JUST IN: Supreme Court justices signal SUPPORT for Trump’s citizenship question!

There’s not a lot of substance to go on here yet, but from media reports it sounds like the Supreme Court may end up ruling in favor of Trump adding the citizenship question to the census.

Here’s what we know from Bloomberg:

Key U.S. Supreme Court justices seemed inclined to let the Trump administration add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census in a clash that will shape the allocation of congressional seats and federal dollars, Bloomberg News reports.

Hearing arguments in Washington, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh directed almost all their questions to the lawyers challenging the decision to ask about citizenship.

Kavanaugh said Congress gave the Commerce secretary “huge discretion” to decide what to ask on the census.



And from Reuters:

Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared sympathetic toward a bid by President Donald Trump’s administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, a plan opponents have called a Republican effort to deter immigrants from taking part in the population count.

The court has a 5-4 conservative majority, and conservative justices signaled support toward the administration’s stance.

Chief Justice John Roberts challenged New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, whose state sued the administration over the plan to add the question, saying citizenship is critical information for enforcing the Voting Rights Act.

As I said there’s not much here yet. I was hoping for more on the questions they asked, but so far this is it.

The citizenship question that Trump wants on the census says “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”.

I KNOW! It’s such a white supremacist and racist question to ask! How dare Trump want to know who is a citizen and who isn’t???

So just a word of caution. Even though it appears the Supreme Court may support Trump on this, you never know how they are going to end up on the issue. To paraphrase an old axiom, don’t count your SCOTUS judges before they vote.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
newest oldest most voted
bannedquran4
Member
Member
bannedquran4

Built the wall! Add extra heavy duty razor sharp concertina wire, along with a few machine gun turrets! If you want to enter The Land of The Big PX, do so legally by the front door, assimilate, take classes that will lead to US citizenship and only then will I drop the “wtback” (and others like them) word, shake your hand and call you an American. God Bless America, Long Live The Republic!!

LAPhil
Member
Active Member
LAPhil

You mean “wetback”? See, it didn’t bounce.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Still pretty racist.

LAPhil
Member
Active Member
LAPhil

I don’t think it’s racist for this reason: Something is only racist if it refers to someone’s race, which of course is something they cannot help. The term “wetback” refers to people who took a certain action, namely crossing the Rio Grande to get into this country. They had control over that, unlike someone’s race.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Yea, and n*gger refers to a bundle of stick and f*g has to do with cigarettes.

Give me a break. We all know who you’re talking about with that term. Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.

LAPhil
Member
Active Member
LAPhil

Give ME a break. I don’t even use the term except to make a point such as the one I made to you but you apparently didn’t get.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

I get it – you can use the term.

Doesn’t mean you should. Doesn’t mean anyone should. It’s a slur, regardless of how it’s rationalized.

bigsir74
Member
Noble Member
bigsir74

…..what difference does it make, every one who trashes their Census questionaire will still find a way to vote or others will find a way for him /her to vote

BarbNC
Member
Member
BarbNC

The census is YUGE in deciding the Electoral College which is based on population counts in the various states. Asking this question was on the census in previous counts so I don’t foresee the justices going against it at all and if they make a decision FOR adding the citizenship question………Democrats won’t be able to challenge it in the future. Fingers crossed!!!

AFVet4America
Member
Noble Member
AFVet4America

As Hillary would say ” at this point what difference does it make? ” The demoncrats will just tell them to lie or not respond to the Census.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

That the very essence of sovereignty should be up for debate shows how close we have drifted to dissolution.

butterbean
Member
Active Member
butterbean

That’s a good point. How will anyone know if they lie about being a citizen?

shamron
Member
Member
shamron

How many will lie????

Bhaskin
Member
Active Member
Bhaskin

Democraps have been abusing this for years

If a state wants the illegals then they should come up with a way to pay for them….

Citizens should only be counted and Fed funded for and properly represented!

