I must have been unconscious, because it seems I missed the whole point of the SCOTUS decision. Or maybe 45 and the sycophants he has surrounded himself with just believe that if they keep on pushing they'll get what they want. As 45 has undoubtedly done his whole life. We are in a new McCarthy era, minus the voice asking if there is no longer any shame. Apparently, that ship has sailed. Forgive the mixed metaphor, it's the best I can do under the circumstance!
3
It is probably not a great editorial choice to include the phrase "Path to Citizenship" in the title as it leads to ambiguity.
1
Understanding how many citizens vs non citizens is a normal question. Why is everyone so afraid of the answer? I think we all know.
1
The liberals want illegal immigrants counted so they can gain more electoral points, more federal funding and more liberal representation. The democrats couldn't care less bout the U.S. citizens. Just look at California. They need to make this a race issue so they can pull peoples emotional strings since they don't believe you're smart enough to live without them.
TRUMP 2020
1
Indeed, you might want to look more carefully at California. It used to be controlled by Republicans until they started trying to put severe limits on immigration from Mexico. Since then—over the past 20-25 years—the Democrats slowly won statewide elections to the point that they control the entire state, with supermajorities in both the house and Senate. Democrats understood the balance of issues needed for proper border security; Republicans did not. Texas will be next.
1
Last time I drove around in California it is these immigrants that build houses, work in construction and are the maids, housekeepers and cooks. I don’t see these immigrants pan handling!
You fail to see the value of these immigrants worth and assume they are an economic drain. It is one of the reasons why housing construction is so high, look at Colorado , it’s housing market increase was partly fueled by labor shortage.
Dump Trump 2020
4
In reviewing all the Census forms used since 1900 the only one not asking the citizenship question was in 2010. Who decided on its removal then and what was their reasoning?
7
@Rob Wood
There is much confusion between the types of census forms used (short vs. long) and the content of the questions. The short form has never asked about citizenship. Only the 1960-2010 long form contained that question, which was distributed to about 20% of households.
Don't get your "facts" from Sara Sanders.
34
@Rob Wood
The question on naturalization/citizenship was added in 1990, prior to that there were questions on country of birth but not citizenship. In 2010 the question was moved to the ACS (American Community Survey) along with many other personal questions that extended beyond the simple counting of people.
This was done to provide more timely data since it is conducted far more often then the census.
There is historical precedent for the naturalization/citizenship question and it is still asked within the ACS.
4
@Rob Wood
That's wrong. The last time a citizenship question was asked on the census form was 1950. In 1960, there was no such question, only place of birth. in 1970, there were 2 forms sent out, the short form, sent to everyone, did not have a citizenship question, and the long form, sent to a smaller subset (1 in 6), that asked about everything from household income to plumbing, that did. The long form was sent out from 1970 to 2000 (again to 1 in 6 or less). In 2010, the long form was not sent out.
12
Something about William Barr is incredibly wrong and it's about time for the Fourth Estate to go all in on investigating his background. There is no way someone with a long legal career like his would step in and behave in such an anti-American way unless they were compromised in some fashion. My guess? His picture is on one or more of those Epstein CDs.
106
@Tammy
Well, Barr did just recuse himself from the Epstein affair. Probably quite a lot of shady stuff in Barrs past.
2
He is part of the federalist society. I’m assuming he found an ally to help return America to white male rule with everyone else as subservient, superseded of slaves.
1
What reason could the Justice Department have for sticking consumer protec
3
I haven’t been paying close attention. Did Barr replace Michael Cohen?
2
To Reichsfuhrer Barr:
You got caught with the your pants down by the Supreme Court. Everyone knows the real reasons for asking the question. Everything you offer up now is a lie.
June 30 was the deadline to include the question. That's what was stated in court. Is that a lie too?
4
I can suggest a way out though I don't know if it is legal. But why does legality matter at all given the lawlessness of this administration, especially by the liar-in-chief and his enabler in this case, his personal attorney general?
They can simply declare, by executive order, that Donald J Trump was selected by President Putin and hence has nothing to do with the US Constitution. Hence, whatever the courts, and especially the Supreme Court, have to say do not apply to this administration.
They can then proceed to disband the courts and resconstitute them following the Soviet or the Putin model.
2
Bob! Good boy! Now, roll over! Okay...now fetch. Good boy. Here, boy...now, beg! Wow, Bob...great job. Almost as good as ol’ Roy was...
The Attorney General finds a way to subvert the rule of law in America. NOW do you believe in Obstruction of Justice? This is disgusting, vile behavior out of any senior law enforcement official. Especially so when it's the Attorney General of the US.
Disgusting, disappointing, detrimental to American law.
4
The point is, Trump and the GOP wants that question on there because a) it’ll warp the count, and they think the warp will help them politically, b) they want their political base whomped up so the suckers vote right and never notice how much they’re being hosed, and c) to threaten legal and illegal immigrants alike.
Constitution, my foot. Civil rights, my ear. Getting the real numbers, ha.
It’s about keeping rich white guys in charge as long as possible, against a backdrop of demographic change.
3
How many more millions of US taxpayers dollars and 1000 of hours of federal employees time is going to be wasted as Trump continues pushing his bigoted, racist agenda, all designed to undermine American democracy?
Vote my friends, this country is in a ditch and not moving forward. Conman Trump and the now morally bankrupt Republican Party has got to go.
5
There's a legal path to a president colluding with a foreign power and obstructing justice according to Barr. Of course a "legal" path can be found...
1
Trump got the attack dog he’s always wanted in his presidency. He’s a Michael Cohen with more polished language and conservative suits.
Pelosi is disappointing.
Dems need to take the fight to Trump and his minions in the Cabinet and in the White House. Instead we see Pelosi more interested in being ladylike (and gentlemanly) with weak efforts to indicate disapproval without being effective.
Trump is assaulting (dare I say raping) the most famous lady in our land - Lady Liberty- and Pelosi is holding her down instead of smacking Trump where it hurts. Too much is at stake in this fight. Trump is using all tools at his disposal - fair or otherwise - while Pelosi is bringing a teaspoon to a gunfight.
