web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "question"

Joe Biden: There are at least three genders

Westlake Legal Group b-5 Joe Biden: There are at least three genders TPUSA three The Blog reporters question marriage LGBTQ Joe Biden Iowa grab genders arm

I confess that I can’t hear the question being asked amid the din of the crowd, although Biden’s answer is clear enough. But in any event, it’s a question that *should* be asked at one of the upcoming debates.

Put the candidates on record: How many genders are there?

“How many genders are there?” is more salient to Democratic politics in 2019 than bans on contraception were to Republicans in 2012, when Mitt Romney was (in)famously asked by George Stephanopoulos at a primary debate whether he believed states should have the power to impose such bans. That was a reference to the fact that Rick Santorum had criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, arguing that there’s no express right of privacy in the Constitution that should bar states from banning condoms. But even Santorum didn’t support bans on the merits and in any case it wasn’t Santorum who was being asked. It was Romney, seemingly out of the blue. “Contraception, it’s working just fine, just leave it alone,” Romney ended up saying, understandably baffled that Stephanopoulos would raise the issue on a big stage given that no one within the GOP of any prominence was pushing for a ban. Righties suspected that the question was a plant, concocted by the former Democratic operative Stephanopoulos to make Republicans seems suspicious on the issue to viewers watching at home. “Wait, do Republicans want to ban contraception now? They must, or else George wouldn’t be asking about it!”

That’s a long way of saying that the media is perfectly equipped and willing to ask questions of a presidential field on sex and health even when it might make them uncomfortable. And unlike contraception bans within the 2012 GOP, the question of how many genders there are actually is a matter of dispute within the Democratic Party circa 2019. Older, more traditional, working-class Dems — Biden voters, essentially — would likely seem puzzled by the question and say, “Two, of course.” Progressive answers would be more nuanced, aimed at reassuring trans activists that they believe gender is more fluid. So why not get everyone on record? Let the centrists in the field try to convince the left that gender is a binary thing. (Would any Democratic candidate, even the ostentatiously moderate Michael Bennet, dare try?) And let each of the candidates, starting with blue-collar Grandpa Joe, try to explain to Biden’s base of black voters and white geriatrics why they’re wrong to think of gender in terms of “men” and “women.” Let’s see how moderate Democrats and swing voters do digesting progressive cant that there are actually six genders or whatever.

I mean, do you think a guy prone to stumbles like this, never mind the “poor kid/white kid” flub last night, would handle that subject smoothly if called on to discuss it?

Precisely because we all have a decent idea of how the gender debate will be received by casual voters, it’s unlikely that our fair and balanced press will push Democrats on it. Which is why college students mingling with the candidates at events in Iowa will have to do it.

By the way, Biden’s comment at the end about being first on marriage — which seemed to confuse his questioner — is a reference to his support for gay marriage. He actually did endorse that policy as VP before Obama did, which helped nudge Obama into finally taking the plunge.

The post Joe Biden: There are at least three genders appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group b-5-300x159 Joe Biden: There are at least three genders TPUSA three The Blog reporters question marriage LGBTQ Joe Biden Iowa grab genders arm   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Breaking: Trump to give up on including citizenship question in census?

Westlake Legal Group t-2 Breaking: Trump to give up on including citizenship question in census? Trump The Blog survey Supreme Court redistricting question immigration illegal Citizenship census

Man, this is unexpected. As of a few hours ago, it looked like he was about to pull the trigger on executive action that would force the question onto the census whether the Supreme Court liked it or not. Then it would have been up to SCOTUS to either give in or try to stop him. If it gave in, it would be a huge blow to the Court’s prestige, an unhappy outcome for John Roberts.

But if it tried to stop him, we’d be facing a constitutional crisis.

The stars seemed to have aligned, then. Trump was set to show his fans that he fights! by issuing the order, on a day when he has hardcore Trumpers surrounding him for the White House’s social media summit. Now here comes ABC to say that the plan’s been scrapped. Trump’s going to let the census go out without the citizenship question and have the feds figure out another way to survey the public about citizenship.

President Donald Trump is expected to announce later Thursday he is backing down from his effort to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census, and will instead take executive action that instructs the Commerce Department to survey the American public on the question through other means, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

The expected announcement will bring to a close weeks of escalating confusion within the government over his demands that the controversial question be included despite a Supreme Court order that had blocked the move. The White House declined to comment about what exactly the president plans to announce.