Ronbo
Member
Trusted Member
Ronbo

Considering only citizens should even answer the damn thing, it’s really too bad if illegals are scared to answer it or not. The constitution doesn’t take into account illegals unfortunately because they didn’t see this one coming so unfortunately, this would be a big win if they allowed it. If you do go by the letter of the constitution as conservative strict constructionists should, then illegals should be counted. “Why Jefferson, Madison and the Founders Enshrined the Census in our Constitution The U.S. Constitution empowers the Congress to carry out the census in “such manner as they shall by Law direct” (Article I, Section 2). The Founders of our fledgling nation had a bold and ambitious plan to empower the people over their new government. The plan was to count every person living in the newly created United States of America, and to use that count to determine representation in… Read more »

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

A reasonable and responsible question to ask. No wonder democrats oppose it.

haypa2
Member
Member
haypa2

If the census can ask how many tv’s a home has, citizenship doesn’t seem like a stretch.

Joe Pein
Member
Active Member
Joe Pein

How much trust should be placed in Roberts? I ain’t putting much, but there’s always hope.

Bob Davis
Member
Active Member
Bob Davis

My answer to that is “none,” but yes, there’s always hope! grin

DemocratsRFubar
Member
Noble Member
DemocratsRFubar

Confession here: I haven’t answered the census in three decades. I believe the gooberment has enough information on us. If they need anymore they can ask Facebook or Google.

Colonel Beauregard Sanders III
Member
Trusted Member
Colonel Beauregard Sanders III

The Left is afraid the citizenship question will have a chilling effect on responses from….. who? NON-citizens who shouldn’t be used for vote apportionment anyways?! I hope they’re right!

TomNewman64
Member
Noble Member
TomNewman64

Well, since we know illegal aliens never lie, this will be a sure-fire way to catch them all. /s

Texas Chris
Member
Noble Member
Texas Chris

It’s not even about catching them. Democrats don’t even want the number of illegals counted!

Nancy
Member
Active Member
Nancy

Hmmmm, this is going to be a tough one to answer for the invaders. Maybe they’ll just chuck the questionnaire into the trash, then we’ll get a closer Congressional count.

Ciceroni Excogitatoris
Member
Noble Member
Ciceroni Excogitatoris

It is a crime to refuse to answer a census question and/or provide false information.

DemocratsRFubar
Member
Noble Member
DemocratsRFubar

Let them bust me.

Texas Chris
Member
Noble Member
Texas Chris

“…Subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”

sjmom
Member
Noble Member
sjmom

It’s not enough to “hope” they’ll do the right thing. As for me I’m going to pray they do.

PlotEvil
Member
Noble Member
PlotEvil

Rephrase the question: Can you be represented by the Constitution?

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

That’s actually a really interesting moral question.

Do we believe that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or do we believe that only Americans are created that way?

Because if we believe that for all men, and the Constitution is what we created to guarantee those rights – would it not also follow that a moral society, such as ours (on paper, at least), would ultimately want to see the Constitution apply to everybody?

And if so, does that not also mean that we should regard all men as deserving of the protections of the Constitution?

PlotEvil
Member
Noble Member
PlotEvil

You and your logical thought processes. I had a bunch of counters but had to delete them all because your comment still applies to them.

Wait. I have one. “does that not also mean that we should regard all men as deserving of the protections of the Constitution?” You didn’t say mankind (technicality) which makes you hateful to women AND supports a ban on abortions against males since they would be protected and……yeah…..dang you and your logic.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Noble Member
Dr. Strangelove

I believe that the founder’s intent was for the constitution to apply to citizens.

PlotEvil
Member
Noble Member
PlotEvil

I know but AT’s argument is a rabbit hole but in essence partly why America has gone abroad to fight for freedom and liberty of others. Not to put words in his mouth.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Why did we fight slavery, and nazism, and communism? Because they were wrong. Because the people oppressed by those horrific atrocities deserve better. Were we overly-ambitions in our attempts at world-building? Perhaps. But were we wrong to wrong to bring freedom and liberty to others?