Time to fight hard Nancy - get as tough as Kamala Harris. We can worry about fairness later.
1
Trump is the luckiest man on the planet.
He's got the Supreme court and Attorney General in his pocket along with all of the insiders he has put into Cabinet positions.
Have to give him credit, too bad he is such an awful human being.
3
@mjbarr "Trump is the luckiest man on the planet."
I don't know when, or where, but he will have a reckoning.
Methinks it won't end well.
I think that Nancy is waiting for Mueller to testify, before she goes after Barr and Ross full force. July 17th cannot come soon enough.
1
Even if it never ends up on the census, the word is out that the whole thing is "probably tainted"...
You even have Joy Behar on "The View" today calling for everyone -- everyone -- to simply not answer the census.
When you have progressives doing the work for you... this whole she-bang is already over and the bad guys won.
Remember, the bad guys want confusion and fright to permeate the discussion around this event -- it's why they even want the question on their -- so that fewer liberal or progressive leaning voters actually participate. They want the brown immigrants to avoid answered... but they'd absolutely love it if all the progressives also abstained...
Check. And Mate.
And Barr's job here isn't to actually get the question on the census... it's simply to sew confusion... just like he did with the Mueller report.
Job done.
If you don’t answer this question will your census form be excluded?
1
How is it that William Barr and the other attorneys in the Justice Department who are shilling for Donald Trump are not having their character and fitness as attorneys investigated by the various licensing bodies that issued their law licenses? Attorneys are held to certain ethical standards in discharging their duties and responsibilities. Are these standards cast aside because Donald Trump is President? Absolutely unbelievable that a United States Attorney General and his staff are allowed to operate in this manner.
2
Trump and Barr are essentially saying that the Supreme Court's decision is null and void, and therefore doesn't govern what they want to accomplish. I remember from high school history class that South Carolina used a similar argument back in the 1830s with the federal government but it eventually didn't work out for them.
Why should this be any different? If the President and AG prevail on this what's to prevent them in the future from using the same logic to disregard any court decision or legislation they don't like? The citizenship/representation issue at stake is bad enough but perhaps the larger issue being raised here is the precedent they really want to set.
2
This is frightening. The President of the United States is actively seeking a way to defy a Supreme Court decision. And the Supreme Court is trying to assist him in this effort.
4
I don’t see how the gerrymandering actions of Democrats in Illinois has helped Trump. It’s hard to get Republicans elected to state offices. Or are you only complaining when it may adversely affect Democrats?
1
Since answers to census questions are not vetted for truthfulness, can't people just lie and say they are citizens? Any cursory examination of past census documents show many inaccurate and possibly false claims.
2
To update an insult from the late conservative law professor Philip Kurland, let our attorney general be known as "Necessity Barr" --- as in, "necessity knows no law, and neither does William Barr."
3
(Satire) Citing existing statutes preventing waste in federal spending, the Commerce Department notes that ink to print the citizenship question has already been purchased, Commerce spokeswoman said, “We are protecting the hard-working citizens who have regrettably paid taxes this year. By not printing this question would be a disservice to their sacrifice.”
Justice spokesmen concurred, adding that continued congressional opposition to the Administration’s neglect of Congress’ role in the census was an affront to the Constitutional principle of Separation of powers. “What more fundamental exercise of the principle exists other than having the President assert his right to separate Congress from its own powers?”
“The president is right on the legal grounds. I felt the Supreme Court decision was wrong…” – thus spake Attorney General Barr on the SC verdict on the citizenship question inserted in the census form on orders from Mr. Trump.
Is Mr. Barr saying that the five members of the court, including the chief justice, who issued the verdict are ignorant of "the legal grounds"? Yes, his survival as AG depends on parroting everything, even stupid thing, his boss says. But that doesn’t give him the right to besmirch the reputation of SC judges and to cast aspersion on their integrity. He should be held in contempt of the court.
It's a shame that he doesn't appreciate the deference for the president the five judges, especially Chief Justice Roberts who wrote the majority opinion, have shown in characterizing the citizenship question as “contrived.” If they were half as pretentious and arrogant as Barr, they would have dismissed it as illegal or partisan. In using the word “contrived,” they were also hinting that the citizenship question could be couched in a legally valid way.
The SC may soon grapple with another question. It is being rumored that the AG, on orders from Trump, is likely to dismiss Justice Department lawyers who refuse to go along with the wishes of both on the citizenship question. If the only crime for such dismissal is their refusal, which they think is illegal, their dismissal could be illegal, too. The SC will have a chance to tutor the AG and his boss on this.
1
I've got those low down, dirty rotten, micro-manager blues.
Sung by justice department lawyers working on anything Trump finds interesting.
Just ignore the court ruling and do it anyway. That’s trumps MO. Pesky laws are for others, not the trumps.
God forbid there is another opening on the Supreme Court, Trump will appoint Barr.
1
What about just refusing to answer the question? Is there a law that says you are required to answer all of the questions?
1
Same as their "path" for everything. Just do it, and they will get away with it, no consequences even possible.
Does Mr. Barr understand that he's not the White House counsel? Someone should explain his role as Attorney General and that he's not the replacement for Michael Cohen.
30
@UncleEddie
No, he probably doesn't.
He has already been Attorney General, so I don't know how he would have the appropriate context -- unlike you.
1
@UncleEddie
Its time to impeach Barr. He doesn't understand the job so its time for him to go via impeachment.
3
@UncleEddie Barr is a strange man who is contemptuous of the Constitution and the law. It’s like he’ll do whatever Trump wants because knows he will die some day.
1
The lawyers for Trump got the case rushed to the supreme court by claiming that the case had to decided by 6-30 or the timing of the census would be in peril. Trump lost the argument and suddenly 6-30 is no longer a problem. That is why Trump is changing the lawyers to make the brand new argument because the former lawyers would have to admit that they were lying to the Supreme Court when they claimed 6-30 was the last possible date. In other words the first set of lies didn't work, lets create a new set of lies until we get the judgement that Trump wants. This is how the Trump administration works. Lie first, change the lies until victory is achieved. Laws are simply suggestions that can be ignored at will.
