Trump’s ‘Achilles’ heel’ is his hubris and his assumption that he is wiser then any of his advisors or appointees and, like Achilles, it is his ‘heel’ that will bring him down.
9
Don't let out that sigh of relief just yet. The chief justice left a loophole that trump has already leapt into: I'll delay the census, Constitution be damned, and give you a different rationale.
Roberts wrote the Citizens United decision. His place in history is fixed. He is responsible for Trump, for Putin's role in the 2016 election and probably the death of american democracy. If Roberts were ever brought to justice, I would temporarily relax my opposition to the death penalty.
3
Yea big whoop the citizenship question might not be on the US census but GOP gerrymandered state elections are okay? May the Democrats find a way to gerrymander too because all's fair in love and war! And may a future Democratic Senate majority pack the court to ten Supreme Court Justices just like when Abraham Lincoln was President. And since there isn't any US Constitutional limit to Supreme Court Justices, why not pack it to win, anything the GOP wants to dish out because it's not the rules that matter only winning for the home team. Let's go Democrats the GOP is evil and it doesn't matter how we win, when they cheat constantly. Let's win, any way we can because we want law and order and morality and love and because the GOP is simply evil. Time to win, win, win!
5
Think the appropriate word is not "naïve" but "venal".
10
Gerrymandering is a go, big dark money in elections is a go. The Supreme Court isn't a friends of democracy. Going forward Judge Roberts is going to have his hands full of these bizarre lies that are being uttered by our traitor president and his crew of liars.
2
So there are emails and records of conversations that indicate that Ross wanted to do this from the day he entered office and that he and his advisors had discussed the ramifications of such a question on illegal immigrants.
OK.
The court found some statements to be "incongruous" with the record.
OK.
Devils advocate:
So what.
The reason stated by the agency on its order, is legitimate.
Briefly, who cares what personal opinions Ross or otghers hold.
The reason they stated, stands on its own merits.
And in the opinion, the court affirmed the lawful authority of Ross to ask a citizenship question
Can the Supreme Court read the minds of everyone who was involved with the preliminary discussions and preparation of the text ?
Even if Ross' personal motives were questionable, who is to say that he did not set that aside and make a reasoned judgement ?
How does the court know that they have seen all the evidence , and not just stuff cherry-picked by hand-wrining leftists ?
How far back in someone's history do we go to determine their motives for an agency rule ?
Do we quote comments made by drunken college students, or lines from jokes told at parties, and claim that they have relevance ?
This was a judgement call, and it is what it is.
But it opens the door to judicial review of all previous agency rules.
Today, Democrats are crowing about their victory.
But when they figure out that Roberts was setting up the Obama administration's rules to be overturned...
I get the feeling that Roberts has more respect for the history and tradition of the court than he does for an out to lunch president...
They may not be as naive as Trump and the Repubicans hoped, but judging from the gerrymandering decision, they're every bit as cynical.
23
Roberts is seeking to provide the Court some cover from the obvious reality that the Supreme Court as a legitimate neutral body is dead, and what we have is the Roberts’ Republican Court whose goal is no less than rewriting the Constitution from the bench.
Democracy in America is dying. It is dead because young people no longer believe, no longer participate. It’s dead because immigrants don’t participate. It’s dead because African Americans are disenfranchised. A minority of the population, older whites, now run roughshod over the rest as certainly as Jews in Israel treat Palestinians They call this Apartheid
No man has done as much to destroy American democracy and the rule of law as John Roberts John has gotten too much money not to insure the citizenship question gets added. He’s no fool. He knows the game. He knows his role
2
Actually, the public isn't as naive as the McConnell Court thinks we are. The GOP will drum up another nonsensical rational for including the citizenship question and the Court will ok it. If that doesn't work, the GOP will just print the forms with the question and the Court will let them use it because 'no time to correct'.
2
"The Supreme Court Isn’t as Naïve as Trump Hoped."
Four out of nine of them are that Naïve!
17
@Bernie
I would take it a step farther than that. Based upon the Hofeller email evidence now before the district court, Four of the nine aren't naive, it's exactly the result they want.
5
A pre-law student could have told you the same thing. The bar is low even among those who should be disbarred--like AG Barr.
4
Judging by the photo, CJ Roberts certainly was inspired and energized by the Mad King’s SOTU, right?
It’s not Naive, it’s indifference to democracy, just like we have always known conservatives have.
2
Maybe the stupidest column so far this month. The census question becomes irrelevant when you realize that the S.C, has now proven beyond doubt that they are nothing but Republican operatives. The viciousness of the gerrymandering decision, the utter fecklessness of it will go far enough to sabotage democracy that you realize Roberts and his merry band of right-wing bigots gave a nod to the census question to make us think we won one out of two. And Emily wants to celebrate it. Approaching our nation's anniversary, it's almost an announcement that Donald Trump will, indeed, be elected to a second term. Watch out Canada and Mexico, your populations will be gaining significantly in a year or so. Including me.
1
WE, the citizens of this country should demand that Mr. Ross step down. He is a conniving liar, just like Mr. Trump. The whole WH team is clogging up the swamp. Although SJ Roberts showed his incredulity, it remains to be seen if additional information exonerates Ross's claim of innocence. If proven that Mr. Ross had conceived the idea of including the citizenship question before his claiming that the DOJ had made the request, he should not just lose his job, but be thrown in jail for lying to the American people. What a farce! Decency and honesty have no value in this administration. How could it? Who is at the top? Trash.
2
The premise underlying the one-man/one-vote principle is that each vote has equal value, something that seems to have escaped the majority of the court.
Despite his fine rhetoric when pressed on the point, J. (for John, ... not Justice) Roberts - in leading the court here and in Citizens United - has made it absolutely clear his view that the moneyed interests, who presumably finance government, should have the greater voice in what happens. Indeed, the only voice where possible.
Many of the values and principles on which the American experiment in democracy is based are clearly in question. The last couple of decades have made that abundantly clear. If this was a marriage, anybody in their right mind would have suggested a divorce long ago.
Something along those lines is becoming more inevitable. The Roberts Court may very well be remembered in history as a primary force in the American dissolution. We should perhaps start thinking about how that can best be effected.
3
The Constitution calls for an enumeration of the people living in the United States every 10 years. Either we go for a strict reading of this, and ask only how many people live in a particular household; or we go along with the concept of expanding the count to subdivide people into statistically significant groups.
If the former, which I more support, the form becomes much simpler. If the latter, however, I fail to see how Hispanic/non-Hispanic is data the government needs while citizen/non-citizen is off limits.
1
It isn't a matter of whether he bought the explanation or not. He was looking for the administration to provide rationale/cover so he could allow them to add the question on the census. When it became blatantly obvious that the question was created with political/racial bias, he didn't have that cover anymore. You'll note that he had no problem handing Republicans 77% of seats in NC when they only won 53% of the vote. Roberts isn't weighing the merits of the case. He's weighing whether he has enough cover to give the Republicans what he wants to give them - more power.
3
The op-ed seems plausible to me, the headline + subhead seem off, though. It's not that the Supreme Court is not naive, it's that Roberts was unwilling in this case to "exhibit" naivete (and thus subservience to Trump and Ross). It's not that he didn't "buy" the explanation so much as he was, I imagine, offended by how he was expected to swallow the transparency of the fraud
1
When you accept court cases which are constructs, such as the fellow with the pie shop, you're definitely not naive, but calculating.
21
Bazelon is fundamentally wrong.
5 right-wing justices, including Roberts, were prepared to reverse a federal court decision and uphold the Trump/GOP census despite it being part of a conspiracy to gerrymander the entire country to make it impossible for Trump and the GOP to lose. It would have been one of the most damaging decisions in over a century, disenfranchising over 15 million people in the US entirely legally and the states they live in of the fundamental right of proportional representation.
Roberts only changed his mind because a GOP operative's daughter revealed documents proving the census was an authoritarian power grab run through the Trump DOJ at the behest of Trump and Wilbur Ross with their appointees committing perjury.
Trump and the GOP destroy our republic and 5 right-wing Supreme Court justices, including Roberts, advance it until evidence proving the full scope of a conspiracy accidentally comes to light. Authoritarianism only failed because of Roberts' vanity. He changed his vote to protect his "legacy".
Finally, this cannot be viewed separately from the simultaneous decision preventing federal courts from reviewing discriminatory gerrymandering. The census was constructed to destroy American democracy via gerrymandering, yet Roberts had decided courts cannot review gerrymandering. Here, Roberts just asked Trump and the GOP to come up with better lies. The other 4 right-wing justices don't care if everyone knows they're just corrupt GOP yes-men.
5
Is this a joke? Roberts is playing his usual game - throw out a minnow to try to distract from the feast served to corporations and other big money interests. The real news was the gerrymandering decision, which was a disgrace beyond measure.
4
Roberts just wants the Trump Administration to be more careful with its lies and deceptions. All this demonstrates is that his gag reflex is still at least partially intact.
3
Well, at least John Roberts isn't quite "as naive as Trump hoped". But the other four stiffs were.
4
Emily, I'm glad you have some faith in the Supreme Court being even sort-of a neutral interpreter of the constitution. Sadly, I do not.