As recently as Thursday morning, administration officials had been repeatedly suggested the president would take executive action calling for the question be added to the census. It was not immediately clear when and why the final decision was made not to move forward with that plan.

When they say that Commerce will “survey the American public on the [citizenship] question through other means,” do they mean through an entirely separate survey? Or do they mean that Commerce will go ahead and print the census without the citizenship question but also print a supplemental page on citizenship to be included in the census if the court battle goes forward and Trump wins? That’s what Trump himself had suggested might happen, per Ed’s post this afternoon. A lot depends on the answer. It’s the census itself that matters for districting purposes; if the plan here is to exclude illegals from the count in order to shift legislative power away from immigrant-heavy blue districts then the citizenship question has to be in the census, not in a separate survey. I’m not sure what purpose the separate survey would serve except as an academic look into the size of the total illegal population.

Maybe the “separate survey” isn’t separate after all but just a supplement to the census itself. Or maybe Trump thinks the separate survey could be tacked onto the census retroactively with court approval. He’s going to speak at 3:45 ET and clear this up.

Assuming he really is planning to throw in the towel on adding citizenship to the census, why the sudden cave? I’ll give you three theories.

1. It’s just too late. The deadline for settling the citizenship issue and getting the census to the printers was supposedly June 30. Supposedly printing has already begun on a version without the citizenship question. Maybe Wilbur Ross huddled with his deputies and let Trump know that it’s not logistically feasible to change course at this point, especially with more litigation ahead.

2. The DOJ was set to revolt. POTUS’s lawyers at the Justice Department have made a giant mess of this matter because the administration can’t get its story straight about why they want the citizenship question included. Is it to enforce the Voting Rights Act? To locate illegals for deportation? To redistrict the House to exclude illegals from the count? It was such a hash that maybe the White House concluded the legal case was unwinnable at this point and that if Trump tried to include the question anyway the Supreme Court would shut him down and humiliate him.

3. Trump already won, sort of. If the idea is to exclude illegal immigrants from the count, it’s a cinch that some immigrants will be so nervous about answering the census after all the media attention to this matter that they’ll end up throwing it in the trash when they get it. That is, blue districts are destined to underreport precisely because the legal battle here will have convinced some not to take a risk by sending their census questionnaire in. Maybe Trump considered that enough of a victory that he could afford to let the dispute quietly drop.

He’s speaking in exactly one hour. Stay tuned.

The post Breaking: Trump to give up on including citizenship question in census? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group t-2-300x153 Breaking: Trump to give up on including citizenship question in census? Trump The Blog survey Supreme Court redistricting question immigration illegal Citizenship census   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

“Patently deficient”: Federal judge blocks DOJ lawyers from withdrawing from case involving census citizenship question

Westlake Legal Group dt-1 “Patently deficient”: Federal judge blocks DOJ lawyers from withdrawing from case involving census citizenship question withdraw Trump The Blog question Justice furman doj department counsel Citizenship census

How much of a mess has the White House made of this census dispute? So much that the Justice Department lawyers who’ve been handling the case for months are now trying to walk away from it en masse…

…and the courts won’t let them. It’s a federal judge who’s insisting for the moment that Trump’s A-team at the DOJ remain on the job, arguing his side.

At least until they give him a good reason why they shouldn’t. Can they? From today’s order denying the lawyers’ motion to withdraw:

Westlake Legal Group c-1 “Patently deficient”: Federal judge blocks DOJ lawyers from withdrawing from case involving census citizenship question withdraw Trump The Blog question Justice furman doj department counsel Citizenship census

Let’s back up. The DOJ initially convinced SCOTUS to take up the question of whether a citizenship question could be placed on the census in part by noting that time was of the essence. The census, supposedly, had to be at the printers by June 30. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and issued its verdict two weeks ago: Although the executive has power to add questions to the census, wrote John Roberts, it’s … pretty obvious that they’ve been lying about why they want the citizenship question added to it. The public needs clarity on that and the administration’s stated reasoning, that they need citizenship info to enforce the Voting Rights Act, simply isn’t supported by the evidence.

So the White House was thwarted unless and until it could provide a more credible explanation for wanting the citizenship question included — but since the deadline for printing the census was almost here, it seemed like there’d be no time to reconsider the matter. And so, inevitably, the DOJ announced on July 2 that the citizenship question would be dropped. Then Trump got to talking to his friends, who urged him to fight on, and he declared the next day — in a tweet — that the question wouldn’t be dropped after all, that the DOJ would fight on. And what about the June 30 deadline? Well, maybe the deadline wasn’t such a hard and fast deadline after all. Even though believing that it was helped convince SCOTUS to hear this appeal.