28
@KJ Peters
Its time to strip the lawyers lying to SCOTUS to be fined and stripped of their law licenses. Even a presidential pardon cannot give those attorneys back their law licenses. That's how America commences returning to its common sense roots.
2
The big story here is no longer the census question itself. It's the entire justice department legal team refusing to continue working on the case. The only plausible explanation for that is that they believe that doing so would cause them to violate their ethical responsibilities.
This is unprecedented and a really big deal.
167
...without belittling the “big story” of the R’s attempting to disenfranchise brown and black people and defund populous urban areas...but I do see your point.
3
@LRosenthal: Just curious: How can non-citizens be disenfranchised when they don't have a right to vote to begin with?
The "citizenship question" is based in a desire to rig post census re-redistricting to benefit both the Republican party and their desire for white supremacy. There's no other motivation. This was proven when Thomas Hofeller's hard drives were found, he who was known as the Republican "Michelangelo" of gerrymandering.
There is no legitimate reason for the citizenship question on our 2020 census. It's a naked act of racism and partisanship.
245
@Dominic genius, why has it been on the form for more than 160 years? Try looking at Section 2 of the 14th Amendment. Lastly, read the decision! Even Roberts says it could be asked depending on the motivation. Facts matter, except to Dems!
5
@Matthew The question has not been on the census since 1950. The administration can get the statistical information simply by including it in the American Community survey. They are working overtime to include it in the census to manipulate reapportionment in their partisan favor at the expense of disfavored people.
The demand for a factual process is laughable given the previously stated, since abandoned, rationale of enforcing the Voting Rights Act.
42
Hun. Like you said, Motivation and facts. Facts say the motivation is to corrupt the results of the census towards fewer citizens/non citizens ( facts saying percentage wise, mostly in dem heavy regions) responding to it in the first place.
Facts and motivation like you say
9
Although embarrassing, given the gerrymandering decisions, Trump just needs to feed his base and admit he wants a citizenship question to suppress non-white responses to the census and skew the census in favor of white people.
Then he can pull a few choice quotes from "fine" South African P.W. Botha and be done with it.
The truth will set him free with this SCOTUS bench.
3
I don't know why everyone is so surprised to learn Barr is a water boy for Trump and the senate. At the confirmation hearings Barr was unable to directly answer any question. If any criminal did the same in a court of law the verdict would be guilty as charged. A new member of the cult of personality. What can we do about this destruction of democracy? We are so shocked and so fearful of this cult we cower. However, from past and present cults, we have learned they are always found out and destroyed
2
I am amazed at how AG Barr debases himself for Trump who Barr must know is massively corrupt. I guess Barr is taking one for the GOP....that is why they installed him.
5
Now, let me see! Is it possible to contrive a justification to un-contrive a contrived justification? Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanagh don't appear to care. So I suppose the answer depends on how willing Chief Justice Roberts is to be bamboozled. I fear the worst.
3
The title of this article should be “Barr Says the Legal Path Exists to Citizenship Question on Census, but He Gives No Details.”
The LA Rams should have asked the NFL to allow a 5th quarter in the Super Bowl this past Feb....The Golden State Warriors should have asked the NBA if the finals this past June could have been a best of 9 series...You should get as many do-overs as you need to win a game/series...
That's what happening in politics, you get do-overs....In Florida, voters passed Amendment 4 by a whooping 65-35 % margin, which allows former felons to vote...Now the Florida governor is trying to un-do what the voters overwelmingly supported....And the current admin is trying to undo a SCOTUS decision on the census question....And expect Trump when he loses in 2020 to try to undo the results....He'll probably try to issue an Executive Order to make himself the winner of the 2020 election, even if he loses by 325 electoral votes....This would all be funny if it wasn't so terrifying....
2
When someone defines his entire value system on seeming, at least to himself, that he is a “winner”, and that losing is the very worst thing that can happen, you get a Trump and his followers. You get cheaters. You get blazers. You get sadists. You get people who will do anything to give themselves a story where they “win”. This is the morality of a desperately insecure person with no other moral lodestar. But he has tapped into a great American need, to not identify as a loser. His base.
3
Sounds like the line of sycophants at DOJ doesn’t extend too far below Barr and that the real lawyers aren’t very comfortable drafting the new lie, so they are through with it.
2
Barr is the Attorney General in name only. In reality he took over for Michael Cohen who has been unfortunately detained.
The difference is that we are paying the bills this time and William Barr gets to march around and pretend to be smart and important while gleefully composing his lawyerly word salads.
If this country is to ever see justice again, Mr William Barr will be experiencing the DOJ from the inside, and so will his thuggish criminal employer.
2
The Constitution begins “We the people of the United States...”. It does NOT say ‘We the people of the United States, foreign residents, illegal aliens, their children and extended families...”
Meanwhile, it’s hilarious that, following three years of shrieking over ‘foreign interference’ in our electoral process, so-called progressives demand to include millions of non-citizens...aka the citizens of other countries...in a count that determines the number of congressional seats and electoral votes. In other words....foreign interference.
Add the citizenship question!
1
What a farce. At least Trump plays a convincing Tartuffe!
1
Who is this guy Barr and how did he become the defacto head of the Republican party? The highest law enforcement officer in the nation is a partisan stoolie.
1
Barr is a minion of both the GOP and white nationalists, although I don’t know if one is distinguishable from the other these days. The citizenship question is clearly not legal.
1
Removal of the legal team working on the census question is another outrageous breach of protocol and precedent by an administration devoid of respect for the law. The strategy of the Republican party and its large cadre of wealthy, elite power-grabbers has been, for years now if not decades, to implement a slow, long-term process of strangling liberalism, manipulating attitudes, skewing districts, replacing judges, and redefining democracy as a facade for the ongoing real management of the country -- and soon the world -- by energy, water, and financial industries. The seemingly simple question of the citizenship question is a vital linchpin in their end-game that they cannot afford to let go. So, as with so many other actions taken or undertaken by Trump's corrupt old-boy network, a purely Machiavellian response is needed: get our "man" (or policy) in place, whatever it costs politically and however it may damage the country. They don't care. The country they envision at the end of this battle bears no resemblance to the progressive, liberal "western democracy" the great majority of Americans hold hopefully in their hearts.
