Lactantius says:

    The “enumeration clause” in the Constitution has always been understood that the census should count every resident, not just citizens. Originally, state representation in the House of Representatives was based on counting citizens and 3/5ths of slaves. Traditionally, Congress has ordered that all resident non-citizens be counted including non-documented immigrants.

    Commerce Secretary Wilber Ross added the the “Citizenship question” on the basis that it would help in enforcing the voting rights laws. (There is some dispute about how this justification came about.)

    Court decisions have said that Secretary Ross did not have a valid reason for asking the citizenship question; therefore, the legality of asking the question was questionable.

    Judges in New York, California and Maryland have found that asking the citizenship question would frighten non-citizens into refusing to answer the census resulting in undercounting in the millions. This, they say, would violate the “actual enumeration” ordered by the Constitution. They further believe that this would affect Hispanics the most. They claim that the citizenship question would essentially result in discrimination based on ethnic identity. This would violate the legal equality guaranteed by the “Due Process Clause” of the Fifth Amendment

    Since the make up of the House of Representatives depends on state populations, the states with the largest number of illegal immigrants would be most affected by the citizenship question. Furthermore, an under-count would have an effect on how $700 billion in federal money is distributed when based on state population figures.

    In 1996, SCOTUS ruled unanimously that an inaccuracy in the census affects the apportionment of political representation among the states. This is known as a “distributive” inaccuracy. And that is the basis of the current mess.

    Boiled down, the issue about discrimination is based on “ethnic identity” which is being touted as a form of “racial bias.”

    The challengers in the court cases would have to show that Commerce Secretary Ross put the citizenship question into the 2020 census for the purpose of reducing the count of minority residents based on their ethnicity.

    Good luck with that.

    This is going to be extremely messy, but if President Donald J. Trump sticks to his guns, he will win. At stake is the question whether the census should count everyone, and if so, for what purpose.

    What California and some large states have at stake is whether the population counted for representation should be based on citizens or based on the number of warm bodies in the state. That is the true stink being raised.

    Liked by 3 people

    • ann says:

      Lactanthius, thank you for posting.

      Forgive my non lawyerly, inarticulate phrasing- these “rulings” seem, in aggregate, to constrict the legal disputes within an arena controlled by DOJ Uniparty & their shadow political affiliates, the richly funded activist groups representing proIllegal aliens.


      • Lactantius says:

        Ann, I do not know what is behind the curtain of the deep swamp. But President Donald J. Trump can stick to his guns about the citizenship question being necessary for enforcing voter rights laws and he will win this argument. Clearly, if the total voter registration in a precinct is grossly disproportionate to the number of citizens in the precinct, the federal government has cause to suspect and investigate said precinct. This whole issue has been reduced to its simplest purpose and long ago voter rights became a core issue in SCOTUS cases.

        Trying to prove “intent” is what Comey tied himself up in. How can they prove that the “intent” of Ross and President Donald J. Trump is ethnic bias against Hispanics? In order to do that, they would have to count and analyze all undocumented aliens and show that the Hispanics among have suffered disproportionate discrimination by the government. The numbers don’t exist because nobody knows the size and make-up of the shadow population.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. BitterC says:

    Former federal judge J. Michael Luttig, who has longtime ties to officials in the administration, told Axios:

    “If the president of the United States were to issue an executive order, supported by his full Article II powers, directing that the citizenship question be included in the 2020 census, I believe the Supreme Court would affirm the constitutional power of the president to include the citizenship question in the census.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes they would, except for Roberts, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer!

      Liked by 1 person

    • ann says:

      the FISC abuse manifest in Collyer’s findings re DoJ covert surveillance, chronic circumvention of oversight and intentional deception of the bench, aka “noncompliance” has delegitimised SCOTUS, & Congress, as independent branches of government.

      The Chief Justice’s prolonged ability to operate in a vacuum of acountability suggests a degree of complicity. Furthermore, Roberts regularly denigrates POTUS,
      His alignment with never Trumpians is evidence of this cohert’s contempt for the transparency necessary for an informed public.
      passive aggressive delayal and inaction are tactical attacks which erodes our power as an electorate of individuals, as educated voters and nullifies the legali status of citizens.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Zippy says:

    This guy is a financial expert and REALIST and an entrepreneur, so it didn’t even take a Constitutional lawyer to figure this out. The submission to the SCOTUS was either SABOTAGED INTENTIONALLY, or those arguing for it were IDIOTS. Same for the SCOTUS majority vote:


    The 14th Amendment modified the Census Language. It reads:

    Section 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.

    The 26th Amendment struck the “male” requirement and lowered the age to 18 but has not changed any of the other requirements.