A federal judge in Maryland held a phone conference with the DOJ’s lawyers on July 3, after Trump’s tweet, to try to get a straight answer as to whether they were dropping the case or fighting on. The lawyers seemed as confused as the judge by the state of play:

Westlake Legal Group 1-1 “Patently deficient”: Federal judge blocks DOJ lawyers from withdrawing from case involving census citizenship question withdraw Trump The Blog question Justice furman doj department counsel Citizenship census   Westlake Legal Group 2-1 “Patently deficient”: Federal judge blocks DOJ lawyers from withdrawing from case involving census citizenship question withdraw Trump The Blog question Justice furman doj department counsel Citizenship census

All they had was a tweet. “This is a very fluid situation,” said Gardner later in the call, with no small amount of understatement. A source told the WSJ that “Nobody has any f***ing idea” what Trump wanted them to do.

Then came the next newsflash this past Sunday: The entire team of DOJ lawyers working on this case was planning to withdraw from it, a move which the NYT described as “all but unprecedented in legal battles.” Even stranger, the DOJ offered no explanation for the change. They didn’t offer one to the court either, per today’s order. You can’t just walk away without a good reason, said the judge, especially when you’ve spent months insisting that there’s a deadline here and time is of the essence in resolving the matter.

Why would the entire “federal programs” seek to drop the case like a hot potato? Maybe, said the Times, it’s because they feel the administration’s told so many lies — about its reasoning for wanting the question on the census, about the supposedly hard-and-fast deadline for the census, etc — that it’d be unethical for them to continue. That is, maybe they believe there’s no way to go forward here without either lying to the court or admitting that previous representations to the court were lies.

[The motion to withdraw] strongly suggested that the department’s career lawyers had decided to quit a case that at the least seemed to lack a legal basis, and at most left them defending statements that could well turn out to be untrue.

“There is no reason they would be taken off that case unless they saw what was coming down the road and said, ‘I won’t sign my name to that,’” Justin Levitt, a former senior official in the Justice Department under President Barack Obama, said on Sunday…

Lawyers who had been working on the case apparently concluded that they faced three problems. They had told the Supreme Court that they were up against a strict deadline of June 30 for printing the census forms, and there were difficulties in finding a new justification for the question that would not seem invented out of whole cloth. They may have also concluded that there was no way to move speedily enough to restore the question in any event, given that constitutional and statutory frameworks seem to require a lengthy administrative process before new questions may be added to the census.

If they objected to continuing on with the case due to ethical reasons, it makes sense that they wouldn’t want to state that in their motion to withdraw and risk embarrassing Trump and the department. But the federal judge who issued today’s order has called their bluff. Either they have to get back to work or they have to openly admit their ethical misgivings about what they’re being asked to do, which will be an unholy PR clusterfark for the White House and the DOJ. What are they going to do?

To give you a sense of just how messy this has gotten, read this story about the many times federal officials have contradicted their own stated reasoning for wanting to add the citizenship question to the census. Remember, it’s supposed to be about the Voting Rights Act, but figures like Ken Cuccinelli have admitted at times that the information might be used in immigration enforcement. And Trump himself admitted just a few days ago that it might be used for redistricting, perhaps to try to exclude illegals from the count in apportioning House districts. My takeaway from John Roberts’s opinion in the SCOTUS ruling was that he was straining for ways to give Trump the green light to do this but, as a matter of basic judicial integrity, couldn’t allow the administration to lie baldfaced to the Court about what its motives were. Now you have the president all but confessing that the Voting Rights Act rationale wasn’t the real reason for asking about citizenship on the census. If this case comes back to SCOTUS, Roberts may feel obliged to rule against Trump purely because it would embarrass the Court at this point to reward the administration with a win after lying so brazenly.

Trump may “win” anyway, though, if not in court than by making enough of a fuss about this that some illegals will refuse to answer the census questionnaire, leading to an undercount of the population in blue districts with large illegal populations. He might still win in court too, with POTUS reportedly considering an executive order to include the question on the census and begin printing. Again, though, that would operate as a sort of middle finger to SCOTUS, ignoring Roberts’s demand for a clearer rationale for including the question and ordering the government to proceed with it anyway on Trump’s say-so. If SCOTUS tries to stop him, then we’re in constitutional crisis territory. But first, we wait to see what the DOJ will do about today’s “get back to work” order.