1
Foll all those who think only citizens should be counted:
It's not the law now. Wishing it were the law doesn't make it so. Get congress to make a law that says the census includes only citizens. Then you are good to go. Until then, it's all hot air. Do you expect to see Trump and congress persons run on this issue in 2020? Why or why not?
1
“I didn’t really get into the details.”
Translation: The team of Justice Dept. lawyers concluded that Trump and I are full of it, but that's not going to stop us from adding the question by hook or by crook. Probably both.
1
If you want to make sense of why Barr is assisting Trump you need to look at the agenda of the Federalist society. They have long proven a desire of racism and minority suppression hiding behind the mask of constitutional originalism. You know when white men owned slaves and women had no voting rights.
That is William Barr. With that you can understand why he is allied with Trump to achieve their agenda. It isn’t that he supports Trump. Trump is simply the vehicle for their agenda.
If you understand this their actions and their intention come into clear focus.
1
“The president is right on the legal grounds. I felt the Supreme Court decision was wrong, but it also made clear that the question was a perfectly legal question to ask, but the record had to be clarified,” Mr. Barr said in an interview.
This quote is astonishing. He calls an OPINION of the court wrong. Not only that, that they "made clear that the question was a perfectly legal question to ask" is a stretch (they would need new, adequate reasoning, but their true intention has already been laid bare). But to be fair, he also thought the Mueller report made clear there was no obstruction of justice. If 45 said something this devoid of logic we would be mocking him, but from the US AG this is embarrassing.
2
The only reason Trump and Barr keep beating this dead horse is to scare anyone who’s in citizenship limbo off the census plain and simple.
The media is being played by reporting this stuff.
The only solution is for the immigrant community to stand up and be counted. It’s time to stand up to the bullying. They can’t arrest you all. Staying silent is just going to make things worse.
The way is simple. Just violate the law. Nothing new in that with the Trump Administration.
“It makes a lot of sense for the president to see if it’s possible that we could clarify the record in time to add the question,” Mr. Barr added.
Translation: We need a more plausible lie.
1
MY QUESTION : What if Trump puts the question on the forms regardless....what happens?
Since he seems to have the AG and DOJ in his pocket...who's going to do anything? Democrats?
What can they do other than scream and stomp their feet...
If there's undercounting in the Hispanic community then it will be the fault of community leaders for not getting the proper message out. Most households will be using the short form. Only the long form should be detailed.
1
As Democrats once again fight by Marquis of Queensbury rules, the Trump administration kicks, claws and strikes almost exclusively below the belt. Time for the House to meet Barr and Ross in court over those subpoenas. Once they put their contrived action into place, the administration will talk about the challenge as old news and cook up another outrage to blot this miscarriage from the public conscience. The drip, drip eroding liberal democracy is becoming a tidal flood that has to be addressed now.
1
The Supreme Court ruled that asking the citizenship question is constitutional. The issue isn't whether the question will be added to the census, but whether the administration can comply with the court's instruction in time to add it to the print version of the 2020 census.
Even if its misses the press run, the citizenship question could be added to the print version of the census questionnaire as an insert, if necessary, but even if this proves impracticable, the question could still be added to the 2020 census as late as April 2020.
The 2020 census will be the first census conducted primarily online. Next year, 20 percent of U.S. households will receive printed census questionnaires. The other 80 percent will be invited to answer the census questions on line or by phone. The Census Bureau will send census workers to knock on the doors of household that don’t respond.
So, the citizenship question could be asked of about 80 percent of households even it if it too late to add it to the printed questionnaire.
And no, the online version does not have to be the same as the print version. The long-form version of the census was never the same as the short form.
Add the census question, but also add a question about what guns are in the household.
9
I would like to point out to all the commenters that we are not in a Democracy. We are a Republic.
A true Democracy would require all voters to vote on all laws before they were put in place. It would also require all people in the country to enforce the laws that were made.
As a Republic, we elect representatives that propose the laws, write the laws, vote on the laws and enforce the laws. Whether those representatives are part of the Congress, the Courts or the Administration doesn't matter. They are all representing us.
4
The U.S.A. is most certainly a democracy, which simply means citizens vote. We are also a constitutional republic, meaning a government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body and exercise power according to the rule of law under a constitution.
Actually, we live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.
@dfhamel
So this is your definition of democracy? That all citizens vote directly on all laws and also enforce those laws? I think that is absurd. Who else agrees with such a notion?
As for the republic, there is no direct vote for the office of president. Originally, the office of Senator was appointed by the state governments, not by any sort of citizen vote, but that was remediated by amendment to the Constitution. Your notion of republic is not the US form at all since the states elect the president. Nor do the citizens vote for the administration as almost all of those people are chosen by the president who is not elected by the citizens. Same with the courts. Nor are they representing us, particularly in the administration where they largely represent themselves and their party (not only this administration, though this is particularly egregious in this administration).
You need to take a detailed course in the form and history of the US government. I only hope you are not teaching your own bogus views somewhere.
SCOTUS having ruled that gerrymandering for political purposes is not in their mandate, will likely be the venue to determine this final outcome. This matter being similarly political in nature, it will be interesting to observe their decision.
The President’s personal attorney AG Barr, having already abrogated his duty to the “People,” will no doubt cobble a argument for this President that this Conservative court just may buy.
The decisions this court makes will determine its own impartiality, and therefore its legitimacy, to a large segment of the public. It is unfortunate, especially under the over reaching Trump administration, that this court does not always place more importance upon the public good than it does to its own political ideological leaning.
6
It appears there is a mutiny in there Justice Department as Barr can not find anyone to take the case. Looks like he is stuck with it . Barr thought he could avoid the stench of Trump but he will not be spared
3
I thought Democrats were against foreign influence in our elections?
5
@M
Perhaps take it up with the founding fathers since the Census is clearly defined in the Constitution.