A moral man can’t say no.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Noble Member
Dr. Strangelove

Going abroad was primarily to protect our shores against Nazism, jihadism and communism. Freeing other people is secondary.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

We don’t just protect our shores – we protect our way of life against immoral ideologies that cannot coexist with Constitutional morality. With the goal being to assert Constitutional morality as the dominant ideology on the planet, and wipe all those other shitbags off the map.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Yes, but it’s a moral document just as much as it is a civil one.

Are all men created equally or not? Does an American deserve his inherent liberty protected more than persecuted Congolese women, or North Korean work slaves – simply by virtue of having been born in the right coordinates?

Shouldn’t all accused be afforded due process before being punished by their State? Is that only a civic notion, or is it a moral one as well? Is punishing someone without due process merely unconstitutional, or is it also immoral as well?

Adams said it was for a moral and religious people. Can we really call ourselves such a thing, if we didn’t wish for and support and fight for freedom and liberty and the rights of every man, woman and child on this planet?

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Also, in your typical fallacious way, you ignore and sidestep the actual discussion – you know, the one that requires a little bit of critical thinking.

It wasn’t a “does” question. It was a “should” question.

Kathleen
Member
Trusted Member
Kathleen

It’s not the world Constitution.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Should it be?

It’s the greatest document ever written, right? The most perfect form of government, no? Why shouldn’t we want the world to embrace our way of life and governance?

haypa2
Member
Member
haypa2

Other peoples/countries are free to adopt our constitution or some version of it, but I don’t think too many Americans think we should go on crusade to make the world adopt it.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

I didn’t say make them.

But if you could apply Constitutional protections to oppressed and persecuted people around the world, wouldn’t you?

Kathleen
Member
Trusted Member
Kathleen

Again, it’s the U.S. Constitution.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Should its moral tenets – if we, as Americans, truly stand for them as such – apply to all humankind?

An American is free to practice his religion and speak freely in America. A North Korean will be locked up and executed without trial for it in NK. Is what North Korea does it to North Koreans moral or immoral?

haypa2
Member
Member
haypa2

What N Korea does to it’s people is beyond horrible. Should the US go over there, fight Kim, maybe kill him and then what? Install our constitution?

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

*shrug* Dunno.

I just asked whether it was moral or immoral.

Would it be better if the North Korean people had our Constitution to protect their rights? If we can’t morally tolerate such things happening to an American, can we tolerate such things happening to a North Korean?

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

“would ultimately want to see the Constitution apply to everybody?” There are multiple problems with your argument: 1. The USA is farther away from its Declaration than ever. We really don’t live it and in some ways never did. Talking about absolutist ideals of liberty for everyone who wants to barge in here when we don’t even have it for ourselves is a non-starter. But assuming we were a virtuous nation of individual liberty… 2. If we believe that our freedoms apply to all people then that would include people outside our borders. We would have the moral duty to destroy every government in the world not just like ours (or better liberty-wise) and give them their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness good and hard – whether they wanted it or not. 3. A country with individual liberty is actually a rare and tenuous thing. Destroying all borders to… Read more »

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

We would have the moral duty to destroy every government in the world not just like ours (or better liberty-wise) and give them their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness good and hard – whether they wanted it or not.

If you could, would you?

Destroying all borders to try to give life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to everyone in the world actually takes it away from everyone.

Nobody said anything about destroying borders. The question is whether Constitutional rights are, in any part, a moral concept.

Hypothetical: An American is charged with a crime in America and summarily executed without evidence or trial. A Chinese tourist is charged with a crime in America and summarily executed without evidence or trial. Was one right and the other wrong? Or were they both wrong – and why?

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

“If you could, would you?”

My sense of fairness would want to offer it to each living being, but I’m not at all convinced that every person is made for liberty. There’s a part of each person that needs to fight for it, or they probably didn’t understand it in the first place and will just throw it away at the first opportunity.

“Was one right and the other wrong? Or were they both wrong – and why?”

