The census question and the big freaken socialist/communist lie by omission

H_Arendt · July 9, 2019, 3:59pm

johnwk2:

H_Arendt:

johnwk2:

H_Arendt:

johnwk2:

H_Arendt:

Snowfinch:

johnwk2:

With regard to the court second guessing legislative acts and policy making decisions, doing so violates the separation of powers doctrine.

In this case (census administration under the APA) it seems that congress has legislated judicial review into the law. Rather than attempt to legislate every detail of administering the census, they have granted power to the executive to implement (via department rule making). The APA legislates the requirements on the executive for administrative rule making and also the requirements for judicial review.

If it is impermissible under the constitution for the court to participate in this manner, it suggests that the APA itself is unconstitutional.

The question that needs to be answered is if the constitution permits the legislative body to explicitly permit or require (or prohibit) judicial review within specific legislation.

If it is deemed impermissible under the constitution I expect that the power to add questions to the census would not fall to the Executive but rather to Congress as they hold sole power to legislate the manner of the census.

If you dispel all the verbiage, you can see clearly that Roberts was not deciding on wisdom of legislation but on whether appropriate process was followed.

"In Chief Justice Roberts’ majority decision Thursday tentatively rejecting a citizenship question on the 2020 census, he rejected the Trump Administration’s “voting rights” argument as “contrived,” saying executive branch officials must “offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public.” LINK

It is not the courts job to “scrutinize” policy making decisions and legislative acts. The courts only job is to determine if policy making decisions and legislation does not violate the provisions of our Constitution. To allow Roberts to second guess policy making decisions and legislation when they do not violate the provisions of our Constitution, is to allow our courts to violate our system’s separation of powers doctrine.

But just to confirm what I state above, here is a number of legitimate sources commenting on our judicial branch of government second guessing the wisdom of policy making decisions and legislation:

”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:

”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”

And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:

……we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.

And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violated the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction and now he is interfering with a legitimate and constitutional question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

Why do you support our Supreme Court usurping a power not granted?

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.

As I expected, you are attempting to bury the truth in citations. Just take the first one – it completely mischaracterizes what Roberts did. Why read on, when you’re argument is based on a fallacy – that Roberts ruled against the question itself.

Your question to me about the Supreme Court usurping a power is moot: it is based on your fallacious assertion that the court ruled against the question itself. That, in turn, renders all your citations irrelevant to the matter at hand.

What has emerged is that the presentation by the Administration’s lawyers rested on one or more lies: the obvious one that the Administration was looking to improve enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and the unclear one about the need to resolve the issue by June 30. The court accelerated the process in response to the June 30 claim and on July 1 the Administration began printing census forms. Now the Administration is acting as if June 30 was not a hard deadline.

Why do you support lying to the Supreme Court as a means to achieve ones; ends?

I await two pages of citations on why it is sound Constitutional practice to presentation false arguments to the Supreme Court. Happy googling.

Justice Roberts has undermined our democratic system!

There you go again, misrepresenting what I have posted. My “argument” is not based on a “… fallacious assertion that the court ruled against the question itself.”

My argument is that Justice Roberts is not, by our Constitution, authorized to second guess or “scrutinize” policy making decisions and legislation, and in striking them down assert the purpose for which they were adopted are “contrived”.

It makes no difference if the purpose for which a policy making decision is “contrived”, or even if its purpose is lied about, which is what politicians do on a daily basis. The Court’s job is only to determine if policy making decisions and legislation violates the provisions of our Constitution. And in this case, the Court has indicated the question being placed on the census form does not violate the Constitution, but doing so [placing the question on the census form] requires the Executive branch to “offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public.”

What Justice Roberts and his ilk are attempting to do is overturn an election by which the people have decided to place in power a President who is willing to undo the tyranny of a past president. And under the cloak of “scrutinizing” the purpose for which our President has acted, instead of deciding if his actions are prohibited by our Constitution, Justice Roberts is working to overturn what has been decided at the ballot box! And to this tyrannical action our very own court has stated:

"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

Why do you support Justice Roberts’ attack on our democratic system and his desire to overturn the consequences of an election?

