If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
The citizenship question case, though, is largely for show (IMO). I don't buy into the notion that the question will sharply reduce responses. I think that's mostly worst-case scenario faux injury shit that you need to bring the lawsuit.
The gerrymandering case is the big one.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
That sounds like a pretty fantastic drive. Only been to Seattle and that western part of Montana, but not on the same trip.
The drive across Washington is wonderful in part because it looks like so many other places as you go inland. You get the typical Pac NW scenery and then you get bits of so many other western landscapes. One day I'd like to do US2 all the way across.
Yeah, I mean the district court is going to set a schedule. The government will have to submit further evidence for its explanation (in this 'unusual' case). And the District Court will rule against them because it's in NY. The 2nd Circuit will affirm. The Supreme Court -- eh -- hard to tell. But, it's very hard to imagine it working through that process so quickly.
The lesson here is that we can obviously ask citizenship questions. OBVIOUSLY. However, you need to paper it up the justification. As with any contentious agency decision. If, by some small miracle, the Rs have the White House in 2030, the question will be on the census because they'll know how to do it.
Well, I mean -- if I read the opinion correctly, it's being remanded for the District Court for a determination of pretext and, I would imagine, they'd have a chance to submit additional evidence. But, as you note, they probably already submitted what they had.
But, I confess -- it's not clear to me -- I hate remands for proceedings "consistent with this opinion".
It's a very odd situation -- you have a completely justifiable action -- substantially justifiable -- that may be improper if the motive was wrong.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
The citizenship question case, though, is largely for show (IMO). I don't buy into the notion that the question will sharply reduce responses. I think that's mostly worst-case scenario faux injury shit that you need to bring the lawsuit.
The census result seems fair to me. If you had a valid and honestly explained reason for such an action, sure. I take the "originalist" postion. Gender, age, place of birth. In 1850 the census questions were expanded slightly and in 1860 individual notations (instead of household totals) and occupation was added. That's all you need to meet the Constitutional requirements. Everything added since then is little more than mission creep. Glad Roberts publicly recognized the administration's penchant for fantasy and outright lying.
Its hard to argue with the gerrymandering decision. Leaving that question to the states is probably the correct thing to do, but partisanship is so toxic and prevalent in the states, that self remedy is hardly likely. The court seems to say, yeah, gerrymandering is horribly bad, but states you're on your own to fix it. I'd like to see the effect of citizen boards like what is proposed in Michigan has.
“Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx
To be clear, it may actually change response rates, just not meaningfully. Also to be clear -- I view the entire exercise as a political sop by PDJT. This was a red meat, easy to describe issue that he had authority to implement. And he did it. I don't think PDJT cares one lick about efficacy. It was all political like virtually everything else he does.
We differ. That's fine.
Yeah, I'm a little surprised. TBH, I'm also a little surprised the left justices didn't join the entire thing. They couldn't bring themselves to say that it's a proper question. I could see the Wise Latina going that path and Ginsburg, but I would have thought Kagan and Breyer could have at least acknowledged that much.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
Its hard to argue with the gerrymandering decision. Leaving that question to the states is probably the correct thing to do, but partisanship is so toxic and prevalent in the states, that self remedy is hardly likely. The court seems to say, yeah, gerrymandering is horribly bad, but states you're on your own to fix it. I'd like to see the effect of citizen boards like what is proposed in Michigan has.
The other point of emphasis is that Congress can "fix" this. You can work state-by-state, but Congress can also pass laws concerning apportionment and redistricting. The most ill-suited body -- by far -- to resolve this issue is the Court. This is fundamentally a policy issue -- a political question issue. How much is too much?
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
Tweet
Comment