But nice job picking up the "foreign influence in elections" cliche and running with it.
Barr is stretching out the discussion, adding to the confusion on the question Trump wants included. By looking at the comments here doing a good job of planting confusion on why this question in particular does not belong on the census. There are plenty of reasons why people are here legally and are not citizens. They still pay taxes and deserve the benefits of living in the US. It’s not my intention here to defend not including the question here. My point is that commenters here don’t have much knowledge of the subject are leaning towards “yeah, sure, why not”. Why not in fact has to do with the court deciding a strong “no” verdict and the rest is a head shake of squirming and searching “for a legal path forward”. Driven by Trump who will not take no for an answer. The pity is that he is president and if he continues to order people to act against court orders, as in defying subpoenas, we will finally arrive at his sought after destination: constitutional crisis. Good job all you bots out there.
3
@GG
The citizenship question provides ‘we the people’ the information necessary to sift out the non-citizen population from the count that determines our government’s congressional seats and electoral votes.
That the question has been rendered controversial by the Democratic faction is utterly absurd.
Trump, and now Barr, are keeping the citizenship question in the news, on purpose. It is another way to say "We don't want you here."
4
The Not So Supreme Court—more evidence of the demise of our republic.
3
When the Court decisions don’t favor your views they must be wrong.
Barr is blowing smoke to calm Trump down. He hasn't the slightest idea how to get this destructive question onto the census. Trump hasn't the slightest idea of what is going on. His legal knowledge only extends to getting his consigliere to "fix it" so that he gets what he wants. Trump's vile and ego-driven lust for power is the only thing fueling this nonsensical farce.
8
William Barr is the dirtiest cop in America. He’s a radical man who chose to be the protector of Donald Trump & the Republican Party. He should never have been confirmed.
He’s dangerous because he’s highly intelligent and he has a lot of big money backing him. He doesn’t care one iota about his prior reputation being torn to shreds.
If Barr represents the “Justice” Department then it’s obvious that there’s no justice in America. That = anarchy.
13
@Brett B Excellent explanation of where we are now in America. There is no longer justice for the average person only the 1%.
I may have been asleep since Trump was elected but I always thought that the Supreme Court, rather than the Attorney General, determined whether something was legal or not. I believed it was left to Congress to determine what is a "legitimate legislative purpose" and not the Secretary of the Treasury.
And, I always thought the executive branch of our government was the presidency and his administration. We seem to have moved a king and his court model.
10
I find this action great as it exposes - once again - this administration to the values they hold. Why hide their contempt to the law?
5
Apparently the fact that census question is immoral doesn’t bother Barr. The fact that elder Americans might no longer have proof of citizenship like a birth certificate doesn’t bother him either. Many Americans may have lost such proof. Is the plan then to boot citizens out of the country too?
2
It no longer matters that the question will not be on the census. The fear of persecution has been instilled, and Barr continues to stoke it. A substantial number of people will not answer the census because they assume that it will be used against them, even if the citizenship question is not there. A well-publicized threat can be very effective. Which reminds me: I wonder if Rudy Guiliani ever got dirt on Biden's son from his pals in the Ukraine despite the fact that he cancelled his trip. I guess if Joe gets the nomination we'll find out.
2
The damage has already been done: doors will be slammed on census takers out of fear, even in households with citizens. Undercounting has serious consequences: population size underpins everything from public health to emergency planning.
Once again, Trump, Barr and GOP have won, despite the questionable legality and unquestionable unethical nature of their actions. The losers are the American people.
26
In other words, we’ll make the rules up as we go along.
4
We cannot have an executive branch operate outside of the law. If Trump and Barr violate the court order, Congress must impeach.
3
This is AG Barr:
“The president is right on the legal grounds. I felt the Supreme Court decision was wrong....".
Barr has chosen the PERSON of Donald Trump as legal authority rather than the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY of the Supreme Court as final arbiter of legality in the United States.
That is the essence of authoritarian populism. Putin would agree; Erdogan would agree; Orban would agree; Kim would agree; Mohammad Bin Salman Al Saud would agree; etc etc etc.
It goes without saying that Barr is failing miserably as AG. He is acting as private protector of the President rather than chief enforcer of the law of the land.
But more than that, he is doing so, like Trump himself, by stepping OUTSIDE the legal and procedural framework established by the Constitution.
We know the Supreme Court is wrong because the President says it is wrong; now we find a good enough reason to JUSTIFY our case,
That is the legal reasoning of a fascist, to be perfectly blunt.
9
Meanwhile, Barr’s path to accountability only reveals itself for one day every 100 years.
So now Barr gets to over-ride the Supreme Court too?
He’s already in contempt of Congress.
And he helped Trump obstruct justice as well.
We don’t need an impeachment trial — we need a guillotine.
13
Imagine… wondering what’s not laced with race; if you listen to our liberal friends we’re all guilty of racism if we don’t adhere to their cultish mumbo-jumbo. Talk about arsenic and old lace, watching the hate filled spittle flying from Pelosi’s nervous lips is like watching the erotic antics of a painted sideshow clown in search of a Elephant to taunt, for his own sad failings.
2
Barr is a total lapdog to Trump and seems to take delight in making a mockery of the laws he is to uphold. But what does one expect from someone married to Roseanne?
2
In other words Barr wants the president to believe it is still alive.
Well Trump and Barr seem to have become quite the twosome-
“Tweedle-dumb” and “Tweedle-defy” the Supreme Court.
Lord help us!!
3
Barr was a lackey then, and he’s a lackey now.
5
Given the origins of this tactic, to greatly reduce responses to the Census by non-white, non-citizens ( and those recently naturalized non-white citizens), this is simply a super-sized version of gerrymandering and extreme-conservative court-packing, wrapped in the specious flag of "civil rights enforcement".
The facts are clear. There is no Constitutional requirement to have such a question in the Census (and such questions can be asked by other forms of research). GOP partisans have planned this as a way to strip resources further away from Blue States and other states with larger non-citizen populations.
If it's allowed to move forward, the Supreme Court will be that much more complicit in the division of the country, to a degree not seen since the Taney Court, of Dred Scott decision infamy, which helped fan the flames of the Civil War.