SCOTUS, or at least several of the justices have fallen to Trumpism. Having Roberts throw us a rational thoughtful opinion every now and again is a tease, and will bring out columns like this. But, over time, this court will enact the Mercer/ Koch Bros/ McConnell, and now Trump agenda.
It's going to get pretty ugly in the coming years. I'm not sure how we as a nation overcome this crumbling of democracy, but make not mistake our democracy is crumbling. Day by day, Tweet by tweet, SCOTUS decision by SCOTUS decision.
6
The headline does not fit the story or the facts. It's not the Supreme Court, it's one justice, to whom most of the statements that follow apply. Let's not confuse the institution with its individual members. Sadly, we are in a situation where the capacity of the Court for sound judgment, and hence its credibility, is suspect because its rulings often boil down to what one member decides. The authority of the institution has been severely compromised.
4
I would totally expect that question to be on a census form. These “dreamers” have a lot of nerve grousing about that question being on the census form. The forms are anonymous and aren’t out to catch anyone. It would certainly be useful information if reliable, for demographic purposes. A non-citizen is not necessarily an illegal, though many are They sneaked into the country, why not just lie on the form? They seem to just want to invalidate the relevance or value of citizenship. It is like a felon objecting to being asked if they have been convicted of a felony. They may not be happy about it, but it is true.
@Pat
"It is like a felon objecting to being asked if they have been convicted of a felony. They may not be happy about it, but it is true."
If the prior felony had any bearing on what the person was being questioned about, perhaps. The census' primary purpose is to count the number of people living in the country, the Constitution doesn't demand specifically that citizens be counted.
The problem is, that this question knowingly skews the number of citizens downward in specific areas because some citizen households are afraid to basically expose a relative to possible deportation. The GOP knows how these primarily Democratic areas would be negatively impacted by apportionment since their numbers would be artificially deflated.
Remember, the Constitution demands we count people, not citizens. And when your ancestors were not citizens, they probably weren't afraid of being deported in an ICE raid, but they were certainly counted (whether completely, or 3/5ths).
3
Amid the praise for Roberts's putative magnanimity, it bears spotlighting that, to arrogate power to their political party, four justices accepted Ross's obvious, proven lies.
Shabby knaves.
5
Federalist Papers....Good
Federalist Society....Bad
Garland....Good and illegally prevented from consideration by McConnell
Gorsuch....Bad and Illegitimate as he would be in Garland's slot but for the illegality supra
"Democracy in Chains," Nancy MacLean
"The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement," Steven M. Teles
Explains how they first ruined the economy of Chile, yes Chile, and then kept this "accomplishment" off their resumes.
1
Isn't it just great we have a one-man Supreme Court. When the Chief Justice is the swing vote it seems to me he is a Supreme Court of one. Yikes!
4
Recently, Justice Roberts has been making noises that he would like the Court to be seen as nonpartisan. In the light of the completely partisan ruling concerning Gerrymandering which raises partisanship to a completely new level, his ruling on the census question is a sop meant to soften the blow and put lipstick on a pig, but even in this ruling he leaves room to take it back. The Supreme Court has become a partisan entity, a subsidiary of the GOP, and no amount of lipstick can cover that up.
5
Agree with your headline. On the other side far left liberals fear the Supreme Court will bring back chains, slavery, fire and brimstone and wipe out 250 yrs. of American democracy.
They will be more conservative for sure but have already in whole or part upheld gay rights, spirit of Roe, the census question and a few more.
The gerrymandering case is a win for republicans now but it could backfire in their faces if democrats take more state houses like they did in 2018.
How do democrats win more statehouses in 2020? Do not nominate identity obsessed, social engineering far out leftists in purple states.
Nominate moderate progressive that are in tune with moderate progressive issues in said states like they did in 2018 and took back the House.
1
@Paul
The gerrymandering is already in place.
The Democrats can get a large majority of the votes, as they often did, and still lose the seats.
That’s the problem that the Court could have fixed.
But then, that wouldn’t have served their masters.
5
@Grove-The big House democrat win in 2018 disproves your point. Yes it is more difficult but it can be done if there is somebody like Trump in office and the democrats don't nominate another Hillary in 2020.
Also nominate moderate progressives in purple non liberal states to take over the statehouses and re proportion the states at least more fairer or as the SC said, gerrymandering is legal.
1
" ... Mr. Ross was making it up on the fly ... " And yet four Justices voted to allow a clear connivance to help Republicans. With two current SCOTUS judges being the result of abuse of power by Mr. McConnell, it is no surprise that they are loyal to their party above the country. Their gerrymandering votes further proved it.
Also, I wonder how Mr. Kavanaugh sleeps at night. The victim of his sexual assault tells the whole world a very believable story (a search on "Kavanaugh assault" returns nearly 5 million hits). And his appointment is the result of his staged victimhood performance, and a clear abuse of power by Mr. McConnell. What does he tell his two daughters?
2
The court is a partisan arm, everyone knows it and every year it makes itself even more irrelevant.
3
And yet SCOTUS refused to hear cases involving gerrymandering and voting rights.
3
Do you really believe this is a matter of the GOP majority being or not being naive? Seriously? It's just Roberts pushing the Trump administration back for a moment. When they come back with another false explanation, you know Roberts is going to come home to his role as GOP apparatchik, implementing the replacement of majority rule with permanent control by his party.
1
The Supreme Court isn't naive, it's shrewd. Roberts' "contrived" comment was made to save the Court from itself, a little. It was clear to rubes that the justification for the question was pre-textual. The sad part is that still four justices ignored what should have been a unanimous and public spanking of the folks perpetrating the lies.
When the Hoefeller data came out, the extent of the lie emerged liked a giant cyst on their foreheads.
Roberts punted the question down the road for a future re-try after the dust settles a bit.
2
While I am pleased with the decision, I won't be taking a victory lap. This should be a slam dunk 9-0 ruling. The court remains cynically political. Hardly naive.
2
Spare me the notion that the Supreme Court isn't naive. Of course it isn't. It's bought and paid for by the GOP.
1
Ruling against gerrymandering was the “obvious result” too.
1
Make that 5. Roberts and Alito were appointed by illegitimate (thanks to the Supreme Court) president G.W. Bush).
1
Naive no. Gerrymandered yes.
1
Roberts is just a reed in the wind and he is no meteorologist. If Ginsberg goes, we're done.
2
Still trying to figure out why my 14th Amendment rights to Equal Protection keep getting violated by the Democrat Party and nobody cares.
Counting everyone in the Census is critically important for DHS, HHS, HUD and everyone else to understand the shifting sands in our soil, but to use resident status as the means to apportion Congressional seats and Electoral votes is a clear violation of my rights..the same as if South CArolina had treated a slave or black man as 3/5 of a person. New Yorkers would have been up in arms over such a bold move..but who could really protest the fact that northerners were using the 3/5 rule to suppress the political power of South Carolina and the southern states?
Same today. Why should I and people in 9 other states lose Congressional House seats to CA and AZ just because the vast majority of illegal immigrants are locating there?
Please explain...
This 14th Amendment challenge has never been heard by the Supreme Court and I know that our Founders never intended for any given state to be given disproportionate powers and federal funding by counting residents instead of citizens.
Otherwise what good is my citizenship?
2
@Erica Smythe
"Counting everyone in the Census is critically important for DHS, HHS, HUD and everyone else to understand the shifting sands in our soil, but to use resident status as the means to apportion Congressional seats and Electoral votes is a clear violation of my rights..the same as if South CArolina had treated a slave or black man as 3/5 of a person. New Yorkers would have been up in arms over such a bold move..but who could really protest the fact that northerners were using the 3/5 rule to suppress the political power of South Carolina and the southern states?
...
Please explain."
Let's turn it a different way. Imagine you live in a State where where the existence of a census question will cause tens of thousands of families in your State to fail to answer a census to protect one member of household. Your State is then deprived of Congressional seats, Electoral votes, and federal funding because the population was undercounted. Please remember, the census counts the number of people, not the number of citizens. That is what the Constitution says.
So, which part of the Constitution are you willing to violate to serve your needs, now? I would protest the 3/5ths rule regardless of my political affiliation. Just like I do with gerrymandering. I protest the citizenship question because demonstrably skews an accurate count in the Census.
Citizenship is easily determined by other means. How do you think ICE finds undocumented immigrants?
Giving believable reasons for the actions they take apparently doesn't apply to gerrymandering. That's not a principle of law. It's a sham.
1
Yesterday, the Supreme Court settled the crucial question by agreeing that “the Enumeration Clause permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire.” The citizenship question is constitutional.
But the Supreme Court ruled the Commerce Department must disclose it “pretextual” reason to the district court. This should not be a problem. The census questionnaire press run doesn’t have rho begin anytime soon/
Article 1,Section 2 of the Constitution says “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of then years, in such manner as they shall by Law direct.” This means the next census has to be completed sometimes during the term of the 117 Congress, which begins in January 2021, and ends in January 2023.
The census count could start on “Census Day,” which is April 1, 2020, even if the census forms haven’t been printed. On Census Day, the Census Bureau will ask Americans if they prefer to answer the census questionnaire via the internet, by telephone or if they want a printed questionnaire. (The Census Bureau expects most Americans to choose the Internet option) The print questionnaire could be mailed when it is ready.