JWK

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

You continue to misconstrue Justice Roberts ruling in your campaign to drown us in quotations. Justice Roberts did not second guess policy or reject on the basis of their purpose – he ruled on a matter of process.

I appreciate that you think lying is of no matter. I would be interested to see what you were posting back in the day when Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury. I assume you must have been one of his strongest defenders, since you are now stating that lying is of no import.

BREVITY IS THE SOUL OF WIT – William Shakespeare

For brevity and relying on Justices Roberts’ own words:

"In Chief Justice Roberts’ majority decision Thursday tentatively rejecting a citizenship question on the 2020 census, he rejected the Trump Administration’s “voting rights” argument as “contrived,” saying executive branch officials must “offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public.” LINK

What Justice Roberts and his ilk are attempting to do is overturn an election by which the people have decided to place in power a President who is willing to undo the tyranny of a past president. And under the cloak of “scrutinizing” the purpose for which our President has acted, instead of deciding if his actions are prohibited by our Constitution, Justice Roberts is working to overturn what has been decided at the ballot box! And to this tyrannical action our very own court has stated:

"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

Why do you support Justice Roberts’ attack on our democratic system and his desire to overturn the consequences of an election?

JWK

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

I know your style is to never back down from a position you have taken and I don’t expect you will heed a thing I am saying. However, Roberts’ comment on justification was the reason he gave for ruling on process. You continue to misconstrue.

The fewer the words, the better the prayer Martin Luther

johnwk2 · July 9, 2019, 4:00pm

I already did. Pay attention. Roberts lied when he said Obamacare is a tax.

JWK

highroller · July 9, 2019, 4:05pm

No, that was an opinion issued by the courts. You may disagree with that opinion, but that doesn’t make it a lie. He didn’t say obamacare was a tax. The court said that the penalty for not having insurance was a tax.

If the court decided it is a tax, then that’s what it is, and now Congress repealed that tax.

johnwk2 · July 9, 2019, 4:10pm

H_Arendt:

johnwk2:

H_Arendt:

johnwk2:

H_Arendt:

johnwk2:

H_Arendt:

Snowfinch:

johnwk2:

With regard to the court second guessing legislative acts and policy making decisions, doing so violates the separation of powers doctrine.

In this case (census administration under the APA) it seems that congress has legislated judicial review into the law. Rather than attempt to legislate every detail of administering the census, they have granted power to the executive to implement (via department rule making). The APA legislates the requirements on the executive for administrative rule making and also the requirements for judicial review.

If it is impermissible under the constitution for the court to participate in this manner, it suggests that the APA itself is unconstitutional.

The question that needs to be answered is if the constitution permits the legislative body to explicitly permit or require (or prohibit) judicial review within specific legislation.

If it is deemed impermissible under the constitution I expect that the power to add questions to the census would not fall to the Executive but rather to Congress as they hold sole power to legislate the manner of the census.

If you dispel all the verbiage, you can see clearly that Roberts was not deciding on wisdom of legislation but on whether appropriate process was followed.

"In Chief Justice Roberts’ majority decision Thursday tentatively rejecting a citizenship question on the 2020 census, he rejected the Trump Administration’s “voting rights” argument as “contrived,” saying executive branch officials must “offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public.” LINK

It is not the courts job to “scrutinize” policy making decisions and legislative acts. The courts only job is to determine if policy making decisions and legislation does not violate the provisions of our Constitution. To allow Roberts to second guess policy making decisions and legislation when they do not violate the provisions of our Constitution, is to allow our courts to violate our system’s separation of powers doctrine.

But just to confirm what I state above, here is a number of legitimate sources commenting on our judicial branch of government second guessing the wisdom of policy making decisions and legislation:

”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:

”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”

And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:

……we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.

And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violated the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction and now he is interfering with a legitimate and constitutional question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

Why do you support our Supreme Court usurping a power not granted?

