Trump considering executive order to add Census citizenship question

Well, it wouldn't be the SC doing it. These cases are still percolating in the lower level courts, so they would likely be the ones to issue injunctions/contempt/etc. In this case, it's a district court, I believe, that has currently blocked the question and who the Justice Dept is dealing with.

 

The population still gets counted, we just know who is who. The question existed until 2010 when it was not part of the census.

I think the real issue is that seats in the house & electoral votes are allocated by population. I don’t think we should allocate seats to the house or electoral votes based on a population figure that includes guests to this country.

 

What law would he be breaking?

 

That pesky Constitution says to count all people to do exactly that. Doesn’t say the word “citizen” at all when discussing who should be counted for representation.

 

Yea . What law did the supreme court say adding the question to the census would break?

 

The judicial branch's job is to interpret the law....

 

It won't get counted if people don't get counted. You have a good point about how districts are redrawn.

More of a reason to just do amnesty and get it over with. Maybe we won't get duped by being overly "business friendly" this time.

 

How about you just read what they wrote and see for yourself?

 

I have.

 

And what did it say?

 

My favorite part

'For the first time ever, the Court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale'

 

Is it illegal to defy a court order? Millions of future criminals, lawyers, etc. want to know.

 

Yes, because most administrations don't do such stupid things.

The Administrative Procedures Act (given how they did it and the lack of legitimate rationale).

 

Robert did not argue this. He argued he didnt think the reason given was actually the intent.

 

"But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably. Reasoned deci-sionmaking under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction."

They did not provide a valid explanation for agency action, thus violating the APA.

 

Why not finish quoting him?

“genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public,”

“Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise. If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case.”

Robert's didnt say they didnt give good enough reasons (which is what the law required). He says they are 'contrived' .