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito behave like partisan criminals. There should be no lifetime judicial appointments of any kind
1
The Court held the census can ask the citizenship question as a matter of law. Win for America. Illegal aliens will not vote in my country. Ever. Nor will they become citizens. We will admit to our nation as brothers and sisters those who apply honorably and follow the rules. Others will NEVER be citizens in the greatest nation in the history of man.
Counting illegal immigrants to gain more dollars and representation in Congress amounts to foreign interference in our elections.
@M
"Counting illegal immigrants to gain more dollars and representation in Congress amounts to foreign interference in our elections."
Creating census questions to knowingly cause far more citizens to not reply than non-citizens to reply in order to artificially skew a State's population downward amounts to domestic criminal interference with the Constitution. It's what the Hoefeller documents show.
I am curious what John Roberts neighbors think of him. Does he wave at them when they walk by his house and he is out mowing the lawn?
1
After all, John Roberts did support the Affordable Care Act once upon a time.....
1
@MIMA
In a very convoluted, noncommittal way.
He serves the rich.
No others need apply.
1
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion that rendered the death blow to democracy in this country as we have known it by allowing partisan gerrymandering to stand. The next day, he wants to be lauded as a "good guy" for kicking the census question down the road, allowing it to come up again??
After his naive protest that "there are no Republican or Democrat judges in this court" a few months ago, the whole world can now see him for the hypocrite and enabler he is. Under John Roberts, this Supreme Court has lost all credibility.
We have lost the Supreme Court, Senate and Department of Justice to the treason of this administration. The House is all we have left. Speaker Pelosi, please do your job!
1
Boycott the census. Without data, you can't draw the voting district lines, you can't gerrymander. But come election day, there are going to be surprises.
@Cousineddie
"Boycott the census. Without data, you can't draw the voting district lines, you can't gerrymander. But come election day, there are going to be surprises."
Classic cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Do your duty, fill out the census.
When the author writes that the Supreme Court was not so naive, to whom is she referring? No one on the Court thought the Administration's explanation was the truth; the Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas simply wanted to ignore the truth and Roberts wanted a better story (whether true or not). The Administration will come up with a better story and the Court will approve it 5-4.
1
As with all such things, Trump assumed that the Court was "his," given his and his Party's success in shifting the balance of justices to the right. Trump isn't naive, he's tyrannical, expecting power to bend his way simply because he wishes it so.
We might as well just give up the idea of being free. The Republican/Russians want what Putin and His Merry Band of Oligarchs have. And this SC will allow them to have it.
A do-over? Really? Really, John Roberts? And then, of course, there is the gerrymandering decision coming later in the day.
Bad day for America. We're almost gone.
1
These two rulings taken together highlight Roberts intention to appear impartial and even handed yet serve to mask the real consequence of the gerrymandering ruling. Like Citizens United, this ruling is yet another power play by conservatives on the court to undercut the constitutional rights of individual Americans. By declaring that those who have gained political control of their states are responsible for wielding their power in a manner fair to all of their citizens, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas and Kavanaugh monumentally wiped their hands free of their constitutional responsibilities. They have also legitimized the dissenfranchisement of 10s of millions of American citizens.
It enables partisans to exercise power simply in order to undercut the constitutional rights of Americans who threaten their hold on power. It enables The rights power to restrict voting rights is strengthened by rulings like the gerrymander ruling and Citizens United. For the survival of our country, the debasement of our constitution call for “Tea Party” like responses from all Americans.
But Roberts left the door wide open to favorably ruling on another crafted spurious explanation early down the road that just doesn’t look so egregious. He’s worried more about optics than the integrity of the rule of law. After all, he has a personal legacy to build and defend.
1
There is a HUGE difference between the census question and the Muslim travel ban. In the former the Constitution clearly lays out the purpose of the census and specifically states that it is to be a count of ALL persons residing in the country not all CITIZENS. The citizen question has been on and off the census multiple times, so that makes the argument that it shouldn't be on there not particularly compelling. So it's understandable that the Court wouldn't rule out the question's legality entirely, merely reject the motivation behind it. The Maryland case has a much stronger case than what was before the Court for demonstrating that the motivation was not just deceptive but outright discriminatory.
For the Muslim ban the Court ruled that the President has great discretion in matters related to border security and immigration. This too is given pretty clearly in the Constitution and in precedent. Ironically, that ruling provides support for the argument that Obama was not exceeding his authority when he implemented DACA.
It's comparing apples and oranges. Certainly there is similarity between them in that they are both examples of racist/white supremacist ideology informing executive actions, but the legal basis surrounding them are quite different.
So the lesson is, the next time you try to do this, don't leave behind all the evidence to prove your intentions and make sure that you provide a really good reason to support the change and thus provide the necessary coverage for the courts ruling in order to win.
1
People keep trying to put the Supreme Court in a box, it will not work for either the left or the right. The Court's job is to review laws first, by will they pass constitutional muster, then by what is right. Both do not have hard borders. Individual justices may have tendencies, but they are not automatons. They are people who bring their entire life experience to the job, which is what we want them to do. They are also a product of the times we live in, again something we want. Because they have a lifetime appointment they tend to take the long view, which is frustrating to those with the attention span of a gnat.
In short, the system is working, leave it alone.
Kudos to Chief Justice Roberts and his clerks for their rigorous research, which contributed to Roberts’ majority opinion. I consider myself a progressive liberal. I am also an analyst who does much research, digging for facts to support the information I deliver. I know Chief Justice Roberts and I differ on many issues, but I admire him for his honesty and his understanding of applying research to write an opinion based on facts, not just ideals.
Even though it was not on the record, I am sure that Justice Roberts had heard about the newly found evidence in North Carolina which clearly outlined the reason why the GOP wanted to have the citizenship question on the ballot.
I just hope ALL the justices are consistent in their positions when they have to rule on Congress' request for Trump's tax returns - and this issue will likely get to the Supreme Court.
The letter of the law lets the Commerce Secretary to include any question on the census he/she desires. Similarly, the letter of the law allows Congress to obtain any tax return it requests. The conservative justices were following the letter of the law while the liberal justices allowed for other factors to be considered.
So when the case of Trump's tax return comes to the court, the conservative justices should rule in favor of Congress while the liberal justices should rule in favor of Trump (since the Democrats desire for Trump's tax returns is clearly political and has nothing to do with the tax laws.) Any variation from this shows you a judge who is ruling based on a desired outcome and not on a consistent interpretation of the law.
@J. Waddell: The American people have a right to know if their president is making money off of the presidency or making money from a foreign country.
Trump lied about the Moscow Trump Tower. He's making money from foreign emissaries who stay at his hotel to garner favor from him. He's not trustworthy.
He and Jared (the fake Sec of State) always have their little paws out grabbing money. We need to know what's going on.
1
I can't read the Chief Justice's mind, but another way to look at what has happened is, what if he decided that, to preserve the Supreme Court's fig leaf of nonpartisanship, he needed to give the left something at the same time that the decision to permit gerrymandering was issued? And it's not as if he gave the left all that much, because the citizenship question can be revisited later. Perhaps, though, he hoped that the census would have to be held before the issue could reappear in the Supreme Court. Then he could treat the whole issue as moot, at least until 2030. Only, we're getting hints that the Trump Administration wants to violate the plain wording of the Constitution and let more than ten years elapse between censuses, so they can get their question in. Merely going through the resulting lawsuits could itself push the census past 2020. At that point, perhaps the citizenship question wouldn't be moot. What would the Chief Justice do then? All guesses. I might be wrong about everything. Or I might not.
The Court gives and takes away. The GOP is gloating about being able to gerrymander with impunity, and will scramble to slip something in the census to hurt immigrants. This administration is all about manipulating the facts to get the result they want, so this Court will rubber stamp whatever they need sooner or later.
1
@Jsbliv: The immigrants are already terrified. Do you think any of them are going to fill out and send in a census? I wouldn't if I were them. Trump's a terror. They want to steer clear of him in all ways.
1
I look at Roberts as a man completely removed from the experiences of those his decisions will affect the most. he has walked through wide open doors his entire life. he does not realize that "road closed" signs are common for the rest of us..... especially the poor and people of color. I am sickened that we have made the supreme court a monarchy.
3
I look at Roberts as a man completely removed from the experiences of those his decisions will affect the most. he has walked through wide open doors his entire life. he does not realize that "road closed" signs are common for the rest of us..... especially the poor and people of color. I am sickened that we have made the supreme court a monarchy.
You have to wonder what the Supreme Court decision would be if Trump demanded a delay on the census, constitutionally mandated to be conducted every ten years regardless of what the current "president" might want.
3
Taken together, the Court's two decisions, on the census question, and the gerrymandering case, seem to be tell politicians "Sure, go ahead and disenfranchise voters based on race, ethnicity, or nationality. Just do it geographically, instead of statistically." On the whole, I don't see this brace of Court decisions as a gain for democracy... maybe a push, more likely a loss.
1
It is plainly delusional to claim that this Supreme Court is constraining Trump. Roberts wants the court to be perceived as apolitical, but its decisions have assured that it will be a major issue in the 2020 presidential election.
1
True, not naive. They have plans of their own, unfortunately. Corruption is the majority on this court.
