[The Hill] The Supreme Court found Thursday that the Trump administration did not give an adequate reason for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census, blocking the question for at least the time being.
The move is a surprise win for advocates who opposed the question's addition, arguing it will lead to an inaccurate population count. The administration had argued the question was needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA). "Surprise" to some possibly.
Those challenging the question said that asking about citizenship would cause non-citizens or immigrants to skip the question. The Trump administration has maintained in court filings that the data would not be accessible to other parts of the federal government, like immigration officials, but opponents argued that the implied perception surrounding asking about citizenship is enough to cause minority groups to not answer the question, or skip out on the census altogether. Even though three pickup trucks and 4 Honda's are parked there, no one responded from 121 Woodland Place? Send in ICE to investigate.
The justices sent the issue back to the Commerce Department to provide another explanation.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the court's liberal wing in delivering the court's opinion.
Roberts wrote that "the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of DOJ's [the Department of Justice's] request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the VRA."
"Several points, considered together, reveal a significant mismatch between the decision [Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross] made and the rationale he provided."
#1
Roberts wrote that "the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of DOJ's [the Department of Justice's] request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the VRA."
No one else has a clue, perhaps Justice Roberts could tell us (just off the top of his head) how many non-citizens are residing in the US.
Dispense with the law, red tape and bureaucratic formalities. California and Illinois are hemorrhaging democratic voters. New faces are desperately needed.
#2
More concerned about the legacy of the Roberts Court than the Constitution or the fate of our nation. Conservatives have tried to be “balanced “ and the progs have eroded the core principles of our nation for decades. There is an existential threat to America and it’s the Democrat Party and it’s minions. The question, to use a line from the Untouchables, is what are you prepared to do?
#3
Yes. It's a dangerous time for America. And if America is to come out of it at all, somebody will have to up the dangerous, before things get better again.
#4
Roberts needs to be sent to Gitmo and from there to some nice black site where he can enjoy the fruits of his betrayal of the Constitution. Personally I vote for the boats.
#6
The justices sent the issue back to the Commerce Department to provide another explanation.
So now the commerce secretary will present a more acceptable justification, and continue doing so until the supreme court finds the latest justification acceptable. And in the meantime and afterward, President Trump will continue appointing Constitution-oriented conservative judges at all levels, so that going forward fewer of these kinds of cases will head toward the Supreme Court.
#7
Roberts is a "conservative" in the same vein as the eGOP. Globalist, elitist, believing the government has the right to control as much of your life as possible.
The only thing that separates the eGOP from the left is the eGOP believes you should have some private property and enjoy some of the fruits of your labor.
Once this is understood Robert's decisions make perfect sense.
#8
Roberts does fit the mold of Deep State Republican nominee. Better than some, worse than others. Fills a necessary niche in the Court but I wish he was not the Chief Justice. Gorsuch looks like a reasonable replacement of Scalia, Kavenaugh an improvement on Kennedy, and Roberts fairly similar to Rehnquist. Overall the Court seems to be pretty much the same politically as it has been for 30 years. That will change depending on who gets to replace Ginsburg, Thomas and Alito - actuarially the next in line.
#9
President Trump will continue appointing Constitution-oriented conservative judges at all levels, so that going forward fewer of these kinds of cases will head toward the Supreme Court.
Assuming a bunch of them don't also turn into Roberts.
#11
Liberal city leaders announce daily their disregard of federal law on immigration. Now is the time for conservatives to disregard the census participation law. Answer as you see fit; lie about number of bathrooms, include your pets as people (non citizen people), lie about education, income, race....
[PJ] In the first 2020 Democratic presidential debate, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) slammed his party for being out of touch with Midwesterners and working people.
"We have a perception problem in the Democrat Party," Ryan admitted. "We have got to change the center of gravity from being coastal, elitist and Ivy League to a party that is on the side of workers. If we don't focus on workers, none of this change will happen."
He insisted that Democrats will not win unless they "address that fundamental problem."
Ryan is correct, but that "perception problem" is rooted in the Democratic Party's increasing radicalism on issues such as abortion, climate change, intersectionality, and more.
Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election arguably for this exact reason, and Democrats are not fixing it.
#5
"We have got to change the center of gravity from being coastal, elitist and Ivy League to a party that is on the side of workers.