Let's hope Roberts wants to avoid another one of those disasters.
8
I, for one, will not be answering the citizenship question if it is allowed on our 2020 census forms. Trump came right out and said that the question is needed for “redistricting” purposes.
The purpose of the census is to count “all people’ living in the United States, not just citizens. Trump does not understand our constitution nor our laws. He wants to rewrite everything to make this country into what he thinks it should be. Let’s not allow that to happen. Everyone needs to vote in 2020. We need to take back our White House and our country.
5
Just reprint the old census questionnaires that had the question on it and be done with it.
Citizens matters most because they vote or will vote, depending on age. The rest are here either legally or illegally. The latter need to leave as soon as possible.
3
Splitting hairs over the mechanism misses the point:
It is reasonable for a country to count its citizens.
3
@Ami- the point is to count the number of people, all of them.....NOT just citizens!
HUGE DIFFERENCE....not splitting hairs.
1
@Ami It is also reasonable in a census of all people living in the country to actually ENCOURAGE responses, instead of using a question known to discourage responses.
1
@Ami So why did they lie about it?
1
Wow. Guess SCOTUS isn't very powerful after all. since the earliest days of our nation it has been understood that the executive branch must enforce the rulings of the supreme court/legal branch, laws have no teeth. Here the executive branch has decided it doesn't want to enforce the ruling that says they can't do something (in this case it is having a question on the census). So who's going to tell the executive that they have to obey the Judicial branches rulings? The need to address that question/circumstance isn't envisioned in the constitution.
Now we have a supreme court that kowtows to a "conservative cause" that is the driving ideology of the executive branch. Both are beholden to a "cause", and not the people of our nation, and so neither views the "law" as restrictive, merely something that requires workarounds or better lawyers.
They view politics like a big brother playing monopoly who cheats when he feels like it and threatens you when you call him on it. As long as they are in power, the American democratic project is non-existant.
4
The citizenship question has been on the census forms for hundreds of years. It has only been recently that it has not appeared.
I feel it is important that the question appear. If some people don't want to take the census because of that question. well that is their choice. But the views of illegal aliens and their democratic pals, should not control the questions on the census.
Some polling has been done on the subject and it shows that a majority want the question on the census form. It should be on the form and liberal judges should get out of the way.
2
I don’t think this is quite correct.
@Judith weller
If the 2020 census form does ultimately ask about citizenship status, it will be the first time the U.S. census has directly asked for the citizenship status of every person living in every household.
@Judith weller I pulled a copy of the 1960 Census Form. It asks in which country each household member was born, but I don't see any questions regarding citizenship.
The Supreme Court settled the crucial issue by finding“the Enumeration Clause permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire.” The citizenship question is constitutional.
Bur the Supreme Court also found that Commerce Secretary Ross did not disclose his “pretextual” reasons for his decision to to reinstate the question to the district court, a step the Supreme Court for the first time ruled is essential to judicial review. So it remanded the case to the district court.
Secretary Ross could comply with the ruling by returning to the district court and disclosing the pretextual history, The administration thinks he may be able to comply in time to add the citizenship question to the 2020 census.
One administration officials floated the possibility that the president might issue a memorandum instructing the Census Bureau to add the citizenship question to the 2020 census. This would make Secretary Ross’s pretextual reasons for reinstating the question immaterial.
2
The Times and other news outlets should provide handi-wipes or other sanitation tools to readers because I feel so dirty just reading about the Trump Administration evil machinations vis a vis the census, immigration/asylum. family separation, climate change, environmental regs and a host of other issues.
Notice that Barr did not answer the question about whether any original DOJ legal team members agreed to stay on. Instead he made a non-denial denial by saying "I didn't get into the details". He is into the details enough to replace the Team.
Pass the wipes please.
5
Since federal $ are spent on people and infrastructure (in a sane world), regardless if they register to vote or not, or are too young, or where they were born, you cannot base federal resources (including Congressional representatives) just on eligible voters.
2
Now it is "Captain Obvious" apparent that the main reason Mr. Barr is Attorney General is the Federalist Society determined he was a good, safely reactionary, solid Republican who could be counted on to toe the Administration Line. In the view of the President, "Good enough." In the view of Sen. McConnell, "a good Republican."
Done.
4
If there was a legitimate reason for the citizen question then why wasn't it presented first? The fact that everyone knows the reason actually presented was for political reasons should preclude any further action at least until the next census. Justice Roberts should not have allowed the do-over.
5
At this point it is hardly news to learn that President Trump doesn't think the law applies to him. He sees himself as the king of America, an absolute monarch who is above the law and whom all must obey.
When Bill Barr was appointed Attorney General it was widely reported that his experience and professionalism would temper the president's willful disregard of the Constitution. Instead, in Barr Trump has found someone who affirms his absolutist pretensions.
Apparently, Barr thinks that the Founders intended to invest monarchical powers in the presidency. The system of checks and balances we all learned about in grade school? Forget about it. The rule of law? Forget about it.
In Barr's theory of the presidency the only check on the chief executive is his own conscience. So when the president is someone like Trump, who has no conscience, there is no check.
Barr is attempting to re-write the Constitution. The Republicans in Congress appear willing to go along with this. If the conservative majority on the Supreme Court were to agree, Trump and his allies will effectively have accomplished a constitutional coup.
This is one of the ways democracies die.
5
So apparently the Supreme Court only offers "suggestions" to be followed when convenient now?
Our slip away from democracy and founding principles is a travesty.
I pray to the god I'm not certain I believe in that 2020 allows us to move on from the stain on American history.
MADA - Make America Democratic Again.
5
Attorney General Barr says that a legal path to the census citizenship question exist, but gives no details.
Maybe the details are in a bag he left in the bar. My suggestion would be for Mr Barr to pass the bar first and check if he left it there. He may be right, and not left it there. I’ll leave it there.
He also said, concerning the census question, that “The President is right on the legal grounds’. He may be be right on the legal grounds. Not too sure about the prison grounds which is where they both may end up. Behind bars. Hey Mr Barr, stay out of bars, okay?