The post “Patently deficient”: Federal judge blocks DOJ lawyers from withdrawing from case involving census citizenship question appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group dt-1-300x153 “Patently deficient”: Federal judge blocks DOJ lawyers from withdrawing from case involving census citizenship question withdraw Trump The Blog question Justice furman doj department counsel Citizenship census   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Citizenship question more popular than the media would lead you to believe

Westlake Legal Group caravan-border Citizenship question more popular than the media would lead you to believe The Blog question Citizenship census bureau census

Putting the citizenship question on the census is a Republican plot to steal the next election. It’s designed to suppress funding for low-income communities. It’s just racist. Take your pick of which of these typical headlines you like. To read most of the coverage in major newspapers or on the usual cable news shows, adding the citizenship question is an evil concept that all morally upright citizens should reject. But if that’s the case, why are so many people in favor of it? As it turns out, a majority of voters favor it and not even a third oppose it. (Washington Examiner)

Americans by a wide margin agree with President Trump that the upcoming 2020 census should ask a citizenship question.

The latest Economist/YouGov poll found that 53% feel it should ask the question versus 32% who don’t.

The survey asked: “Do you think the federal government should or should not ask people whether they are American citizens as part of the 2020 census?”

The Supreme Court has rejected including the question in a form the administration proposed but left the door open to another version. And Trump is considering changing the version.

The Yes/No/Not Sure count breaks down at 53/32/14. That’s really not even close, and even if all of the “unsure” voters swung to a negative answer they’d still be in the minority.

The Supreme Court rejected the question in its current form and also didn’t care for the reason it was being asked, but they did leave open the possibility of accepting it if it was restructured a bit and different reasoning was provided. As I noted previously, it seems a bit late for that now unless we really want to drive up the cost of printing and distributing the census forms, but the President may still take another run at it.

But that’s not the big issue here, at least as I’m reading the situation. Democrats are almost universal in very publicly opposing the addition of the citizenship question to the census and slamming the President and anyone who agrees with him over it. And yet again, they’re coming up on the wrong side of the issue when it comes to the feelings of the public. Every one of them who goes on record in this fashion is basically just feeding ammunition to the GOP for next year’s elections.

How many of these issues do they need to hang around their own necks before they go underwater? The public is solidly opposed to infanticide and late-term abortion. A clear majority are still opposed to gun bans. While voters do show significant support for some tenuous form of public health plans, they broadly oppose getting rid of private health insurance. Free health care for illegal immigrants is not at all popular.

The Democrats are building their 2020 platform out of a collection of planks that the public is rejecting. Pretty much the only thing they can agree on among themselves is that the Orange Man is Bad and needs to be removed. But in terms of policies, they appear to be driving themselves into a ditch. I find it remarkable that they’re doing as well as they are in recent polling because they’re pushing a lot of ideas that voters simply do not support.

The post Citizenship question more popular than the media would lead you to believe appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group caravan-border-300x159 Citizenship question more popular than the media would lead you to believe The Blog question Citizenship census bureau census   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Census question case in Maryland moving ahead

Westlake Legal Group CensusForm Census question case in Maryland moving ahead The Blog SCOTUS question Citizenship census bureau census

I bet some of you thought this issue was already dead and buried, but it’s apparently not. Despite the Supreme Court kicking the challenge to having the citizenship question on all census forms next year back for clarification, the case challenging it in Maryland is moving forward. Had the White House abandoned the effort after the Supreme Court ruling, this case likely would have been abandoned. But since the President is still weighing several options to prevail, onward we go. The focus of this case, however, has less to do with whether we should include the question and more to do with why the administration wanted it added in the first place. (NPR)

A federal judge in Maryland is moving forward with a case that claims the Trump administration intended to discriminate against immigrant communities of color by adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

U.S. District Judge George Hazel ordered proceedings to continue after lawyers with the Justice Department confirmed in a court filing Friday that they are still exploring possible ways to add the question — “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” — to the census form. On Wednesday, President Trump indicated that he wants to find a way to do that would be acceptable to the Supreme Court…

Judge Hazel’s order means that as the Trump administration prolongs the legal fight to add a citizenship question, more evidence may be revealed in court about how and exactly why the administration tried to include a citizenship question on the census.

Just from the standpoint of pure logistics, it seems as if we’re beating a dead horse here. We’ve already missed the deadline to begin printing the forms and the order was sent over on Monday to start printing. (It now sounds as if that was delayed again, however.) It’s not that we can’t finish printing them on time with a late start, but every delay drives up the total cost. Of course, when you find a politician from either party who actually gives a hoot about the deficit, let me know.