Bingo. However, it’s not just about being on the side of the workers. That sounds so Communist. By saying that, you need be on the side of the workers, already sets up a schism between the Donks and others (in this case the workers). Ryan does not acknowledge or define the ongoing, wider cultural war that sets apart the coastal elites from others. He does not acknowledge that in the quest for diversity and identity politics, the Dems have created a monster.
#6
The Dems mental condition prevents them from seeing that they constantly insult people like programmers, accounting people, legal clerks, etc. by implying that they don't work.
The idea that work only counts when it's nasty, dirty blue collar work is just so Mid 1800s Marx and those white collar churls are oppressors.
[DAWN] TORTURE by law-enforcement agencies is so endemic it is often accepted as ’police culture’. We only have to look at the overwhelming news reports and academic research for proof. And the reason it is so endemic is that there is little to no penalty or accountability against LEAs, and hence no effort to change this culture.
Today is International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. But Pak victims have little hope of receiving any form of support from the judiciary, executive or legislation.
The case of Sajid Masih is a telling ‐ and appalling ‐ example of broken governance. Sajid’s cousin was accused of blasphemy ...the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, or sacred objects, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable. Some religions consider it to be a crime. In Pakistain you can commit blasphemy by looking cross-eyed at a Koran... , due to which he was also roped in. They were both arrested and interrogated by FIA officials, during which they were reportedly beaten and abused. By his account, Sajid was allegedly ordered to rape his cousin. He refused. The officials shouted at him to do as he was told. He couldn’t, and jumped out of a fourth-floor window to escape the humiliation. The fall could have killed him. But he survived, albeit with multiple injuries, to tell his harrowing story.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/27/2019 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[336092 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
So the problem is the laws in Pak, not torture itself. Blasphemy is not a 21st century crime, for example. Nor is a clueless cleric's opinion considered expert witness in modern courts. But that's the 'Stain for you.
Torture is the fastest, easiest way to get shit done, period. It's also reforming and educational. The only question for morality is , who's allowed to do it and for what.
#2
The problem is that so often torture is applied by the ethically impaired to those not guilty of the crime of which they are accused, resulting in faulty information and false confessions just to make the pain stop. OldSpook used to talk about tryptophan deprivation, although that takes longer. Somewhere around 2010 in the archives, I think.
#3
Tryptophan deprivation. Probably to deny production of serotonin. Induce hunger and anxiety ? But it should also lead to bouts of intense rage and impairment of the limbic system, also memory.
Naah... good ol' acid, sulfazine and pain are fine. Besides it keeps the troops with a bad streak occupied and functional. Indian intelligence was taught this madness by the ruskies, if you can believe it. With the Israelis we developed more nuanced approaches, including contorting postures for long periods, ear-splitting music, temperatures - things that leave no trace for those pesky UN types. Later we developed our own techniques, featuring MDA, induced hypnagogia, suggestion, etc. Although the latter is the opposite of torture. It's more of a kind of 'assisted conversion'.
I agree in that it's a question of who's doing it and why. Ruling it out is good, but every case deserves a subjective consideration. As a first policy of course it's bad. If we weren't in the middle of a war, and if there were fewer assholes to process... we'd just be better humans.
[The Federalist] What do we mean by reparations? Writing recently in the Washington Post, Sheryll Cashin, a law professor at Georgetown University, argues that "reparations should repair what white supremacy still breaks. Atoning for the legacy of chattel slavery is simply not enough."
That is, reparations must be broad enough to encompass the many crimes and injustices perpetrated against black Americans throughout our history, from slavery to Jim Crow to mass incarceration. The effects of these injustices, says Cashin, are "direct and measurable" among slavery’s descendants: wage gaps, educational disparities, homeownership and property values, incarceration rates, health outcomes.
She is of course right. There is no question that black Americans have suffered greatly, not just from the memory of slavery but from its long legacy of rampant discrimination and racist policies.
It was this history that Ta-Nehisi Coates invoked in testimony last week before a House subcommittee considering a bill to create a commission to study reparations. Responding to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s comment that reparations are not a good idea because no one responsible for slavery is alive today, Coates reeled off a list of racial injustices that were perpetrated in McConnell’s lifetime.