8
In a non-political world, this would be a slam dunk case. The Constitution directly calls for a count, in the census, of all “free persons” (except for Native Americans who are not taxed). Since slavery is now outlawed, every one, except those Native Americans, must be counted. If a question on the census would cause the “free persons” to be grossly miscounted, it goes against the Constitution.
However, in the political world like we now have, Republicans in the administration, as well as some clearly political Justices, seem to feel perfectly fine with ignoring those parts of the Constitution that would get in the way of Republican hegemony.
It is amazing how hypocritical those Justices must be to advocate for interpreting the Constitution as the authors meant it, while ignoring all they wrote and said condemning factions in politics.
2
In my opinion the last two (new) justices on our Supreme Court need to be removed.
Why? Because of the GOP's refusal to hear President Obama's nomination citing "it's only a year before the next election."
As far as I'm concerned every single Supreme Court Justice after that unbelievable action on the part of the Republican Senator from Kentucky is illegitimate and should be removed.
So, at the moment there are only seven (7) LEGITIMATE justices on the court. Roberts? Time for you to put an end to the evil that this Administration represents.
7
Ms. Bazelon, do yourself a favor and read the opinion carefully for what it actually says on the subject of citizenship questions on the census.
It is a legitimate question for inclusion.
And, Chief Justice Roberts assured that the federal government will be allowed the question if it follows his direction.
Stop pretending that Supreme Court opinions say what you think they say. The words of the opinion say it all.
2
Maybe the real reason for this decision is to apply the gerrymandering decision to this case at a later date. Hofeller said that states can only use citizenship to define state districts not federal. On a second try they could say the federal courts do not make decisions on state districting decisions.
The Chief Justice is picking and choosing. He rejected the "citizenship question" but gave a green light to gerrymandering, a far more pervasive threat to democracy. one quote said that "voters" had the power to fight gerrymandering. I'm a voter and I'd like to know how I'm supposed to do that.
8
@Charlesbalpha: So why can't citizens bring a lawsuit challenging this decision?
1
@sophia
Because a Supreme Court ruling automatically becomes part of the law. Otherwise people would have been challenging Roe vs Wade and Citizens United years ago.
1
I remember the last time I was in traffic court for a minor infraction. I watched a succession of defendants either lie to the judge or make up bogus stories and excuses, but the judge wasn't having any of it. In each case, he told them that they were full of baloney, and sent them on their way to pay their fines without any reduction or other relief.
If the Supreme Court justices were as skeptical as this minor traffic court judge, they would have ruled 9 to 0 against the citizenship question, writing in their opinion that if you lie to us, you can expect us to rule against you.
3
The Roberts is in the pocket of the Republicans, no doubt. Roberts is not a swing vote. The Census issue became a problem when the evidence was revealed on the Republican operative's hard drive. This made it too obvious, so Roberts had to buy time. The gerrymandering case is twisted logic as Roberts goes back to normal. The Democrats and interest groups will have to fight at the state level. Hopefully they will and put pressure on the Republicans.
2
What would stop Trump from simply not allowing any census? (Clearly a violation of the Constitution - but why would he or the GOP care? The House might impeach, but the GOP Senate would certainly not convict).
1
If a Democrat wins the presidency in November and Justice Thomas decides that he will resign that day then Trump appointed a new justice it will be interesting to hear what majority leader McConnell will say as he gets the Senate to approve this new justice.
When the Democrats get the presidency and a majority in the Senate pack the court with as many justices as needed to put the extreme right wing justices in a minority.
4
In what other court is the defense case found incomplete, and the judge gives it a second chance to prove itself? Partisan, unfair, ridiculous!
101
@Nancy
The Supreme Court is an appellate court, and appellate courts routinely remand cases to the lower courts for reconsideration.
9
@Nancy Roberts just opened a can of worms. There are hundreds of cases decided in lower courts that now have Supreme Court precedence to appeal...they just have to dig around long enough to find administrative mixups.
This was a bad bad decision. Nothing of suprise from RBG and the gals...but Roberts keeps trying to write new laws from the bench..and it's going to get him in hot water with a lot of people.
Even his ruling on ACA..he should have sent it back to the Congress for them to clarify in the law they wrote whether the mandate was a tax or a fine.
He's not God.
4
@Erica Smythe But a judge's job is to provide independent judgment irregardless of whether it gets him or her into "hot water with a lot of people". This seems to be the very essence of being a professional judge, whether on the Supreme Court or not.
4
Did a “naive" Justice Roberts gut the Voting Rights Act? Was his insistence that the US had achieved a postracial, colorblind society in Shelby County v. Holder all that innocent?
Roberts is the polite one who holds that equality begins outside redlined areas. He conveniently ignores the realities exploding around him. Just a sample:
—Driving while black (National Geographic reported that in 19 of 24 states, black Americans are more likely to be stopped than whites)
—Black lives don’t matter (just ONE example, NBC details Willie McCoy’s fatal shooting by police while he was sleeping in his car)
—Black infants in America are now more than twice as likely to die as white infants (NYT details the case of Simone Landrum baby girl’s death due to medical neglect)
Racism is not dead. It’s baked in to our national institutions. It’s a factor in where we put our public money. It’s evident in our official actions.
Justice Roberts is far from naive. But he only sees one color that matters to him, white.
5
Yes, this decision was important but in the really important one Roberts punted and you, Ms. Bazelon, by omission have given him a pass. Our country need all hands on deck to call out these five harmful men.
9
I love Bazelon, being a long time fan of the Gabfest. But true to form, she credulously gives Roberts too much credit for integrity. I don’t think this vote was an example of overcoming gullibility. It’s an example of a partisan Chief Justice recognizing that he cannot get away with murder on this one.
Partisan gerrymandering? Sure—play dumb on the science. The average Joe is too stupid to notice, eh, Donnie? But with recent news reports exposing the true motive for the census question, better to cut our losses, don’t ya think, Wilbur? Pass me another cigar and the Journal. I need to check my holdings.
4
What this tells me is that the four conservative justices were going to willfully, deliberately, and maliciously allow Commerce Secretary Ross to get away with perjury, which is a felony. They knew, or should have known, that he was lying as evidenced by the emails and other supporting documentation. In my opinion, this is not jurisprudence, it is aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime. Now you know why some people are entertaining a "court packing" scheme.
176
@PB
Since the 4 justices failed, does that mean that Secretary Ross is now going to be put on trial for perjury? Somehow I doubt it.
9
@Charlesbalpha
I am sure that he saw Manafort in court on state charges. Possible previews of coming attractions.
@PB
The Supreme Court had ten Justices during Lincoln's term in office, let's get back to a traditional ten to start, and pack on accordingly because it's not about playing fair it's about winning. If the GOP doesn't have to play by the rules why do the Democrats? Pack the Court and let's win because the GOP is evil!
1
Should Trump get his way by delaying the census to insert the citizenship question on the form, there should be a general refusal by many of us to fill out and return the form.
4
A tiny dent in what seems to be our first McConnell politicized Supreme Court.
1
Naive as Trump hoped? No, only one was not as shameless as Trump hoped
2
I think CJ Roberts needed a bit more covering to declare the Emperor's clothes beautiful.
Wait until next time.
2
Not as naive as Trump expected, but just as partisan as most of us expected. Roberts is making the ghost of Roger Taney smile as he will no longer be the worst CJ in the history of the Court. Roberts has chosen that role for himself.
4
The SC isn't naive. The five Republican-appointed justice are extreme partisans. Roberts, who began his career suppressing minority voters, is merely waiting for the Trump regime to put a bigger fig leave on its latest attack on democracy.
4
In April, all five of the court’s conservative justices seemed ready to pretend that they didn’t know the real reason for the citizenship question, just as they were willfully ignorant of the racism behind the Muslim ban.
What changed is the release of Hofeller’s papers. While not in the record for SCOTUS to take official note of, to support the citizenship question in light of them would have resulted in major blowback. And even with the smoking gun out there they are still happy to give the GOP (and it’s is the GOP, NOT TRUMP, whole orchestrated this plan) a chance to come up with something less obvious.
4
We can dance around the issue by pleading that we cannot read a man's heart, that his actions may not reflect his intentions, but these times demand more than delicate pirouettes around the issue of race. The recent rulings of the Robert's court are not subtle; they are clear declarations that the Republican majority on the Supreme Court (including Thomas) is racist. Consider also that two members of that cabal have been credibly accused of sexual harassment. These five justices are not honorable men.
5
The fact that they".. didn't buy the explanation..." is not surprising since one could hardly imagine a more blatantly inept and incompetent, not to mention fraudulent, attempt to rig the census in favor of the Republican party.
What surprises me is that Wilbur Ross has not been censured for lying to Congress. The entire scenario is the most outrageous example of partisan manipulation of Executive responsibility and the Supreme Court would have completely rubbished its reputation if it had found in favor.
2
This is the kind of column that we call the triumph of hope over truth.
1
Yesterday I watched Congressional Republicans argue (totally without merit) that Kellyanne Conway should not be held responsible for her many flagrant violations of the Hatch act. Several Representatives attempted to smear the good name of the head of the agency calling her to task. It was an appalling performance.
