You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Land of the Free
Justice Ginsburg Hints At Outcome Of Supreme Court’s Biggest Cases
2019-06-10
[DAILYCALLER] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested Friday that the Supreme Court is deeply divided over its most-watched cases, hinting that a series of 5-4 decisions are likely as the court approaches the end of its current term.

Ginsburg said to the Second Circuit Judicial Conference the court was unlikely to achieve consensus on several high-profile matters.

"Of the 43 argued cases resolved so far, only 11, or just over 25%, were decided by a vote of 5 to 4 or 5 to 3," Ginsburg said. "Given the number of most watched cases still unannounced, I cannot predict that the relatively low sharp divisions ratio will hold."

One case likely to produce such a split is the dispute over the Trump administration’s bid to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census form. A coalition of civil rights groups and Democratic state governments sued to stop the question’s inclusion, saying it will depress minority participation in the census. The administration says it needs granular citizenship data to improve enforcement of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), but the plaintiffs believe they have uncovered evidence of the government’s true partisan motive.

The census serves as the basis for apportioning seats in Congress among the states.

Ginsburg discussed the census dispute in connection with the 2018 travel ban decision, in which a 5-4 court said President Donald Trump
...New York real estate developer, described by Dems as illiterate, racist, misogynistic, and what ever other unpleasant descriptions they can think of, elected by the rest of us as 45th President of the United States...
’s entry sanctions were entitled to deference.

"Speculators about the outcome note that last year, in Trump v. Hawaii, the court upheld the so-called ’travel ban,’ in an opinion granting great deference to the executive," Ginsburg said. "Respondents in the census case have argued that a ruling in Secretary [Wilbur] Ross’s favor would stretch deference beyond the breaking point."
Posted by:Fred

#12  ...its more than that. If the preliminary numbers are available NLT October 2020, it will be 'interesting' when far more votes are cast the next month in a district/state than there are adult citizens.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2019-06-10 16:55  

#11  re #8: JohnQC, your last sentence explains exactly why Democrat-run states want the citizenship question banned. If the census doesn't count the non-citizens, their population is less, so they don't get as many representatives in the House, and they get less Federal money to spend.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2019-06-10 16:19  

#10  Women were counted.
https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1790.html
Posted by: rjschwarz   2019-06-10 15:35  

#9  Glenmore, now I'm doubting myself. Were women counted as part of the census before they were allowed to vote?
Posted by: rjschwarz   2019-06-10 15:34  

#8  A coalition of civil rights groups and Democratic state governments sued to stop the question’s inclusion, saying it will depress minority participation in the census.

Not including the census question on citizensip seems like it would defeat the purpose of the census, that is counting the population. The census is also necessary to determine the numbers in the House and the number of Electors from each State and how Federal funds are to be allocated.
Posted by: JohnQC   2019-06-10 12:02  

#7  RJ, is that right? For a long time slaves couldn't vote but their numbers (well, 60% of them) were counted in determining the number of Representatives, and thus the Electoral College representation.
Posted by: Glenmore   2019-06-10 10:59  

#6  Electoral votes are apportioned based on voters, not simply people living in a district. This is a no-brainer.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2019-06-10 09:39  

#5   stretch deference beyond the breaking point

Just do your fucking job, Hag. Yours is not to analyze or control whom the truth favors in the end.
Posted by: Dron66046   2019-06-10 08:55  

#4  I can't wait until she keels over.
Posted by: DarthVader   2019-06-10 08:42  

#3  ..deeply divided between those who believe they are the law and those who believe that which is written in the Constitution is the law.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2019-06-10 07:50  

#2  A 'deeply divided' court - assisted by statements made by a sitting Justice.
Posted by: Raj   2019-06-10 07:41  

#1  They are NOT Citizens, Damnit. What kind of Bench are you sitting at?
You are the Worst Justice since Hugo Black.
This is leftist Pavlom - Lawless to it's core.
Posted by: newc   2019-06-10 01:53  

00:00