1
@Very Confused- that was quite a statement wasn't it....the President is right on legal grounds....like, Trump has such an outstanding legal mind he taught Barr something.....showed Barr what he was not understanding...etc...
Since Citizens United does it really matter? The money is going to flow where the money says it's going to flow.
Only the Republican Party would have the audacity to go before the Supreme Court and Lie (Contrived) about the origins and purposes of the census question and then pronounce they disagree with the Court's ruling. Now, what was it you were saying about the deep state?
1
Barr claims the Court made it “clear” that citizenship status was a “perfectly legal question to ask.”
When in its long history has the Supreme Court ruled that the government must refrain from doing something that the Court clearly states is perfectly legal? It rules, at least hopefully, based on its interpretation of our constitution and laws, not on “clarifying the record.”
Yes, it appears the ruling does give our alleged government the opening for a “do over,” but portraying the defining issue as a mere legal technicality is disheartening spin. We might have been better served if, as Barr and his pals attempted to depart the prison set of their photo op tour, they found the doors locked.
It is a shame that the SC blinked on the citizenship question and left the door ajar for all of this theatrics by Trump, and now Barr. And, as we know, a lawyer's job is to advocate for their client and not necessarily the truth. The last time a citizenship question was asked was in 1950. The question asked where each person was born and asked, "If foreign born — Is they were naturalized? It will be interesting to see what far fetched reply Trump, with Barr's help, will present to the SC this time. Whatever it is you better be wearing boots, it may be messy.
2
This citizenship question on the census will give ICE the addresses of where non-citizens are living and help them with their deportation raids.
The President was not "right", he was on unconstitutional, illegal "grounds", the administration wants more time to obscure the record and yet, it all does makes sense, because the Republican Party wants power, and even despotism, at any cost to the nation, the world at large or future generations.
Does this mean we can leap frog over present and future decisions on the restrictions of women's reproductive rights? Gerrymandering? Ok, let's get on with it.
2
We need a vigorous Democratic attack plan to expose the vast menu of GOP/Trump violations of the constitution and rule of law.
Barr is again functioning as Trump's personal and political attorney. He's clearly not serving the interests of the American people or the constitution.
AOC and the few others in Congress who have the guts to hold real hearings with relentlessly hard questioning should haul Barr back in and ask him why he's constantly functioning as Trump's lackey rather than as the chief law enforcement officer for all of us!
2
It does not bode well for our country that Trump and Barr refuse to accept a clear Supreme Court decision.
2
Hello,
It just seems to me that a plain reading of the rules and good governance in general that the government and in turn the people in this country want to know the number of citizens and non citizens we have around us. Nothing frightful about that. We have also asked this question before and the world didn’t end and it won’t this time either. Why be afraid of facts?
2
@Paul There is no reason that the census should be "weaponized" and that is exactly what the RepubliCONs are attempting to do (and have accomplished to some degree, even if the citizenship question is left off). The question is an attempt to create under reporting of minorities, who tend to vote Democratic. It is also an attempt to identify and locate those who vote (citizens) so as to Gerrymander the districts to the Repubs advantage. Citizenship is important, but not so important as to be an obstacle to the Constitutional mandate for an accurate decennial count. And the 'lifers' in the Commerce Dept. have stated that the inclusion of the citizenship question could result in an under-count of in excess of 6 MILLION.
2
@Paul
It would appear that the faction formerly known as the Democratic Party are attempting to gerrymander congressional districts and electoral votes, using the population of non-citizens....millions of whom are illegal aliens...to boost their numbers. The citizenship question would sift those people out..which is why the Democrats are fighting it.
2
Why be afraid of facts? Good question.
Why not ask these questions on the Census, every one FACTUAL:
What is your preferred political party?
What is your income?
How many affairs have you had?
What is your religion?
Have you committed any crimes without being caught?
Do you support the current President?
Do you support “illegal immigration”?
Will you donate to help build The Wall?
If not, why not?
These are facts I am sure the Trump Administration would love to have.
So the question is not: is it a fact?
The question is: should these facts be gathered by this administration, at this time; and how will they use them?
I am of course NOT WILLING to suspend disbelief, as you surely have guessed.
I do not believe putting the citizen issue on THIS census by THIS administration is about accumulating information. It is about amassing power.
3
Most people are missing the point with this one.
It's immaterial whether the question winds up on the census.
It's being used to scare people who may be targeted by ICE, no matter the reason, from filling out the census.
Anything that can keep it front and center in the news will achieve the same outcome.
Mission Accomplished.
32
Hopefully that federal judge in New York schedules a full public hearing, soon, requiring the testimony under oath from those DOJ attorneys who wish to withdraw from this Administration's severely tainted, legal embarrassment and abomination. Let's get to the bottom of the inner machinations of the Trump/Barr duplicity: who said what, when, and where.
50
So obvious Barr came back because he needed the MONEY! I bet if we had a look at his finances, they would show him deep in debt. This guy simply saw the “chuck wagon” in Donald Trump and figured Trump would be “thankful” in some small (sic) way.
14
Trump and Barr are showing that this administration is above the law. It's that simple. We are on the precipice.
40
I almost miss Jeff Sessions. Worst Attorney General since John Mitchell.
25
So the premise for the Republicans attempt to shift resources here in the US based on the census comes from their willingness to try to exploit the fact that people who are here illegally will be too afraid to return their census and therefore be counted? People should not have to live in fear, maybe they should become legal then. Seems straightforward enough to me.
1
No, the truth is that the GOP wants this new data to improve their gerrymandering of cogressional districts, for partisan purposes.
1
@John Doe
Oh yeah, just as straightforward as the Dreamers coming forward under DACA in the hopes of a better life in the country they grew up in, only to end up on the deportation list of Trump's enforcers.
2
@John Doe, it's not that resources are directed to individual people. It's that entire states are impacted. Don't you think republicans live in California? If trump hates blue states and wants to advantage red states, using metrics that the census was NOT DESIGNED to count, they are doing it for unAmerican reasons. That is all.
