US Supreme Court Discussions

[RoseMorninStar]

So who would enforce something of this nature? If someone disreguards the law and has power, what's to stop them?

[Cerin]

If he issued an executive order, there would be immediate challenges and injunctions and SCOTUS would again end up deciding the question (this time, of whether an executive order on the census is constitutional).

edit

both of his predecessors issued hundreds of executive orders, I don't understand why the possibility here is a portent of doom (and it's probably an empty threat anyway)

[Inanna]

It was a portent of doom with the predecessors too. I remember how furious constitutional scholars were with Obama and his reliance on executive orders on matters pertaining to immigration. They were very worried (rightly so) about the precedence he was setting.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It's not even remotely the same thing. Neither Obama, nor Bush, nor any other president in my memory has ever even suggested reversing a Supreme Court decision by using an executive order.

[yovargas]

Even if he doesn't do it, the suggestion that he might alone should be seen as a major constitutional crisis. If we had a properly functioning Congress, it really is something that should at least bring up the discussion of impeachment.

[RoseMorninStar]

Even if he doesn't do it, the suggestion that he might alone should be seen as a major constitutional crisis. If we had a properly functioning Congress, it really is something that should at least bring up the discussion of impeachment.

These were my thoughts as well yov. As someone holding the highest office in the land ignorance of the law is bad enough, total disregard is inexcusable. 'Empty threats' is not a proper or dignified way to govern.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't think it is an empty threat at all. Frankly, I would be surprised if he doesn't go through with it, because the other options that they have (other than just giving up on adding the citizenship question), such as doing a motion for reconsideration at the Supreme Court would be complete non-starters. And we have already seen him use an executive order to overrule another branch of government in a way that has never been done before, when he issued an executive order to divert funding to his wall when Congress refused to use its Constitutionally-granted authority to allocate funds for that. That EO has thus far been blocked by the courts, and probably will be headed eventually to the SCOTUS. This one, in my opinion, would be an even more blatant abuse of power. But I think the constitutional crisis doesn't really come unless and until the SCOTUS backs his ability to take these actions. Otherwise, clunky though it may be in the remarkable age Trumpism, the system of checks and balances will have worked.

[RoseMorninStar]

I don't think it is an empty threat at all.

I don't think it's an empty threat either Voronwë (but the people around him will 'clean it up' so it doesn't appear as bizarre as it is). It's exactly what I expect from a childish narcissistic ego-maniac. ('I want what I want and I want it NOW! I don't care what the court says, I AM the law! DO IT!') but that many people rationalize his behavior and ignore it as empty threats or 'that's just the way he is' I find concerning. It's like watching a nation in denial that they have an abusive spouse.

[yovargas]

I don't think it is an empty threat at all.

For now, if I had to bet, I'd bet on it being an empty threat and him not actually doing it. I would bet on it mostly being bluster to make him "look tough". I suppose we'll find out who's right soon enough.

[RoseMorninStar]

I don't think it is an empty threat at all.

For now, if I had to bet, I'd bet on it being an empty threat and him not actually doing it. I would bet on it mostly being bluster to make him "look tough". I suppose we'll find out who's right soon enough.

Based on comments made by Trumps lawyer and the subsequent tweets, and comments that have been made by others all along (the supposed 'adults in the room') I don't think this type of occurrence is rare. Trump demands that his wishes be fulfilled and everyone around him scrambles to try to explain that he can't do that. Contrary to what he believes, he wasn't elected King. I don't believe Trump understands this because this is the way he has operated all his life, legalities or moralities be damned. If the 'empty threat' plays out I don't believe it will be because Trump is just 'blustering' it will because wiser heads have prevailed, for the moment.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Rose, I don't disagree with you. yov, I would like to not disagree with you. Mr. Trump is certainly not predictable, so who knows what he really will do?

[RoseMorninStar]

I walked on eggshells with a father like this. Years later I had a boss like this. Years after that a person came into a church I attended and left it a shambles. I know narcissists and I know what they do and how they cow people into doing unthinkable things and making it seem like it's ordinary 'loyalty'. It's the High School Queen Bee syndrome. There are differing degrees of course, mostly based on how much power they can amass, but it's all about them. Nothing else matters.

[Cerin]

Neither Obama, nor Bush, nor any other president in my memory has ever even suggested reversing a Supreme Court decision by using an executive order.

The justices didn't reject the idea of the question, just of the reasoning behind it. I think the situation would be more grave if Trump were threatening an EO on something they had said 'no' to on principle; but he viewed the ruling as an invitation to try again. An executive order in this case would still be subject to the same checks and balances as any executive order.