The bizarre ruling from Chief Justice John Roberts leaves me wondering if there’s any use in batting this question around any longer. After all, the courts aren’t saying you can’t ask the citizenship question. They’re asking the administration to justify why they want the question asked, presumably thinking it would be fine as long as they come up with an acceptable answer.

Stranger still was the portion of the ruling that openly acknowledged the fact that the citizenship question has been asked of tens of millions of respondents on one form or another nearly every decade since before most of the people debating this issue were born. So has every previous census been invalid? Obviously not. This wouldn’t even be an issue if it wasn’t the Bad Orange Man making the request.

But just to be fair to the detractors, we’ve also run the census repeatedly where literally hundreds of millions of people weren’t asked the question and I haven’t noticed any impediments to enforcing the Voting Rights Act being discussed up until now. This would be good information to have and I supported the administration’s efforts to add it, but at the end of the day, we have to obey the Constitution and get on with taking the census. We’ve done this enough times by now that we know how long it takes to get all the forms printed and distributed on time. Sometimes you have to know when you’ve reached the point where it’s better to live to fight another day.

The post Census question case in Maryland moving ahead appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group CensusForm-300x159 Census question case in Maryland moving ahead The Blog SCOTUS question Citizenship census bureau census Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Let’s finish the debate over the citizenship question on the census

Westlake Legal Group lets-finish-the-debate-over-the-citizenship-question-on-the-census Let’s finish the debate over the citizenship question on the census The Blog Supreme Court question decision Citizenship census

Westlake Legal Group CensusForm Let’s finish the debate over the citizenship question on the census The Blog Supreme Court question decision Citizenship census

Earlier this month, we learned that yet another judge had blocked plans to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. We also found out at the same time that the Supreme Court was going to entertain the question quickly and deliver a ruling, likely at the end of this session in June. At the time, I pointed out some of the problems with arguments against including the question, particularly the fact that it’s been asked of tens of millions of Americans every ten years since before most of you were born.

This week the Supremes heard oral arguments in the case and the general consensus seems to be that we’re heading for yet another 5-4 split. The conservative justices on the court sounded very much as if they were going to allow it while the liberals were opposed to it. At Outside the Beltway, Doug Mataconis offers details from both sides of the debate but doesn’t exactly answer the real, underlying questions. First, is a citizenship question constitutional? And if it is, what rationale is there for stopping the government from asking? First, he addresses the constitutional question.

As I have noted before, as a matter of policy there appear to be very few good reasons to put a question regarding citizenship on the census and several reasons for keep keeping it off altogether.

The first argument. of course, is that citizenship has nothing to do with the purpose of the Census itself, which is to count all of the people in the United States and to apportion those people among the states for the purposes of Congressional redistricting. This is established in Article I, Section Two, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which provides for a count of all of the people in the United States, and their apportionment among the states, without regard to whether these people are citizens or legal or illegal residents.

I find this argument less than persuasive for a couple of reasons. It’s true that Article I of the Constitution mentions the census as the source of data to be used in apportioning representatives. (That’s about the only place it’s mentioned, except in the Sixteenth Amendment.) But the Founders didn’t include any instructions about that being the only use for the census. If they had, we wouldn’t be having this debate.

But let’s just assume that we can infer that it’s the sole reason. If your argument, as Doug mentions, is that the census should be limited to a single question about the number of people at each address, then fine. I’ll go along with that. It will save everyone some time. Two people in my house. Done and done. But then why aren’t we screaming about getting rid of the other questions on the short form. (Read them here.) What business is it of the federal government to know whether you rent or own, how old you are, what gender you are, your race or whether or not you’re Hispanic? If all we’re doing is counting bodies to determine congressional representation, shouldn’t all of those questions be “bad” by definition? The information could obviously be abused.

But nobody screams about those questions because the data is useful for all sorts of studies having nothing to do with how many congressmen your state sends to Washington. If you don’t ban those other questions, there’s not much of an argument for banning the citizenship question for constitutional reasons.

Next, Doug gets to the more political question that eats up so much of the news cycle. Would asking the question lead to lower participation?

Specifically, they have argued that asking about citizenship on the census questionnaire is likely to lead Latino families especially to decline to participate in the Census or answer the questions of a Census Taker that may come to their door out of fear that such information will be used against them or members of their family even though Federal Law provides that the answers to Census questions from specific households must remain confidential for at least 70 years. These fears were almost immediately seemingly confirmed when it was announced in the wake of the decision to put the citizenship question on the ballot that it had plans to “cross check” the responses to the citizenship question with data from other agencies.