Today I learn that 4 Supreme Court justices - all well educated men - are willing to swallow a totally unbelievable, obvious lie meant to cover up a naked partisan power grab that subverts the constitutional directive to count all inhabitants.
These are depressing times.
280
@Dismayed Taxpayer: And then we have Trump joking about the 'meddling' (the attack) on our election and being derisive about the free press ('get rid of them').
I've never hated anybody the way I hate Trump and his enablers. I don't like feeling this way. But it's impossible. I loved my country. Now I just want to leave.
23
@Dismayed Taxpayer and Justice Robers will support anything Trump and the Republicans want, as long as they don't use blatant lies to argue for it. He sent them back to come up with more plausible lies before he will give his ok.
12
@Dismayed Taxpayer, re the Supremes’ decision on gerrymandering, they agreed that it’s an outrageous affront to democracy; but then having said that, they ducked the issue by saying it’s too hard to solve, so the states should be left to do it.
Really?!!! That’s like saying crime is a complex problem that’s too hard for government to solve, so we should let criminals solve it!
Come to think of it, with Republicans in charge of so many states, that might not be such a bad idea...
11
It seems likely that Judge Friendly did not use "naÏveté" to signify genuine guilelessness. Rather, he seemed to refer to a judge's responsibility not to let a presumption of good faith blind him to information that any reasonable non-jurist would consider evidence of bad faith.
I wish I could give Justice Roberts the benefit of the doubt here, but I can't help wondering if the subtext of his ruling was "don't be so obvious" rather than "don't try to pull this kind of half-witted stunt". In other decisions his and his fellow conservative Justices' deference to this administration's corrupted decision-making, along with their tolerance for corrosive partisanship in electoral politics that seems to benefit Republicans more broadly, smacks less of "presumption of good faith" than "the fig leaves are just big enough for us to oblige our friends".
We ordinary citizens are not so naive as perhaps the conservative Justices would like to believe. They are not fostering a lot of respect for the Court as an institution.
164
@G
I rather lean toward your "'don't be so obvious'" and I base this on the Court's refusal to hear cases on gerrymandering.
9
@Peter Hornbein
Oh, if only the Court *had* refused to hear the North Carolina gerrymandering case. It seems like the census ruling was a sop to those of us thoroughly disheartened by the regressive attitudes of the Court's "conservatives" in the 21st century. "Throw the peasants a few crumbs and maybe we can get them to swallow our partisan hackery at the same time", is what the census and gerrymandering decisions look like to me.
It’s not an issue that the Supreme Court was not so naïve on the census, They’ve proven to be just cynical to throw a bone for the census question for now, while giving the rack of lamb of gerrymandering to the far right power grab.
248
@Eliza
Spot On! Thank you!
1
Three justices (Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas) essentially said that being lied to by the executive branch is fine because they are deferential to the administration's ability to make rules. Roberts saved the Court from a terrible error, but he could easily have gone the other way if only Ross had been even slightly more open about his intentions.
5
Not so fast! The best you can say is, "we'll see?". SCOTUS left the door open to a better rationale offered by the Trump administration. It ain't over 'til it's over.
8
There never was any question that the DOC had the power to pose the question. After all, from 1820 to 1950 all households answered a citizenship query; and from 1960 through 2000, when a supplemental long form was utilized for a smaller sample of households the question continued to be asked. Following the administrative procedures should have been routine for any competent group of people. The opinion basically says this. The other absurd thing about this is that, while inquiring about citizenship may indeed depress the count, there is no reason this should be so. Instead of litigating the DOC could have taken out ads and explained the privacy of the Census and the fact that the information will not be published until 2095, when all but the youngest among us will be long gone. A competent Administration and this opinion should be 9-zip.
2
@Frunobulax Here, for once, the issue is not the competence of the administration. The people running the 2020 census would never conduct the kind of information campaign you suggest precisely because it might prevent the undercount they hope to achieve. As the evidence makes clear, an undercount of immigrants is not a bug but a feature to Republicans attempting to secure political power by lying about American demographics. It is the administration's goal. Any other rationale it advances for the addition of the question to the 2020 census is pretextual.
8
The question is perfectly legitimate and always has been. Certainly as reasonable as the other demographic information queried, such as group or race information that is apparently uncontroversial. Yes, of course, actually educating the broadly ignorant public about the privacy and publication restrictions would have run contrary to the goal but they should still have done so if not necessarily for actual public edification but at least as a litigation strategy and part of the sales pitch.
The question is perfectly legitimate and always has been. Certainly as reasonable as the other demographic information queried, such as group or race information that is apparently uncontroversial. Yes, of course, actually educating the broadly ignorant public about the privacy and publication restrictions would have run contrary to the goal but they should still have done so if not necessarily for actual public edification but at least as a litigation strategy and part of the sales pitch.
The Roberts' majority --the five conservatives on the court --have shown themselves to be unusually partisan in their decisions. Roberts alone among his conservative colleagues seems to worry about appearances, wishing to avoid so obvious a show of partisanship that it could endanger the court's legitimacy. And this explains his decision in the census case. It is a tactical retreat. In essence, Roberts issued instructions to the Trump administration on how to go about rigging the census the next time. It's simple, really. All the administration has to do is be less obvious. And then the Roberts' majority will uphold the citizenship question on the census just like it upheld Trump's Muslim ban. Wait and see.
20
@Stephen N
You got the bull's eye. The Roberts' decision is effectively a clever way of kicking the can down the road a few feet and giving the Trump administration the time needed to do what should have been a simple job- don't lie stupid, lie smart. Even Wilbur ought to be able to understand that one.
1
Yeah, why was this a 5-4 issue? What about that gang of Four? They were pure jurists that were naive to the notion that the question, innocent on its face, was actually a ploy to keep Republican power? What is going on? Are we not receding back to the Guilded Age where the rich owned everything and had all the power, a world with a two class system, rich get their kids into the best schools and the little people get to work for them, generation after generation?
17
Being given less attention than it deserves, I feel, is that the Supreme Court is giving the Trump Administration a second chance to get its way, but it wants its intelligence not to be questioned. Trump has already made it clear that it will use any opportunity to pursue the citizenship question. It may not be credible to come up with another rationale for the citizenship question than the Voting Rights Act. In the interest of their case the plaintiffs should better prepare and explain that the census cannot be used for what the Government says it wants. The Census Bureau cannot de-anonymise data it collects through the census. I believe that the author is in error when stating that the community survey does the job already - for the Voting Rights Act, or for the apportioning of budget? For the latter, not for the former I suppose because it is the most reliable method to estimate the 'total population', because it is corrected for under-response (especially among minorities).
4
Thank you Justice Roberts for calling a cheater a cheater. That's what the umpire is supposed to do, and that's all Roberts did here, but somehow the other four right-wingers were willing to overlook the cheating for partisan reasons. Shame on them.
12
Wishful thinking. The gerrymandering decision was a big wet kiss for the Republicans. The court pretty much had to vote against the administration on the census, given the provable and now public lies of the GOP, or it would have lost the last vestige of its professed nonpartisanship.
15
Justice Roberts failed to take the next logical step. Just as the Court is not required to exhibit naïveté, it is not required to ignore facts in plain sight, such as Trump's many public statements maligning Muslims. It is past time for the judicial system to take into account Trump and his cronies' repeated lies when deciding challenges to what this administration is trying to do to the environment, minorities, and everyone who makes less than $1M a year.
6
Trump attacked Roberts viciously. He has not learned
to do not attack people who can hurt you.
Roberts is a conservative but is not a fool.
He understood if he put the citizenship question on the
census it would make him Roger Taney.
word
Both parties play games with the election process. About a dozen States, including New York and California allow Illegals to hold drivers licenses in mostly blue States. There's pro's and con's to this idea but the biggest con is it gives non citizens the ability to vote in American elections. It is believed non citizens would vote Democrat if allowed. Was that the intent to license illegals? Texas allows ex felons to vote so it's no surprise Democrats are pushing to give them the vote. They will vote Democrat too it is believed. My favorite is pushing for the right of Sixteen and seventeen year olds the vote all assumed Progressive Democrats.
What worried me the most about the citizen question is ICE would use the information to arrest people. You know Constitutional protections and the like.
Imagine having a Constitutional Convention with the hypocrites of both parties of our era we will definitely reach new heights of stupidity. How weak, they're even bringing back the ERA amendment.
1
Unfortunately the significance of this decision pales in comparison to the upholding of the North Carolina gerrymandering.
With these five religious male Justices, our democracy is doomed.
22
Lifetime appointments need to be ended. Period.
10
Maybe the Justice Department can get Asst. U.S. Attorney Fabian to come to DC to defy logic by arguing census takers don't need pens and paper to collect data. After all, she was willing to argue detained children didn't need soap, toothpaste and clean diapers.
9
The 2020 elections will devolve into open warfare. Trump will win another term, the bitterness will lethally infect the body politic, the partisan rigging will entrench permanently, and thus Dark Money and reactionary trolls will shred the Republic.
Soon, the Republican SCOTUS, after adding two more mandarins, will solidify a cruel authoritarianism. A disgusted and appalled generation, solidly minority, will respond assertively. These winds will blow from the West.
So it begins, the Trump-Roberts Era. Watch closely. Dig in.