Because McConnell was born in 1942, there is plenty of injustice to point to, and Coates, who has built a successful career on elegantly expressing outrage over such injustice, made the most of it:
We grant that Mr. McConnell was not alive for Appomattox. But he was alive for the electrocution of George Stinney. He was alive for the blinding of Isaac Woodard. He was alive to witness kleptocracy in his native Alabama and a regime premised on electoral theft. Majority Leader McConnell cited civil-rights legislation yesterday, as well he should, because he was alive to witness the harassment, jailing, and betrayal of those responsible for that legislation by a government sworn to protect them. He was alive for the redlining of Chicago and the looting of black homeowners of some $4 billion. Victims of that plunder are very much alive today. I am sure they’d love a word with the majority leader.
This is powerful stuff. The history of America, like the history of all the world, is replete with wickedness and injustice, crimes perpetrated by the powerful against the weak. Slavery and racial discrimination are America’s awful inheritance, which cannot be gainsaid.
#1
I think what you need is a good ol' civil war to decide things once and for all.
They simply won't be satisfied until white Americans are in cages, huddled in homes under attack, knifed and raped and burnt. People are just not taking this seriously enough.
#2
No, it should rightfully be the Democrat Party paying reparations - after all, they were the party of slavery, rebellion, the KKK, Jim Crow, and segregation. My own modest proposal, here.
#3
They take a penny, they forfeit citizenship and must pay for their ticket back to Africa, where they will find the Africans think quite poorly of them.
#6
Increasingly these kinds of grasping for more money and power proposals along with hyperbolic assertions of massive racism in the MSM and Democrat party are destroying all the progress of the past 70 years. Kind of stupid by a group that is about 13% of the population.
#8
Everyone must read this interview of this guilt-ridden, snowflake motherf###er. He thinks that privilege is part of his skin, and a quiet kind of racism is implicit in his being born at all.
As impossible to believe as it may be, it's the indoctrination for white kids in schools in America, up to college. As Herb says (Yupp!) it's all about 'turning the tables' on the white man and Obama was only their first conspicuous step. I call it the Wakanda Project. Their model is exactly South Africa. It's a slow massacre in planning. The democrat deep state thinks they can control the blacks as they always have. Those were their thoughts about the taliban too, and look where that went.
#9
It will be interesting to see what proportion of our African-American voters choose to walk away in 2020, whether by not voting or by voting to re-elect President Trump. Ditto for other minority populations...
#10
This all started when General William T. Sherman created future expectations when he issued Special Field Order No. 15 on Jan. 16, 1865. Order 15 was also an impetus for today's concept of "social justice."
[News24] The teenage years are a time for experimenting and for pushing boundaries ‐ particularly when it comes to intimate relationships. Such experimentation is a natural part of growing up. But there are potential risks, too ‐ particularly if these early experiences aren’t positive ones. That’s why my colleagues and I investigated what kinds of intimate behaviour 14 year olds engage in, and how this insight can help to ensure young people are well prepared for healthy and happy adult relationships.
We know teenagers experiment with intimacy, often moving "up" the scale from hand-holding or kissing to more explicitly sexual activity. But we also know teenage pregnancy numbers have been dropping in recent years. And our new findings suggest that fewer young teenagers are actually having sexual intercourse than previously thought.
Studies have shown that 30% of those born in the 1980s and 1990s had sex before the age of 16. Among those born in the early 1990s, 18% had done so by age 15. But our new evidence, based on those aged 14, born during or just after the year 2000, indicates that there has been a decrease in the most intimate types of sexual behaviours among this latest cohort ‐ Generation Z.
Just like their grandparents and all previous generations, then. And even in our day, Mr. Wife did not kiss me until I turned eighteen for exactly that reason. But then he’s always been intelligent, and my father was openly protective.
Understandable if not believable
[TheTruthAboutGuns] What happens when your 15 minutes months of fame finally fade and you’re no longer the subject of fawning profiles and softball interviews by media outlets that want nothing more than to help you spread your anti-gun message?
Easy! Make up a story about how your opponents in the debate want you dead and portray yourself as a martyr to the "gun safety" cause. Hogg should have used a dictionary - "assassination" does't mean act like an ass
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
...the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, or sacred objects, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable. Some religions consider it to be a crime. In Pakistain you can commit blasphemy by looking cross-eyed at a Koran...
[The Federalist] What do we mean by reparations? Writing recently in the Washington Post, Sheryll Cashin, a law professor at Georgetown University, argues that "reparations should repair what white supremacy still breaks. Atoning for the legacy of chattel slavery is simply not enough."
