June 28, 2019

More Thoughts on Robert's betrayal on the Census Question

Timothy Birdnow

Yesterday I wrote about another betrayal by John Roberts - this time the Bush-appointed Clhief Justice sided with the left wing of the Court and ruled the Trump Administration couldn't ask people if they were citizens on the census form. The interesting thing about this is that the SCOTUS didn't rule that the President didn't have the authority to make this rule change but that Trump - by virtue of a hidden political agenda as they see it - didn't give an adequate explanation as to WHY he made the rule change. This despite the obvious fact that we have millions of aliens in this country and that we apportion Congressional districts based on the census and really need to know who is a citizen, a permanent resident, and a trespasser. The real question here is why haven't we been asking this for the last few years, not why are we asking it now. Roberts sided with Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomeyor.

The way this was handled was interesting; it did NOT simply overrule the President, as lower courts have done. But it made it unlikely that the Administration could rework their appeal before the next election. In other words, it was clearly politically motivated.

First, reader Bill H. made the following observation:

Roberts has used that same argument several times when ruling against Trump, usually when Trump is reversing an Obama executive order.
Clearly, somebody knows where Roberts buried a body. Whoever it is knows that knowledge, and the power it conveys, must be used judiciously (so to speak) or it becomes obvious and loses its value. But somebody is holding something over Roberts' head.

I suspect Bill is right; Roberts is compromised and his "services" are used as sparingly as possible to avoid his being outed. If that is not the case then Roberts is himself a backstabbing traitor, someone who lies about who he is so as to trick us stupid deplorables. Either way, it amounts to the same thing in the outcome.

Second, why didn't the Court just rule against Trump and be done with it?

Well, this helps maintain Roberts' "cover" for starters. But more importantly, it keeps the prospect of using the census open for future Democratic Presidents. If a President Sanders, say, wants to add a question about gun ownership, or religious affiliation to the census form, he would be blocked from doing so by this ruling. Can't have that. So the Progs on the Court didn't strike down the authority of the President to ask the question - just stop Trump from asking THIS question. They manage to prevent the Administration from getting a more accurate count, and preventing illegal voting as well as padding the number of Democratic Congressional districts. Very handy trick.

Of course, the goal is to prevent Trump from being re-elected, and perhaps gaining some seats in Congress.

In politics things don't just happily work out. It's strange how often happy accidents happen to the Democrats and the Left - and unfortunate incidents smite Conservatives and the Republicans. Again, it is no accident and anyone who thinks otherwise is more than a fool. Roberts knew what he was doing here. So too did the Progressive wing of the Court. Remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a civil rights lawyer with the ACLU before joining the Court, and she is no stranger to this sort of judicial activism. The ACLU probably worked out the whole scheme, called her, then leaned on Roberts with whatever they have on him.

As usual, we are going to have to run the table on the Left or we will lose. They always find ways to cheat.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 622 words, total size 4 kb.

1 It would be hard to rule against the question itself on constitutional grounds, since it has been used not once but many times on the census. SCOTUS is gradually discarding precedent but, again, this must be done gradually so that the frogs in the water do not notice the rising temperature.

Posted by: Bill H at June 28, 2019 08:29 AM (vMiSr)

2 You've got it, Bill!  A very astute point!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at June 30, 2019 05:43 AM (rS9bN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment




What colour is a green orange?




19kb generated in CPU 0.75, elapsed 0.7125 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.6208 seconds, 115 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Always on Watch
The American Thinker
Bird`s Articles
Old Birdblog
Birdblog`s Literary Corner
Canada Free Press
Christian Daily Reporter
Climatescepticsparty,,a>
_+
Daren Jonescu
Dana and Martha Music On my Mind Conservative Victory
Eco-Imperialism
Gelbspan Files Infidel Bloggers Alliance
The Reform Club
FTP Student Action
Veritas PAC
FunMurphys
The Galileo Movement
Intellectual Conservative
br /> Liberty Unboound
One Jerusalem
Powerline
Publius Forum
The Gateway Pundit
The Jeffersonian Ideal
Thinking Democrat
Ultima Thule
Young Craig Music
Contact Tim at bgocciaatoutlook.com

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 32035
  • Files: 10316
  • Bytes: 719.0M
  • CPU Time: 226:22
  • Queries: 1299796

Content

  • Posts: 19871
  • Comments: 62587

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0