3
Why is the reporter so impressed by a 5-4 ruling on such an obvious case? SCOTUS has proven to be a political animal like the other two branches. So much for its hallowed status.
On a side note, SCOTUS didn’t impressed on the gerrymandering case! What a travesty.
9
Emily.. you seem to be naive in thinking trump is. The ruling was a postponement only. Conservative (haters) rule now.
3
Odd how Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas and Kavanaugh, all saw the same thing, never the less, voted to allow the lies to be accepted.
10
Tell us more, Ms mind reader, what Trump hopes. You are the first liberal that says Trump knows what he wants and what he is doing.
Well it is not 1950 after all. Back then it was acceptable to be an out in the open racist with the majority of the country. Mr Ross of the Trump mindset thought today he could hide this type of shenanigans. getting away with it , wink , wink. Well it was too much for the Chief Justice.
I oppose the citizenship question but I don't understand the legal basis for this decision. Since when is it the Court's job to step in when another branch of the government does something irrational? As for the Trump's team lying about their motives - OF COURSE THEY LIED. Politicians lie about their motives all the time. Chief Justice Roberts says that judges aren't required to be naive, but it's pretty naive to think that any politician is ever being frank and honest about his motives.
1
Roberts split the baby in a way that will keep the Court from being seen by the public as a pure tool of anti-democratic Republicans. But the apparent and uncertain victory on the census is less important to the ability of non-Republicans to have any hope of correcting the Republican dismantling of democracy than the hands-off decision on gerrymandering. True, the Court has only so much political room to intervene in the business of the other 2 branches. You could argue for example that a "don't look behind the curtain" decision would have still allowed Congress to defeat the administration's anti-democratic action. And that the reality that Congress would not have done so (at least until Democrats took both houses) could itself have been seen as a result of democracy in action.
But it wasn't and cannot be so long as Republicans are allowed to keep Democrat's actual votes from counting.
So we are stuck in a profoundly anti-small-d-democratic Republican power grab, with no help from the Court. This leaves it to the people to exert some kind of direct democracy. I am not holding my breath- it would be a daunting task to mobilize such democratic determination even if the majority were united and concerned.
1
This court, and its head, were simply overwhelmed by incontrovertible evidence rather than taking a stand based on principle, morals, or constitutionality.
The fact that the administration successfully cleaned up the trail of damaging documentation does not make the travel ban any more legitimate - whether version 3 or 30. In making that decision, SCOTUS either abdicated any thoughts of enforcing a policy's temporary nature or showed an incomprehensible naivete about this administration.
Breyer got it right, that no rationale is valid if it is harmful.
2
Accurate analysis that raises the very question I had after the decision. Why did the Court accept the Administration's deceitful claims that the travel ban had nothing to do with the Muslim religion or political motivation yet refuse to accept claims that the Census issue had nothing to do with politics and anti-immigrant sentiments. Did Roberts believe that one did not sufficiently pass the red face test or is he now willing to exercise a degree of judicial review that is more critical and less influenced by politics? Does Roberts simply require that the Administration do a better job in concealing its true motives? Will he allow Trump to clean up the Census mess, as he did with the travel ban, and then approve the request suddenly ignoring the clear original intent of the change? Time will tell, but I predict this is a momentary blip. This conservative Court will chip away at freedoms in America for decades to come.
4
Justice Roberts is trying desperately to project an image of non-partisanship of the Court to the naive public, but the fact remains that Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will never vote for anything that is to the disadvantage of the Republican party, regardless of the actual legal merits.
The Court's conservative wing is baldly partisan, as anyone with a brain can see. Mitch McConnell has cemented the Court's illegitimacy, now requiring an expansion of the Court when Democrats regain the Senate and Presidency to restore some semblance of ideological balance.
1
I cannot for the life of me understand how there is room for the administration to give another reason why they need that question. They gave their reason; it did not hold up. Period. To come up with another reason would obviously be to craft a falsehood based upon what they think the SCOTUS will accept. If the SCOTUS does then accept that new "reason" we have lost all reason and impartiality (or what is left of it) on the highest court in the land.
11
I expect that when Ross comes back and says that the reason they added the question was to favor the Republican party in future elections, then Roberts will reverse his ruling and allow the citizenship question. he's already said that the question is fine, just not the reason. And in the gerrymandering case, he told us that partisanship is a valid reason to ignore the constitution.
11
@david Maybe. It can be argued that the SCOTUS has no constitutional role in the drawing of districts, that's left to the states. On the other hand, the census is an administrative responsibility to enumerate all people living in the US. If an administration is trying to intentionally eliminate a demographic from that count, it would be violating the constitution. The administration will need to come up with a plausible excuse and that's going to be hard.
10
Sadly -- for the most part -- the voting public is, both naive and uneducated. It's just one more "existential threat" to our general well-being, along with the "climate crises."
When the general public tended to be more educated in the mid 19th century, when public schools were educating those youth who attended -- we would not have had a Republican party capable of hijacking our country, like we are experiencing now.
We will be very lucky if we escape from this, without too much blood "flowing in the streets."
4
One way or the other, the Trump administration will find a way to get the citizenship question onto the census form. At every turn, Republicans have demonstrated an ability to get what they want. Democrats can do little more than stomp their feet and plead to the public’s better angels (which barely exist). And let’s not be fooled by John Roberts. This was a head fake to give the Republicans more time to come up with a plausible reason to include the citizenship question. Dems epitomize the saying nice guys finish last.
7
I don't think this comes down to naivete. I think it is more an issue of self respect and respect for their institution. Every member of the Supreme court, liberal and conservative, knew quite well that the government's position was a total fabrication . The administration did not respect the SCOTUS enough to come up with even a plausible lie about why they wanted this census question. Everyone in America knows that this question is designed to suppress immigrant responses, especially undocumented immigrant responses.
What's amazing to me is four of the five conservative justices have so little self respect that they are willing to put up with the behavior of the administration in this case. They were quite willing to go along with a laughably transparent lie in support of their political party. At least Justice Roberts has enough respect for himself and for his institution that he was willing to say no.
16
@Glenn
Well said!
But the question nagging me daily is why are Republicans so intent on shredding the spirit and values underpinning the US Constitution? There's a daily assault on every arm of government from the FBI to The Treasury. Already we're seeing erosion across a broad front - including voting rights, the law, banking de-regulation, environmental protection, border closing, immigration, emoluments etc., and now the President is musing over term limits (his own) and census tampering. Not only do Republicans want politically stacked courts, but they also hobble their opposition with gerrymandered districts and, by association, create a political and racial divide. For want of a better description - they appear to be laying the foundation for a 'moneytocracy' - a nation ruled by mega-corporations and an affluent few in the interests of self and wealth preservation. It's not just the President who needs reining in - it's the GOP.
21
@Tom really a nagging question? It’s all about absolute power, if the GOP actually cared about the Constitution then McConnel would have allowed the Garland nomination to go to a floor vote. Don’t expect a political party with it’s own propaganda television station with millions of believers to give up on their goal of subverting the rule of law to benefit the Uber wealthy that support them.
12
@Tom BTW, there is already a word for what you describe. It's a plutocracy. And I don't think they're laying the foundation for it. I think we've been living in one for many years. It's just getting worse faster.
2
@Tom
Just to add to your last notion about moneytocracy: money is not just goods and services; after a certain $Million amount it is actual power and privilege. We fought our revolution in the 18th century to be free of Monarchy, but not "moneytocracy", the moneyed still had the power. In the 20th century with the advent of Unions, Civil rights and city machine politics, the non-moneyed got power and the Dems represented them, kind of. We are witnessing the wealthy (having read Atlas Shrugged) recovering their rightful place with the power, pomp and privilege that they have deserved all along. Bread and Circuses is what the less clever get. Clearly, there is an appeal among the "little people" to have a champion that is rich and powerful, Trump after all was "chosen by God" to some. The next step in civilization, the step that would solve an Asteroid strike or Climate Change, that would require world cooperation, has been pushed back, we must await a resurgence of liberal vision to take that step.
I wonder if Robert’s in voting to allow gerrymandering, recognized that by allowing the addition of the census question finally want to far over the threshold of the conservative justices efforts to weaken the constitution?
3
trump wasn't that naive - 4 of the justices voted for him to "wreck the census" - two of the appointees were trump's.
8
The argument was irrefutable and the Obama gift from Roberts was once again to mollify his guilt of knowing the truth but not having the courage to state it -- If counting toilets and ethic lineage are important for census taking so is citizenship.
Federal dollars for illegal immigrants drives the DNC Politburo base and this case. Without the goodies, there is no base.
Now, if only illegal immigrants could vote. Is Roberts listening?
1
@Alice's Restaurant Except that the US Constitution directs the federal government to count ALL the people residing, in the US, except Indians not taxed (the term used in Article 1, Section 2); it makes no mention of citizens vs. non-citizens. It would take a Constitutional amendment to add the question.
4
@Ralph
Right, all the people: citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants. It makes no mention of counting toilets, races, or tomatoes either, but they do, save for tomatoes, but they could if they wanted to, and, no amendment required.
There was a time it did count citizens. You'll note Roberts mentioned nothing about an amendment being required--just need a better reason, his Obama gift to the DNC.