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.

As I expected, you are attempting to bury the truth in citations. Just take the first one – it completely mischaracterizes what Roberts did. Why read on, when you’re argument is based on a fallacy – that Roberts ruled against the question itself.

Your question to me about the Supreme Court usurping a power is moot: it is based on your fallacious assertion that the court ruled against the question itself. That, in turn, renders all your citations irrelevant to the matter at hand.

What has emerged is that the presentation by the Administration’s lawyers rested on one or more lies: the obvious one that the Administration was looking to improve enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and the unclear one about the need to resolve the issue by June 30. The court accelerated the process in response to the June 30 claim and on July 1 the Administration began printing census forms. Now the Administration is acting as if June 30 was not a hard deadline.

Why do you support lying to the Supreme Court as a means to achieve ones; ends?

I await two pages of citations on why it is sound Constitutional practice to presentation false arguments to the Supreme Court. Happy googling.

Justice Roberts has undermined our democratic system!

There you go again, misrepresenting what I have posted. My “argument” is not based on a “… fallacious assertion that the court ruled against the question itself.”

My argument is that Justice Roberts is not, by our Constitution, authorized to second guess or “scrutinize” policy making decisions and legislation, and in striking them down assert the purpose for which they were adopted are “contrived”.

It makes no difference if the purpose for which a policy making decision is “contrived”, or even if its purpose is lied about, which is what politicians do on a daily basis. The Court’s job is only to determine if policy making decisions and legislation violates the provisions of our Constitution. And in this case, the Court has indicated the question being placed on the census form does not violate the Constitution, but doing so [placing the question on the census form] requires the Executive branch to “offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public.”

What Justice Roberts and his ilk are attempting to do is overturn an election by which the people have decided to place in power a President who is willing to undo the tyranny of a past president. And under the cloak of “scrutinizing” the purpose for which our President has acted, instead of deciding if his actions are prohibited by our Constitution, Justice Roberts is working to overturn what has been decided at the ballot box! And to this tyrannical action our very own court has stated:

"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

Why do you support Justice Roberts’ attack on our democratic system and his desire to overturn the consequences of an election?

JWK

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

You continue to misconstrue Justice Roberts ruling in your campaign to drown us in quotations. Justice Roberts did not second guess policy or reject on the basis of their purpose – he ruled on a matter of process.

I appreciate that you think lying is of no matter. I would be interested to see what you were posting back in the day when Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury. I assume you must have been one of his strongest defenders, since you are now stating that lying is of no import.

BREVITY IS THE SOUL OF WIT – William Shakespeare

For brevity and relying on Justices Roberts’ own words:

"In Chief Justice Roberts’ majority decision Thursday tentatively rejecting a citizenship question on the 2020 census, he rejected the Trump Administration’s “voting rights” argument as “contrived,” saying executive branch officials must “offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public.” LINK

What Justice Roberts and his ilk are attempting to do is overturn an election by which the people have decided to place in power a President who is willing to undo the tyranny of a past president. And under the cloak of “scrutinizing” the purpose for which our President has acted, instead of deciding if his actions are prohibited by our Constitution, Justice Roberts is working to overturn what has been decided at the ballot box! And to this tyrannical action our very own court has stated:

"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

Why do you support Justice Roberts’ attack on our democratic system and his desire to overturn the consequences of an election?

JWK

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

I know your style is to never back down from a position you have taken and I don’t expect you will heed a thing I am saying. However, Roberts’ comment on justification was the reason he gave for ruling on process. You continue to misconstrue.

The fewer the words, the better the prayer Martin Luther

Well, I see you are still repeating yourself about a “process” and ignoring that under that “process” Roberts falsely asserts the executive branch officials must “offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public.” LINK

So, once again let me point out, what Justice Roberts and his ilk are attempting to do is overturn an election by which the people have decided to place in power a President who is willing to undo the tyranny of a past president. And under the cloak of “scrutinizing” the purpose for which our President has acted, instead of deciding if his actions are prohibited by our Constitution, Justice Roberts is working to overturn what has been decided at the ballot box! And to this tyrannical action our very own court has stated:

"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

The fact is, it makes no difference if the purpose for which a policy making decision is “contrived”, or even if its purpose is lied about, which is what politicians do on a daily basis. The Court’s job is only to determine if policy making decisions and legislation violates the provisions of our Constitution.