Given our current society and the constraints of the world in which we exist, they are both wrong.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

My sense of fairness would want to offer it to each living being, but I’m not at all convinced that every person is made for liberty. There’s a part of each person that needs to fight for it, or they probably didn’t understand it in the first place and will just throw it away at the first opportunity. Well that’s true of many Americans, isn’t it. Look at Doc Strange, perfect example. That dude hates liberty, and loves State Authority. And yet, our Constitution protects him in a civil and moral sense. Should it? He’s clearly not made for liberty – but should he have it anyway, under our Constitution? The answer is yes. Supporting his liberty, even though he despises it, is the moral thing to do. Given our current society and the constraints of the world in which we exist, they are both wrong. Why? The most likely… Read more »

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

Supporting his liberty, even though he despises it, is the moral thing to do. C’mon, AT, we’re *almost* having an intelligent and civil conversation here and you’re starting to throw off strawman attacks at Doc for some inexplicable reason. That is to say, the Constitutional protection isn’t about your citizenship – it’s about right and wrong. I’m typically pretty precise in how I answer questions like the one you posed. I used the words I did for your specific question for a reason. Don’t try to generalize on that answer to think it means that I would give the same answer to every question that you think is similar. For example, if you see a child starving, about to die, and you give that child your $5 Big Mac meal you were about to eat, that’s a moral good and most “moral” people would do the same. Does that mean… Read more »

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

You were the one who posited the notion of being “made for liberty,” suggesting that non-Americans aren’t. But then, many Americans aren’t either. I simply gave you an example of one. The point being, whether or not one is “made for liberty” is irrelevant to the notion of whether they should have it. For example, if you see a child starving, about to die, and you give that child your $5 Big Mac meal you were about to eat, that’s a moral good Is it? I’d say that’s an act of charity, with no moral quality whatsoever. Had you given him nothing, it wouldn’t be an act of immorality after all. You owe him nothing in the first place. Makes you nice. Not necessarily good. I take a practical view of morality. Is it right to give some Chinese guy due process? Sure, we can handle doing that. Is it… Read more »

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

There is only one moral option then, America must rule the entire planet.

By the constitution of course.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

It’s not the worst idea, bringing in as many as we can under our banner – and stamping out those who would oppress the individual and deprive him of liberty. I don’t know how practically realistic it is, but it certainly seems the right thing to do.

(I’ve often mused that we should offer statehood to Israel. I don’t know if they’d take it, but making them one with us, rather than just allies, would be great.)

Abe Lincoln
Member
Noble Member
Abe Lincoln

That’s too difficult for most people.

Are you eligible to vote in US Elections?

Texas Chris
Member
Noble Member
Texas Chris

None of us can.

The constitution represents The States, not the individual. And it is a limiting, instructional document for the Federal Government, not one that limits the individual.

Ciceroni Excogitatoris
Member
Noble Member
Ciceroni Excogitatoris

The next thing is to define which “persons” should be counted when it comes to allocating congressional districts/seats and federal dollars…

The Founding Fathers inferred persons as those who may vote in elections… therefore, US Citizens should be the only ones who should be counted. California should have between 42-45 seats; when you subtract the 8-12 million illegals.

Texas Chris
Member
Noble Member
Texas Chris

Incorrect.

The original writing of the constitution included the Three Fifths clause which partially counted slaves toward apportioned House seats. Partially, because a full counting and apportionment would have created a South-heavy representation, much like we have today with illegals being counted.

I also challenge the 8-12 million number. 11 million was quoted all 8 years of the Obama administration. An estimated 900k – 1.2 million illegally enter each year, which would put the number at a minimum of 21 million illegals nationwide.

debw
Member
Active Member
debw

According to Napolitano, you can’t force anyone to answer the question, and the information won’t change anything pertaining to congressional districts.

Ciceroni Excogitatoris
Member
Noble Member
Ciceroni Excogitatoris

Is this the same Napolitano who was claiming Trump could be guilty of obstruction or collusion?

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Noble Member
Dr. Strangelove

I love that Napolitano ice cream, as long as the strawberries are fresh.