    If you cannot vote and are an adult of 18 years of age you do not count in the Census for purposes of representation; the Federal Government is REQUIRED to disregard you for the purpose of apportionment (US House members.)

    Adult illegal invaders do not count. Nor do adult permanent residents. Those who have claimed asylum and are adults do not count, until and unless naturalized, at which point they are citizens and do count. Interestingly enough losing voting rights due to rebellion or commission of a crime does not impact your representation via the Census.

    It is clear that the Census is intended to count only citizens; a person who is not one cannot vote. The language is also clear that a person who has lost the ability to vote as a result of committing a crime counts. The gateway is the right to vote; previously this only applied to men but the 26th Amendment, extending suffrage to women, removed the distinction by sex and lowered the age of suffrage to 18. The original Constitutional language counted slaves (who could not vote) as 3/5ths of a person but excluded all non-eligible to vote men otherwise — including most-specifically immigrants, legal or not, who had not yet been naturalized.

    INDEED among adult men, including freed slaves, post the 14th Amendment the only two groups disenfranchised were criminals in some states and immigrants who were not naturalized.

    Again the 26th Amendment removed sex as a determinant and lowered the age to 18 but changed nothing else; the mandate to remove from the Census for purpose of representation those who are not citizens and thus cannot vote stands as of the enactment of the 14th Amendment. A census that fails to determine who is and is not eligible to vote is void for purposes of determining representation in the US House as it cannot comply with the Constitutional requirement to do so. An illegally-constituted legislative body is of no force or effect; it can make no law, it can spend no money and it can take no lawful official action other than adjourn. No person is bound to honor any law or mandate passed by such a body. Period.

    NOWHERE in our Constitution are the rights of citizens including representation in our Government, extended to non-citizens. Nowhere. Not here, not anywhere else, nowhere. The original language for the census used the words free persons; a person who is an illegal invader is subject to arrest and removal and thus is not free. The 14th Amendment changed the census and made clear that those ineligible to vote were not to be represented by the census; indeed, it mandates that all such persons SHALL be discounted.

    Comment to above column and answer:


    So why didn’t the gov’t lawyers argue that and win easily? Are they stupid, or intentionally sabotaging their argument?

    Author’s answer:

    Likely the latter.

    Nonetheless the Constitution is clear; there is zero ambiguity in the language. Go read it yourself. It says that those ineligible SHALL be deducted from the census counts before apportionment is determined.

    The US House, convening after a census in which such a question was intentionally withheld and from which no deductions were made under this clause of the 14th Amendment, is a void body as it cannot be legally constituted and thus cannot convene! Anything it does, from spending, taxing, passing laws, whatever — all are invalid and of no force or effect.

    Now of course they won’t see it that way, but those are the facts. Sit on a corporate board and you will find out from the legal folks REAL FAST what happens if you act without a legally constituted body; you are personally liable for the decisions and they’re void both, which means you can trivially be ruined or even thrown in prison. The same applies to political parties. This is why quorums and similar matter; an unlawfully constituted body cannot act to do anything other than adjourn until it is lawfully constituted.

    The people of this nation had better make up their minds whether they’re willing to die on this hill, because if you don’t here will be no others upon which to choose; you will get steamrollered.


    • Zippy says:

      Census question STALLED for TWO YEARS by the DOJ.

      Result: the Dims get another 10 years of over-representation which should work out fine to get them over the horizon to the PERMANENT shift to the left of national political demographics due to imported 3rd world voters, legal and otherwise, who statistically vote 70-80% left regardless of income or educational level, the permanent bluing of red states and deep bluing of blue states by same AND by leftists leaving the nests they’ve soiled to soil red states with their political garbage.

      THAT is how important the census citizenship question was and THAT is why it was stalled and, likely, sabotaged.

      April 13, 2019

      WASHINGTON – Wilbur Ross had just started running the Department of Commerce, but he was growing impatient over the 2020 census, still three years away.

      “I am mystified why nothing (has) been done in response to my months-old request that we include the citizenship question,” Ross emailed to a staff member just two months into his new job on May 2, 2017. “Why not?”

      The commerce secretary had gotten an earful about the issue from Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state who was about to be named vice chairman of President Donald Trump’s “Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.” Kobach had been recommended to Ross by Steve Bannon, the president’s chief strategist and White House senior counselor, who was a fierce opponent of the nation’s immigration policies.

      But it would take another seven months and the direct intervention of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to grant Ross’ wish. Two weeks before Christmas, the Justice Department finally asked for what Ross already knew he wanted – and Census Bureau officials learned for the first time that the citizenship question was even under consideration.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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