JWK

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

highroller · July 9, 2019, 4:18pm

But the fact remains that the ruling has been made. Are we going to bring out the pitch forks on Capitol Hill?

What about the administration lying about the hard deadline date? Was that just a favorable ruling date?

H_Arendt · July 9, 2019, 4:22pm

johnwk2:

H_Arendt:

johnwk2:

H_Arendt:

johnwk2:

H_Arendt:

johnwk2:

H_Arendt:

Snowfinch:

johnwk2:

With regard to the court second guessing legislative acts and policy making decisions, doing so violates the separation of powers doctrine.

In this case (census administration under the APA) it seems that congress has legislated judicial review into the law. Rather than attempt to legislate every detail of administering the census, they have granted power to the executive to implement (via department rule making). The APA legislates the requirements on the executive for administrative rule making and also the requirements for judicial review.

If it is impermissible under the constitution for the court to participate in this manner, it suggests that the APA itself is unconstitutional.

The question that needs to be answered is if the constitution permits the legislative body to explicitly permit or require (or prohibit) judicial review within specific legislation.

If it is deemed impermissible under the constitution I expect that the power to add questions to the census would not fall to the Executive but rather to Congress as they hold sole power to legislate the manner of the census.

If you dispel all the verbiage, you can see clearly that Roberts was not deciding on wisdom of legislation but on whether appropriate process was followed.

"In Chief Justice Roberts’ majority decision Thursday tentatively rejecting a citizenship question on the 2020 census, he rejected the Trump Administration’s “voting rights” argument as “contrived,” saying executive branch officials must “offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public.” LINK

It is not the courts job to “scrutinize” policy making decisions and legislative acts. The courts only job is to determine if policy making decisions and legislation does not violate the provisions of our Constitution. To allow Roberts to second guess policy making decisions and legislation when they do not violate the provisions of our Constitution, is to allow our courts to violate our system’s separation of powers doctrine.

But just to confirm what I state above, here is a number of legitimate sources commenting on our judicial branch of government second guessing the wisdom of policy making decisions and legislation:

”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:

”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”

And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:

……we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.

And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violated the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction and now he is interfering with a legitimate and constitutional question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

Why do you support our Supreme Court usurping a power not granted?

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.

As I expected, you are attempting to bury the truth in citations. Just take the first one – it completely mischaracterizes what Roberts did. Why read on, when you’re argument is based on a fallacy – that Roberts ruled against the question itself.

Your question to me about the Supreme Court usurping a power is moot: it is based on your fallacious assertion that the court ruled against the question itself. That, in turn, renders all your citations irrelevant to the matter at hand.

What has emerged is that the presentation by the Administration’s lawyers rested on one or more lies: the obvious one that the Administration was looking to improve enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and the unclear one about the need to resolve the issue by June 30. The court accelerated the process in response to the June 30 claim and on July 1 the Administration began printing census forms. Now the Administration is acting as if June 30 was not a hard deadline.

Why do you support lying to the Supreme Court as a means to achieve ones; ends?

I await two pages of citations on why it is sound Constitutional practice to presentation false arguments to the Supreme Court. Happy googling.

Justice Roberts has undermined our democratic system!

There you go again, misrepresenting what I have posted. My “argument” is not based on a “… fallacious assertion that the court ruled against the question itself.”

My argument is that Justice Roberts is not, by our Constitution, authorized to second guess or “scrutinize” policy making decisions and legislation, and in striking them down assert the purpose for which they were adopted are “contrived”.