[RoseMorninStar]

And the fact that they LIED about their reasoning behind it. Lying still counts in some quarters.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It just gets weirder and weirder. Attorney General William Barr (who loses more of my respect practically every day), announced yesterday that the administration has a path forward to adding the citizenship question, without giving any details of what that path forward is, or how they will overcome the daunting legal and other challenges that would need to be overcome. Meanwhile, the entire Justice Department legal team dealing with the census citizenship question has been replaced. I can not over-emphasize how unheard it is to replace the Justice Department to replace a legal team this far along in a process (the same team has been addressing this question for years). The speculation (which is just that, it certainly is not and probably never will be confirmed) is that the existing lawyers refused to provide a new rationale for the adding of the question, so Barr had to find new lawyers willing to do so. The old attorneys on the case were career Justice Department attorneys. The new ones apparently are not.


https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... -to-census
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... -go-public

ETA: This isn't stated in either of those articles but is just adding my own speculation. One of the things that the old attorneys vigorously argued in the various cases is that the contention of the plaintiffs in those cases that the real reason that the administration wanted to added the question was to affect the allocation of Congressional districts was completely false. So what does Mr. Trump tell reporters is the "No. 1" reason why they need to add the question: “Number one, you need it for Congress — you need it for Congress for districting,” he said Friday. “You need it for appropriations — where are the funds going? How many people are there? Are they citizens? Are they not citizens? You need it for many reasons.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 5233bbf80f Is it any wonder they would refuse to state that the reason was the very reason that they said wasn't the reason?

[RoseMorninStar]

I read an article this morning discussing Pompeo and his new commission to "..review of the role of human rights in American foreign policy." that sets off all sorts of warning bells and red flags. Voronwë, it's not just weird & weirder, it's warning bells and red flags.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Every day the census case becomes even more extraordinary. I just saw that the judge in the New York case (the one that made it to the SCOTUS; this is a different judge that made the Facebook quote that I cited earlier, who is in the Maryland case), refused the governments request to replace the attorneys handling the case.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan called the government’s request “patently deficient,” adding that the U.S. had provided “no reasons, let alone ’satisfactory reasons,’ for the substitution of counsel."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartanntp


Meanwhile, another case that has profound implications just took a step forward towards reaching the high court during the election year. Oral argument was heard today in the Fifth Circuit of the Court of the Appeals in New Orleans in Texas v. U.S., the case in which Texas and other GOP-dominated states sued the federal government arguing that when Congress repealed the individual mandate it rendered the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. It will be recalled that the extremely conservative District Court judge in Texas agreed, despite the fact that even the Trump administration Justice Department under Jeff Sessions argued that the full law should not be invalidated, just the mandate itself. Then when Bill Barr became the attorney general the Justice Department abruptly changed its position and agreed that the full law should be thrown out, despite the fact that legal scholars across the spectrum disagreed. Then, in more absurdity in the Barr-led Justice Department, they changed their position again, and filed a new brief suggesting the utterly ridiculous argument (and I don't use words like that lightly) that the law should somehow only be invalidated in the states that were contesting the law (which is impossible on a practical level, and has utterly no legal basis). In the oral argument today there were two highly conservative judges (one appointed by Mr. Trump, and the other by George W. Bush) and one moderate appointed by President Carter. The moderate judge asked no questions at all, but the two conservative judges both suggested that they might be agreeing with the District Court judge. If the they do rule in favor of Texas and throw out the whole law, it will certainly go to the high court, and probably will be decided next June, which could be disastrous for Mr. Trump and the GOP, whichever way the high court rules. If it rules that the law should not be invalidated then it will look bad for Mr. Trump because he sided with Texas and lost. But if they rule that the law should be invalidated it will cause utter chaos in the health care system while will likely be blamed on Mr. Trump and the GOP and could lead to a complete electoral landside in both the presidential and congressional elections.

[RoseMorninStar]

And I thought Stranger Things was a show on Netflix.

[River]

Is there a mechanism for a judge to just pull the plug on a defendant mid-litigation or do we have to watch this sh*tshow to the end?

[Cerin]

So we don't know for sure if it was the lawyers on the census question case that wanted out, or if it was the administration that wanted them out? So they could potentially be forced to continue on a case they don't want to do further work on? Apparently they will be allowed to try and provide a more satisfactory rationale for asking to be excused.

Then, in more absurdity in the Barr-led Justice Department, they changed their position again, and filed a new brief suggesting the utterly ridiculous argument (and I don't use words like that lightly) that the law should somehow only be invalidated in the states that were contesting the law (which is impossible on a practical level, and has utterly no legal basis).

What would be the potential reasons for only wanting to invalidate the law in the states that were contesting it?


I was looking up the history of a citizenship question on the census. This statement (below) from an NPR fact-check article gives a reason that seems similar to me to the reason the Trump administration is being accused of having as a hidden agenda. Can someone explain what I'm not understanding about the significance of citizenship related to Congressional districts? The second quote is from the census bureau website, stating what would seem to be non-nefarious reasons for asking about citizenship. I don't really understand why the potential of a citizenship question is creating such a furor. Is it just another expression of partisan division?

The census has been conducted every decade since 1790 to get a national head count used most critically to decide the distribution of congressional representation.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/59743651 ... s-question

We ask questions about a person’s place of birth, citizenship, and year of entry into the United States to create data about citizens, noncitizens, and the foreign-born population. Agencies and policymakers use our published statistics to set and evaluate immigration policies and laws, understand the experience of different immigrant groups, and enforce laws, policies, and regulations against discrimination based on national origin. These statistics also help tailor services to accommodate cultural differences.

https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/wh ... tizenship/