The Left needs illegal immigrants for federal goodies--more money to where DNC Politburo gets its votes, large metropolitan areas.
Besides wouldn't it be nice to get a handle on the number of invaders still present in the US?
Or maybe Roberts knew the Court was going to give Democrats a walloping on the gerrymandering issue, so he decided to throw us a small bone (which can be taken away later, anyway) to try to look less partisan.
9
I have no doubt that Stephen Miller is working feverishly to find a more “plausible” and convoluted reason for the citizenship question for the next time the Trump administration presents it to SCOTUS. Roberts is cynically waiting for the outrage about the “gerrymandering” to die down, and at that time he will fold like a cheap suit and vote with his natural Federalist brethren.
9
Appreciate the victory, but we now have a court where John Roberts seems to be the difference between victory and defeat on most hot button issues. The four liberals vote together and the four conservatives vote together. We essentially have a judicial legislature where the Chief Justice casts the tiebreaker.
Ruth Ginsberg is 86 years old and Steven Breyer is almost 81. The president gets to nominate Supreme Court justices, for approval by the Senate, which currently has a several vote Republican majority. And we should expect Mitch McConnell to be running the Senate for awhile.
If there ever was a better reason to beat Trump in 2020 I haven’t heard it.
16
This decision appears to provide a sliver of hope that the Supreme court (ie, Robers) has not succumbed to Trumpism.
No. It doesn’t. This issue will be back in court, like the Muslim ban, until the story is changed enough for Roberts to flip his vote.
1
I hope your brave and reasoned explanations for Chief Justice Roberts' decision on the census question turn out to be true, Ms. Bazelon. But I fear where this court is headed. And not only on its inexplicably prim, "hands-off" muddle of a decision regarding gerrymandering. It has shown a steady willingness to disregard judicial precedent except when it suits the conservative political persuasions of the court's majority; in the event Mr. Ross and Mr. Trump come up with another less blatantly discriminatory reason why the citizenship question should be added to the census, I do not comfort myself into thinking the court might not allow it after all.
3
The ruling in this case is irrelevant in light of the other hyper-partisan ruling yesterday that will allow Republicans to cheat to their hearts' content and gerrymander Democrats out of existence in red states. The number of voters who may be counted (with or without the citizenship question) won't matter too much when the Republicans draw the district lines. I only hope the Democrats do the same to the Republicans and ensure they have virtually zero red districts in blue states. Unfortunately, the Dems are just too weak-willed to fight the Republicans on their own terms.
4
Those who pay attention to the best of the court commentators know that Roberts does not vote straight Republican and Kavanaugh is less conservative than expected. While there remain uncertainties, this Court may
have much in common with the Kennedy Court. That is a lot better than expected when McConnell intervened. And it makes me wonder whether Roberts is sending a message to McConnell.
1
a little confused by CJ Roberts.
Since decision is made based on a false record, is he inviting Commerce to come up with a better rationale retroactively.
So. is he inviting perjury, and how do they come back since they need to go to printers on Monday. Seems like failure to begin printing would also be perjury.
However, that is what the Administration does continuously.
13
Chief Justice John Roberts writes: "The reasoned explanation requirement of administrative law, after all, is meant to ensure that [States] offer 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."
I substituted the word "States" in place of Administration to demonstrate Roberts' contradiction. As his statement above about the Census case could just as well apply to the Gerrymandering case.
4
Isn’t QUITE as naive; there’s still the naiveté of the gerrymandering case.
11
They're still in Trump's pocket. They ruled against Trump in a fake effort to appear fair and impartial, but what they really said was "come back and ask us later."
The gerrymandering decision on the other hand is a clear and permanent one. The SCOTUS has confirmed that they will never strike down a gerrymander, and no federal court may ever do so again. If Democrats become just a little more aggressive with their redistricting, the Court will change its tune in a heartbeat. But they've made their agenda clear: assist Trump and do his bidding at all costs.
26
This was a clear and obvious case. What is most alarming is that four supreme court justices voted to support the obviously dishonest rationale offered up by this admiration. These men are certainly not supreme justices.
Roberts though should not get many brownie points. He is not in the middle. He (and the other four) are on the wrong side of history on too many important cases like Citizens United and today's partisan gerrymandering case where he wrote the decision that puts a dagger in the heart of our democracy.
As Kagan said: "For the first time in this Nation’s history, the majority declares that it can do nothing about an acknowledged constitutional violation... [I]n throwing up its hands, the majority misses something under its nose: What it says can’t be done has been done. Over the past several years, federal courts across the country—including, but not exclusively, in the decisions below—have largely converged on a standard for adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims (striking down both Democratic and Republican districting plans in the process)... Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent.”
44
Don’t do this, please. I was dreading these “in defense of Roberts” pieces since seeing the census ruling. Yes, his vote averted a worst case scenario, but until the reasoning behind the census question was baldly exposed as racist, rather than thinly covered, he seemed comfortable steering us there. The gerrymandering decision is a partisan blow against US democracy—one of many under his court. Let’s not give him, or sadly the Court’s majority, more credit than they are due.
30
Justice Roberts seems thoughtful on both decisions. The census question was clearly drafted under dubious circumstances. Regarding gerrymandering, the activist judges were well out of their leagues on this one. They need to remember they are not legislators. It is indeed not the job of the SCOTUS to legislate congressional districts...and it never was. Likewise, Political parties have no mandate in the Constitution. If the electorate wants to support them, they need to accept the consequences. If they don’t want gerrymandering don’t support political
parties (or try more than two parties).
6
A cynical person might say that Roberts' vote was cover against accusations of partisanship that were sure to surface after the gerrymandering decision.
84
al
Couldn't agree more. I wonder how all the cynical republicans will deal with this.
5
Unfortunately, Using the High Court's extreme partisan gerrymandering logic, I can easily see Mr Trump and Mr. Ross claiming that they now propose including the citizenship question to give a partisan advantage to Republicans because they like Republicans more than Democrats.
12
The Court did not do this. 5 justices did this, 4 opposed it. One of the five was so weak in his opinion that it's easy to believe he's just waiting for a better opportunity to give Trump et al. what they want.
80
The headline for this opinion is "naive". We're talking about the bare majority of one vote. Should President Trump have the opportunity to nominate another supreme court justice, that will end any possibility of reasonable decisions.
80
Apparently, you want to Supreme Court to re-write the laws, the way you like them?
Just what legal issue do think was wrongly decided in the Gerrymandering case?
1
@Amy The 14th amendment gives everyone the right to equal protection under the law. This ruling denies certain people their right to have their vote count as equal to others, depending on party. Travesty to our Constitution.
41
@Walter Ingram
That's certainly stretching a point. The Constitution also provides for States rights.
What you seem to be suggesting is that Federal law always trumps (sorry for the pun) State Law.
Travesty to our Constitution. Or, at least not a matter of Naivete as Ms Bazelon naively claims.
1
@Amy Not sure how you came to the conclusion that my post suggests anything of the sort. That is completely incorrect.
If you have a counter point to my 14th amendment assertion, I would like to hear it. I see no stretch that would allow the courts to put more weight on one vote over another.
1
Not as naive perhaps but just as malevolent.
12
Not really. Roberts just asking Wilbur Ross to lie better. Gotta give Roberts some cover if you want him to uphold your pretext, Wilbur! See, e.g., Trump v. Hawaii.
36
At any other time the citizenship question would have been added if the Commerce Department felt it would better serve the 2020 census accuracy. But these aren’t ordinary times, racism has raised its ugly head again, immigrants are all being treated like criminals regardless of the laws of asylum. President Trump is wielding a sword of hatred that his fellow Administrators are more than willing to accommodate, as they are like him. Ross is of the same mold, willing to lie before Congress, and the Courts.
At least for now, Chief Justice Roberts sees this, and is willing to move off his hard line conservatism. He did this with the Affordable Care Act, and hope that he will make good judgement's like this in the future.
10
In a genuinely just system, Wilbur Ross would now be tried for perjury and imprisoned, having been caught red-handed lying to the Court.
It is my fondest hope that Democrats will recapture our executive branch before the statute of limitations has run on the many crimes of Trump and his henchmen, and that they will face prosecution at the hands of a Justice Department worthy of the name.
175
@Charlie B
"In a genuinely just system, Wilbur Ross would now be tried for perjury and imprisoned, "
Wilbur Ross is too high in the American system to be held responsible for his perjury. Only those of much lower rank would suffer for such behavior.
8
@Charlie B This is assuming the GOP doesn't use the other recent SCOTUS decision on "partisan" gerrymandering to cheat their way to another victory in 2020.
8
A victory for democracy, 'at least for now'. With regard to gerrymandering, a victory for gerrymandering forever. It's time to expand the court and end this nonsense once and for all.
24
I don’t care if Chief Justice Roberts “split the baby” between this case and the gerrymandering one. That the Trump administration was so blatantly dishonest and incompetent that even Roberts could see it doesn’t mean nothing to me. The same dishonesty and corrupt intent behind the census question lies behind every act of gerrymandering regardless of who benefits. Don’t worry, next time it’ll be a more competent Republican crook and Roberts will be fine with the question.