It makes no difference if the purpose for which a policy making decision is “contrived”, or even if its purpose is lied about, which is what politicians do on a daily basis. The Court’s job is only to determine if policy making decisions and legislation violates the provisions of our Constitution. And in this case, the Court has indicated the question being placed on the census form does not violate the Constitution, but doing so [placing the question on the census form] requires the Executive branch to “offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public.”

What Justice Roberts and his ilk are attempting to do is overturn an election by which the people have decided to place in power a President who is willing to undo the tyranny of a past president. And under the cloak of “scrutinizing” the purpose for which our President has acted, instead of deciding if his actions are prohibited by our Constitution, Justice Roberts is working to overturn what has been decided at the ballot box! And to this tyrannical action our very own court has stated:

"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

Why do you support Justice Roberts’ attack on our democratic system and his desire to overturn the consequences of an election?

JWK

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

You continue to misconstrue Justice Roberts ruling in your campaign to drown us in quotations. Justice Roberts did not second guess policy or reject on the basis of their purpose – he ruled on a matter of process.

I appreciate that you think lying is of no matter. I would be interested to see what you were posting back in the day when Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury. I assume you must have been one of his strongest defenders, since you are now stating that lying is of no import.

BREVITY IS THE SOUL OF WIT – William Shakespeare

For brevity and relying on Justices Roberts’ own words:

"In Chief Justice Roberts’ majority decision Thursday tentatively rejecting a citizenship question on the 2020 census, he rejected the Trump Administration’s “voting rights” argument as “contrived,” saying executive branch officials must “offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public.” LINK

What Justice Roberts and his ilk are attempting to do is overturn an election by which the people have decided to place in power a President who is willing to undo the tyranny of a past president. And under the cloak of “scrutinizing” the purpose for which our President has acted, instead of deciding if his actions are prohibited by our Constitution, Justice Roberts is working to overturn what has been decided at the ballot box! And to this tyrannical action our very own court has stated:

"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

Why do you support Justice Roberts’ attack on our democratic system and his desire to overturn the consequences of an election?

JWK

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

I know your style is to never back down from a position you have taken and I don’t expect you will heed a thing I am saying. However, Roberts’ comment on justification was the reason he gave for ruling on process. You continue to misconstrue.

The fewer the words, the better the prayer Martin Luther

Well, I see you are still repeating yourself about a “process” and ignoring that under that “process” Roberts falsely asserts the executive branch officials must “offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public.” LINK

So, once again let me point out, what Justice Roberts and his ilk are attempting to do is overturn an election by which the people have decided to place in power a President who is willing to undo the tyranny of a past president. And under the cloak of “scrutinizing” the purpose for which our President has acted, instead of deciding if his actions are prohibited by our Constitution, Justice Roberts is working to overturn what has been decided at the ballot box! And to this tyrannical action our very own court has stated:

"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

The fact is, it makes no difference if the purpose for which a policy making decision is “contrived”, or even if its purpose is lied about, which is what politicians do on a daily basis. The Court’s job is only to determine if policy making decisions and legislation violates the provisions of our Constitution.

JWK

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

As I said, i expect you to be unyielding in your misconceptions so there is not much more point to continuing this exchange.

Brevity in writing is the best insurance of its perusal Rudolf Virchow

johnwk2 · July 9, 2019, 4:27pm

Justice Roberts has attacked and undermined our democratic system!

In answer to your post, the fact remains: Justice Roberts is working to intentionally undermined our democratic system by second guessing and “scrutinizing” a policy making decision which in no way violates the terms of our Constitution. And to this type of judicial tyranny our very own Supreme Court pointed out:

"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Publius · July 9, 2019, 4:30pm

The fact is, it makes no difference if the purpose for which a policy making decision is “contrived”, or even if its purpose is lied about, which is what politicians do on a daily basis. The Court’s job is only to determine if policy making decisions and legislation violates the provisions of our Constitution.