Ciceroni Excogitatoris
Member
Noble Member
Ciceroni Excogitatoris

I agree, Doc.

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

Maybe it’s the Napolitano who was dead certain that Hillary was being indicted by the original Comey investigation because there was no way that her underlings were being given immunity deals unless they were turning over solid evidence in her case.

Abe Lincoln
Member
Noble Member
Abe Lincoln

That applies to most of the questions

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Noble Member
Dr. Strangelove

Avatardebw Yes, but many illegals will be afraid to fill it out, denying the Dem’s the warm bodies that they crave.

philliesthoughts
Member
Trusted Member
philliesthoughts

How is it not pertinent to ask a person’s citizenship status? If a person is not a legal citizen then they have no business meddling in our local and federal politics. Such meddling by such persons is, frankly, in my mind as bad as interference by any other foreign power or representatives of a foreign power. (And the Dems wanted to scream about “Russian Collusion”?!!) Flooding the US with non-citizens and giving them the power to influence our elections is treasonous to the max and the Dems are the party the most responsible for this. Several Republicans are too and they should be ashamed of themselves. Wanting cheap labor is one thing but aiding and abetting illegal entrance to our country in order to get it is not only shameful but shortsightedly treasonous as well. Are we really THAT cheap that we’d sell out our own country just to save… Read more »

debw
Member
Active Member
debw

I don’t think the question is about being legal, just citizenship.

philliesthoughts
Member
Trusted Member
philliesthoughts

I understand that . What I’m questioning is why there was a question about asking the question at all. We do need to know exactly how many are illegal but the Dems are fighting it because they don’t want anyone to know how the illegal population is large enough now to pose a real existential threat to our sovereignty. It is all a part of their plan to get in power and stay there.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Noble Member
Dr. Strangelove

Avatarphilliesthoughts I believe that someone (ACLU?) sued to keep it off.

Lillie Belle
Member
Noble Member
Lillie Belle

Avatarphilliesthoughts There is a difference between US Citizens, legal residents, and illegal invaders. The question is to determine the legal voters. The Dems and radical left want all bodies counted for their agenda and game plan.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Noble Member
Dr. Strangelove

Lillie BelleLillie Belle Exactly! More bodies, more red state representation.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices … The court has a 5-4 conservative majority, and conservative justices signaled support toward the administration’s stance.

And that is how you undermine SCOTUS. (“Liberal/Progressive” does the same thing.)

Which is why it’s not really a Supreme Court anymore. It’s an oligarchy that controls the Constitution.

Covfefe
Member
Active Member
Covfefe

…no, not really.

I get you’re upset that the SCOTUS has been completely politicized and turned into the law-making battlefield that Congress is supposed to be, but the labels are accurate. There are conservative Justices and liberal Justices, there’s nothing wrong with calling them such.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

There should only be impartial Constitutional justices. Having a social/political slant that influences your decisions kind of defies the point. They’re supposed to be above such considerations, at least when interpreting the Constitution.

Agesilaos
Member
Active Member
Agesilaos

The court has a 5-4 conservative majority

well… this is a bit of a stretch.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Noble Member
Dr. Strangelove

Kinda, yeah.

New West
Member
Trusted Member
New West

It’s what happens when we have a congress who for years have ignored or skirted the laws we / they have in place. Had they enforced the law, this would not be a topic….

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Noble Member
Dr. Strangelove

I’m not going to hold my breath.

nc checks and balances
Member
Noble Member
nc checks and balances

I’m sticking in my no-speculation (but always hopeful) zone.

EWizzyEJDSon
Member
Noble Member
EWizzyEJDSon

I’ll get excited if the result ends up being in favor of America.

GhostRider2001
Member
Trusted Member
GhostRider2001

Maybe common sense and the law will prevail over political correctness and Trump Derangement Syndrome for once in the Judiciary.

AL
Member
Member
AL

Let’s see how the Progressive/Communist undermine the ruling. Eric Holder probably has a game plan ready.

Back to Top of Comments