29
I'm choking on all the lies. I'm drowning in the lies. You cannot maintain a government, or even a civil society, on lies. Four of the justices had no problem with being lied to. In their narrow reading of the law, they have no responsibility to respond to lies at the highest level. It's not written into the Constitution "thou shalt not lie", I suppose. The Founding Fathers, whom they claim to channel, never said, we have a government by law, but it's assumed we won't lie at every turn to subvert that law.
34
All they are waiting for is a halfway plausible reason. Only a matter of time before McConnells gift to the GOP delivers again.
8
John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder where the court substituted it's judgment that color aka race was no longer a voting rights problem for politically bipartisan findings to the contrary.
Roberts wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United which accepted the legal fiction corporation was accepted as a person and money as speech.
Roberts is a cagey clever cruel cynical and hypocritical political partisan aka a lawyer/lobbyist.
The basic ethical obligation of the legal profession is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
39
I wish I could believe that Justice Roberts was scolding the Trump administration for lying. Instead, I fear that he’s merely instructing them to lie more convincingly.
104
And what is to stop this administration from 'accidently' printing the census documents with the question?
10
The Supreme Court agreed with the district court that “the Enumeration Clause permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire.” This settles the most crucial issue. The constitutionality of asking the citizenship question is no longer an issue; it is constitutional.
But the majority of justices thought Secretary Ross had made yup his mind to reinstate the question before asking agencies for their input. Justice Roberts noted, “there was nothing objectionable or even surprising in this. And we agree—to a point. It is hardly improper for an agency head to come into office with policy preferences and ideas, discuss them with affected parties, sound out other agencies for support, and work with staff attorneys to substantiate the legal basis for a preferred policy." But the Supreme Court ruled Ross must fully explain his rationale to the district court.
Ross should tell the district judge that beside giving the Justice Department citizenship data it asked for, states could use the data to draw voting district maps based on the number of citizens rather than residents, if they desire. He should add that states in danger of losing congressional seats and Electoral College votes could use the data to advocate basing representation on the number of citizens rather than the number of residents.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf
The citizenship question is a minor tactical setback for the GOP.
If Roberts had gone along with that, his court would be in tatters.
Instead, he gains the flimsiest cover for his breathtaking power grab: securing the immense strategic victory of ensuring that every Republican dirty trick—and there are so many—will be rewarded by gerrymandering. Voter suppression, stripping felons of voter rights, shutting down polls, restricting early voting—all these will be rewarded richly, beyond hope of judicial review.
We have our new Roger Taney.
23
I would rather the two decisions handed down were reversed. Continued, and now unfettered, gerrymandering will continue, yet now completely without judicial restraint. This has far greater implications than the census citizenship question.
We must ask ourselves this: why would Roberts decide that the constitution does not permit judicial oversight of election engineering, but still say it has oversight of the administration’s census administration by the executive? It seems to me a crass contradiction as well as (as stated by the Times) disingenuous.
26
Ms. Brazelton, while I would like to, I cannot fully agree with your analysis, or with that of Adam Liptak (who seems to see today’s SCOTUS decisions as a kind of split down the middle, D v R).
The reasoning of the Roberts majority on the Census seems clear. To Trump: we WANT to agree with your conclusion, but you have not given us an adequate REASON for doing so.
Were there time enough, the government could simply scrounge for more reasons until they hit upon one Roberts feels comfortable with.
Thankfully the exigencies of the census itself preclude this.
This decision was not a ruling on the legality of including a citizenship question on the census, but on the inadequate reasons given by the government for doing so. The ruling amounts to saying that the Trump administration is merely incompetent, not wrong.
Obviously that leaves the door open for a competent administration to find the RIGHT reasons to do the WRONG thing.
The Roberts Court’s hard swing to the extreme far right on gerrymandering—opening the door to what is in essence racially segregated elections—betrays the true heart of the Roberts court. The census decision only shows their patience in waiting for the right moment to strike, yet again.
55
A temporary sop...typical of the Roberts style..."give" when the issue doesn't really have to be resolved, and "take" on the big ones. Roberts' crushing win on the gerrymandering issue--that's what he wanted and got, and there will be no revisiting of that one, and it's devastating. And typical of him, he gave back on the census issue to appear unbiased, but it's superficial, cosmetic, and will in fact come back to the court later.
163
We've been told for decades that there were eleven million illegal immigrants in the US, then magically the number jumped to twenty million. I've seen estimates that exceed thirty million. Isn't it about time to try and get an actual count? No doubt the GOP has a long-range agenda here. Democrats oppose a citizenship question for one reason, power. If it does dissuade some illegal immigrants from being counted, it might reduce the number of Representatives they receive for the House. The more representatives they can get in the House, the more power they have as well as more Federal funds. At real issue here is should Federal money & House representation be determined by how many Illegal immigrants you have in your state? Many Americans would say absolutely not. The GOP feels that illegal immigrants should not be counted when congressional representation is calculated. If this occurs then western blue states would get serious about immigration reform so the thinking goes. I think it's fair to ask why are we permitting non-citizens & illegal immigrants who don't vote to alter the makeup of Congress? Is this why Dems favor sanctuary cities? SCOTUS will probably approve the citizenship question because it’s within the president’s power regardless of how malign the intent.
4
@Bill Brown: It would be interesting to get more information on the real numbers of all categories of people in the country, and there are certainly ways of doing it, without involving the Constitutionally required census.
Meanwhile, if people want to revise the Constitution and base representation only on the number of registered voters, or maybe on actually voting voters, then I'm sure arguments could be made for the required amendment. Until then, probably we should stick with the Constitution as written.
8
Except you don’t find out who’s a non-citizen by asking the question. Instead you get non-participation in the census leading to an inaccurate census. And the record is quite clear that the folks driving the citizenship question are quite aware it won’t yield accurate information.
20
@Bill Brown
"Democrats oppose a citizenship question for one reason, power. If it does dissuade some illegal immigrants from being counted, it might reduce the number of Representatives they receive for the House.".....
Actually, that argument would also strongly suggest why just as many Republican states would also like to have them uncounted as, if you suggest, they count for representation and aid, but, can't vote to swing those states Democrat. The statistics show it cuts both ways.
https://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/
3
Is it required that all census questions be answered or your entire form is nullified? The Constitution speaks only of counting the population - so beyond that narrow issue, any other question would seem to call for volunteering an answer.
While I understand the potential chilling effect, I don’t see where the government can otherwise compel you to answer any other question beyond those relating to enumeration. There is a big difference between not being a citizen and being in the US illegally, and I doubt the feds have the manpower to spend the time digging into that data to find out.
9
I cannot share, Ms. Bazelon, your generosity towards Chief Justice John Roberts here. I seriously doubt that he woke up on a day and found that Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Secretary, had "contrived" to create a raison d'être for adding a citizenship question to the Census in 2020.
As you write, the Chief Justice was ready to side with the four other hard-right conservatives on his Court to grant the Trump administration the keys to America's democracy in the form of permanent and unlimited gerrymandering--which it today--but I digress for the moment. I think it far more likely that the Chief Justice was willing to look the other way in this question as it did with the 5-4 Muslim ban. Only the Hofeller thumb drives rudely intruded.
It would be difficult to imagine the Chief Justice to be more accommodating to the current president. It would also be difficult to imagine that he is not human. If he returned to the transcripts of the oral arguments that the Commerce Department and the Solicitor General presented, he will have seen that he and his Court were lied to. Deliberately. In other words, he reads the newspapers and catches cable television and could not be ignorant of the fact that Secretary Ross lied before his Court. I have no doubt that the Chief Justice realizes now that the government (disrespectfully) took his support for its position for granted.
If the Court gets this case in the future, I suppose its verdict will be 5-4, but in which direction?
57
Has anybody considered how many naturalized immigrants will be uncertain about their immigration status? And therefore might avoid participating in the census?
Or how many legal immigrants will become citizens in years after the census is taken? And will be certain to vote against the Republicans in years after 2020?
The first lesson of politics is to make as many friends as you can and avoid making enemies.
6
Every immigrant-citizen I’ve spoken to plans to vote for Trump—and this is in Greater Boston, one of the deepest blue regions of the country, and these are, yes, “brown people” speaking.
They don’t see Trump as anti-immigrant: They see him as anti-illegal immigrant. They are wise to the distinction, as much as the media, and his many opponents, try to blur that fact.
Certainly, the Democratic Party is counting on just the dynamic you describe: A sea of largely unskilled, low-or-no income immigrant-citizens who will naturally vote Democrat, locking in a permanent Democratic Party majority. What Democratic Party strategists may not see is the concern of some (many?) immigrant-citizens that their newly adopted country might metastasize into the sort of societal mess they left behind...if the metaphorical gates are opened to all comers (except, yes, those with “serious” criminal records.)
And, let’s face it, that’s precisely what the progressive wing of the Democratic Party has in mind.
Whether the GOP will be clever enough to capitalize on this concern is another issue, of course.
8
@Skippy. While I cannot deny your sample set, nor their opinions, I'm relieved that my own sample set of citizen immigrants will not be voting for Trump. My own perception is that Trump and his ilk are anti brown immigrant, naturalized or not. Heard of ICE detaining any white citizens by mistake?
13
@Skippy - Trump is not anti-immigrant, only anti-illegal immigrant. Right.
Why then did the administration propose cutting legal immigration by 50% ?
8