Wrong. Per Article III, " The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." The Administrative Procedure Act requires the Executive to provide valid justification for rulemaking. If they don’t, the rule gets thrown out (as Trump has seen in a number of instances).

highroller · July 9, 2019, 4:38pm

Well, I re-read about the decision, and I still think they got it right. The administration was taken to court because the plaintiffs said the administration could not ask the question and that the reasoning given was not the actual reason for the question. The court shot them down on the first one. The only requirement the court thought would be necessary was the reason for the question needs to be the actual reason.

johnwk2 · July 9, 2019, 4:53pm

My goodness. So now you imply this case is one removed from a court deciding that which is, or is not, constitutional, to the equivalent of a family court ___ one of equity, where a judges’ sense of fairness, reasonableness and justice prevails in cases having nothing to do with the rule of law and our Constitution.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Publius · July 9, 2019, 4:56pm

I just quoted what Article III actually says. Do you take issue with the actual wording of our Constitution?

WorldWatcher · July 9, 2019, 4:56pm

.^

Just to point out, it was Congress under the Administrative Procedures Act that authorizes the Court to review agency actions. Under 5 U.S. Code § 706 are to hold as unlawful such actions as illegal.

.
.
.^^^^

WorldWatcher · July 9, 2019, 4:57pm

.^

Be prepared long post to follow with plenty of bolding.

In advance tl;dr.

.^^^^

johnwk2 · July 9, 2019, 5:36pm

I take issue with what you seemingly imply.

JWK

Eclipze · July 9, 2019, 5:59pm

Wall of text incoming

johnwk2 · July 9, 2019, 6:14pm

And the APA is a clever device adopted by the opponents of our representative system of government, which is used to allow unelected activist judges and Justices to second guess and overturn a policy making decision which rightfully rests with the Executive branch of government, that is, unless Congress itself, our elected representatives, decide to intervene and strike down a policy judgement made by the Executive branch.

In this case, the APA is used to overturn the consequences of an election and a policy making decision made by our President which is objected to by those who lost the election.

This is not rocket science to figure out. Just read the entire Court OPINION which documents the whining and frivolous objections of those who ran to the Court over a question which is admitted by all does not violate the terms of our Constitution.

Justice Thomas, in his dissent, identifies the can of worms opened by Justice Roberts:

Now that the Court has opened up this avenue of attack, opponents of executive actions have strong incentives to craft narratives that would derail them. Moreover, even if the effort to invalidate the action is ultimately unsuccessful, the Court’s decision enables partisans to use the courts to harangue executive officers through depositions, discovery, delay, and distraction. The Court’s decision could even implicate separation-of-powers concerns insofar as it enables judicial interference with the enforcement of the laws. In short, today’s decision is a departure from traditional principles of administrative law. Hopefully it comes to be understood as an aberration—a ticket good for this day and this train only.*

Because the Secretary’s decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census was legally sound and a reasoned exercise of his broad discretion, I respectfully dissent from Part V of the opinion of the Court."

The bottom line is, the Roberts’ decision is an outright attack on our democratic system and attempts to overturn the consequences of our last election.

JWK

"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

highroller · July 9, 2019, 6:16pm

I thought Republicans didn’t appoint activist judges.

Publius · July 9, 2019, 6:29pm

If by “clever device” you mean a law created by Congress and signed by the President as specified in the Constitution, which imposes certain restrictions on the executive branch rulemaking process, then yeah, I guess.

WorldWatcher · July 9, 2019, 6:45pm

.^

A law that has existed for 73 years. Now that Trump has had a ruling against him, oh the horror.

.
.
.^^^^

Snowfinch · July 9, 2019, 9:15pm

In this case the policy making power rests with the Congress. Absent the APA (plus Title 13 which operates under APA policies) how does congress cede census policy to the executive?

Under this theory the court should strike down the question since the constitution empowers Congress to make census policy and the mechanism it came up with to cede that power to the executive (APA plus Title 13) is unconstitutional. The result is that the Executive is unconstitutionally introducing the question. The question would now require an act of Congress (either legislating the question directly or authorizing the Executive rule making power without judicial review).