What this aspect of the issue boils down to is a fear that illegal immigrants (and potentially their legal family members) may not return the forms for fear of being detected, detained and deported. What we’re really talking about is creating policy based on the suspicion that a person who is in the process of breaking one law (being in the country illegally) may then break another law (filling out and returning the form is mandatory under the law) by throwing out their census form. Is this seriously how we’re going to be making policy now? On the basis of not wanting to offend criminals?

Perhaps we should consider asking everyone if they’ve ever used opioid drugs. It could be incredibly useful data to collect as the nation struggles with an epidemic of addiction. But wait… then people might not complete the form because they fear they might be exposed as having purchased drugs illegally. The entire concept is madness.

The last point I’ll make in terms of Doug’s argument is that it ignores the 800-pound gorilla on the debate stage. Let’s assume that asking the citizenship question is “a bad thing” and it shouldn’t be allowed. As I pointed out in the previous article, with the exception of 1960, we’ve been asking the citizenship question to as many as fifty million people every time we do the census. (And yes, that includes 2010 because we swapped out the long form for the American Community Survey that year and it included the citizenship question.) The odds that none of the households receiving those forms included illegal aliens is effectively zero. So why aren’t we in court battling to eliminate the long form and/or the American Community Survey? Those forms ask far more intrusive questions of all sorts, including the citizenship question.

I’ll tell you why. Because nobody cared about it until a change was requested by the administration of the Bad Orange Man. But since he was the one making the latest change, it had to be #RESISTED. This isn’t a question of constitutionality or even accuracy in the census. It’s just more politics.

The post Let’s finish the debate over the citizenship question on the census appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group CensusForm-300x159 Let’s finish the debate over the citizenship question on the census The Blog Supreme Court question decision Citizenship census   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Another judge blocks citizenship question on census

Westlake Legal Group another-judge-blocks-citizenship-question-on-census Another judge blocks citizenship question on census The Blog question Citizenship census

Westlake Legal Group CensusForm Another judge blocks citizenship question on census The Blog question Citizenship census

Lest we forget, 2020 isn’t just a presidential election year. It’s also time once again for the decennial census. And one of the hot button issues surrounding this tedious chore is whether or not the government will be asking questions about everyone’s citizenship status on the standard census form instead of just on the long forms like they usually do. The White House says yes, but opponents of the idea have been going to court trying to block the action. They’ve succeeded twice already, and now another judge in Maryland is also issuing an injunction. (Baltimore Sun)

A third federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census, ruling Friday that it poses a “substantial risk” of undercounting Hispanics and non-citizens.

U.S. District Judge George Hazel in Maryland also concluded that a citizenship question is “arbitrary and capricious” and violates the Constitution and the federal Administrative Procedure Act.

Federal judges in New York and California previously barred the Trump administration from adding a citizenship question to the census for the first time since 1950. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments April 23 for the Justice Department ‘s appeal of the New York judge’s decision.

So the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case in two weeks. When would we get a decision from them? They’ll need to move more quickly than usual because we’ve got to start printing the forms at some point. (It takes a while to crank out more than 350 million copies of anything and distribute them around the country.) Turning the census form into a stalking horse for Democrats is probably smart liberal politics, but if we have any judges left who are thinking clearly, these attempts to ban the question may go down in flames.

It’s worth reminding everyone saying this is unusual and “not something we do” of the facts. (NPR published a decent fact check of the question last year.) Has the citizenship question been asked on every census form we send out throughout modern history? No. We stopped asking the citizenship question on the short form after 1950. Does that mean we don’t ask it? Nope. Since 1970, the long form has asked specifically about citizenship status. The long form goes to roughly 1 in 6 households. So out of 350 million people, more than 50 million were going to be asked anyway.

The confusion over the long form not asking it in 2010 is also easily clarified. There was no long form in 2010. It was replaced with the American Community Survey that year. And yes, the American Community Survey asks the citizenship status of each recipient. So, with the exception of 1960, we’ve been asking tens of millions of citizens about their citizenship for a very long time. Were all of those surveys inaccurate? Were they all unconstitutional? If your answer to those questions is yes, you’ve got one hell of a cleanup waiting for you in aisle three.

The post Another judge blocks citizenship question on census appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group CensusForm-300x159 Another judge blocks citizenship question on census The Blog question Citizenship census   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com