In, say, 1950, was this question necessary? If not, why is it necessary now, John?
Is there a rule against the Attorney General simultaneously serving as the President's campaign manager? Just wondering.
40
@Richard, yes, absolutely, as well as the rule against the AG serving the president instead of the interests of the U.S.A. Doesn't seem to matter to republicans, does it? Ah, the days when they were all over Obama about 'ruling by fiat', disrespecting established law, wearing a tan suit...
Mitch McConnell has sold his soul to Putin, via his newfound love of Daripaska's money, and wouldn't you know it, suddenly all the republican Senate goes dark. They emerge only to insult Democratic ideas and disparage women who dare challenge trump in 2020. Busy little bees, doing something there in the dark, but not legislating for us. FOX's reporting is so North Korean in it's sneering news coverage; when I go there to find info on the Epstein case, all I see is BILL CLINTON! I just can't anymore....
So if Barr and Trump can claim that the SC is "wrong" on this matter, what's to stop people (or States) from ignoring future rulings from the Court if they disagree with them. For instance if the SC overturns Roe?
36
King Donald and his personal lawyer Barr are trampling on the rule of law in this country. There isn't any reason they could give to put the citizenship question on the Census that wouldn't seem contrived.
29
Does the Trump administration get a Do-over with the Supreme Court on the addition of the citizenship question the census? The first time the Supreme Court dismissed their argument as not being “credible”.Does that mean that Trump and Barr can come up with several rationales and let the Court decide which is the most credible? If the census forms are indeed being printed without the question there is no way it can be added unless they add it to on line surveys.Barr and Trump and Wilbur Ross are trying to muddy the waters after an adverse ruling by the Supreme Court-no surprise that they would do this!
16
Sort of in the same way he handled the “Muslim ban.” They made him keep rewording the ban until it couldn’t be considered unconstitutional. So, basically, only the words changed, not the intended reason or meaning, as far as trump is concerned. To us, it’s a ban, to him, it’s a way to keep people out. He only wants this to keep people south of the US border out or to locate to deport. Again, to us it’s a ban, to him, it’s “immigration control.” IMO, either way it’s worded, it seems racial. They also seem to be avoiding the fact that there are permanent residents in the US that haven’t applied for citizenship. Some here for 50 years. There’s no accounting for that on the census from what I understand.
3
@JANET MICHAEL By calling it "contrived", Chief Justice Roberts basically called the Administration a bunch of liars.
How can you possibly enforce the 14th Amendment Section 2 without knowing the number (proportion) of citizens in any given state? The questions has a legitimate purpose and the administration will win, as they should.
4
@Pedro The Constitution clearly does not specify "citizens" when it describes the Census.
1
@Pedro
Because the 14th amendment, Section 2 does not mention anything about citizenship. It states "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
That's it. WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS. The only exclusion is for untaxed Native Americans. Non-citizens are taxed, just like everyone else.
3
@Pedro
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
And just where does it say anything about citizens ?
Oh, the second part, which has to do with the recently freed slaves and their right to vote.
2
Seems that General Barr's main job description is to "invent the greatest lie better than which no other lies can be told". More of a Propagandist General role, than an Attorney General role.
27
donnie's penchant for saying "secret plans" is infectious.
Barr: There is a legal path to census citizenship question. No details at this time.
Is Barr's secret plan just as bereft of content as donnie's?
11
"Doing so is an exceedingly rare step and puts a black mark on both officials’ public records." I'm sure they're trembling in their boots. Is the threat of a "black mark" like the middle school teacher telling the kid it is going on his "permanent record"?
2
Looks like the justice department is now the legal team for Trump and republicans. Voter suppression full speed ahead!
27
This is the same Bill Barr and the same Justice Department trying to block a lawsuit by Congress that the Trump Crime Family has illegally profited and profiteered from the office.
I’m sure Bill Barr is a good guy all around. But history won’t be kind to him.
8
@T. Rivers
He is not a good guy. He is actively engaged in rewriting our democracy for the political power he represents. And that group doesn’t respect any of us as peers or equals.
2
No one should be surprised by AG Barr and his actions
He actions during his participation in the Bush sr White House clearly indicates where his loyalty lie and the Democrats failed to question him regarding this during the appointment hearings.
9
@Paul J W
The vote was nearly party lines though 3 democrats voted for and 1 republican against. There would be no swaying republicans with reason as he is a political figure that works for their agenda. He is totally partisan in the extreme.
1
Congress needs to wrest back control of the census from the Dept. of Commerce.
8
The more I listen to Trump and his administration, the more I come to believe that the RNC position seems to be that the plan is to not count non-citizens when redistricting and allocating federal funds - essentially to say that non-citizens (even if they are legal residents) cannot count as part of the overall population.
Of course that position is at odds with the text of the constitution and laws that have been written. Then again, who cares about "pieces of paper" when we have Trump to inform us about how things really work and the he will always be the ultimate decider of all things for all time.
The underlying problem is that Trump thinks that the people in government all work for him. WRONG! They all work for the government as defined as We-the-People.
23
I say hoorah for the lawyers in the DOJ federal programs who declined to continue working on this ongoing saga of presidential ego. They saved their public reputations and that of their division. The case went on an expedited fashion tu the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had its say. Enough.
19
@BettyDavisEyes
One must keep in mind that lawyers, as members on the bar, are first officers of the court. The group who made the case for Trump's citizenship question cannot reverse their earlier position regarding the genesis of the question while maintaining their ethical duties to the court. They could be sanctioned for that. Thus, a new set of lawyers.
Now how their boss, Wm Barr, can send a new team back in with a shiny new bogus excuse without peril to his, ahem, Bar license, is beyond me. This is the legal profession operating at its lowest, barely and possibly not ethical worst. They're probably holding a seance right now to conjure the spirit of Scalia to gain his power of twisting the law to get what you want from it.
3
Gerrymandering on a national level. If the question appears, I will not answer it.
28
Barr’s credentials suggest he’s an attorney yet his words don’t usually reflect legal reasoning. In the era of Trump/McConnell things are just plain wrong because someone’s interests are affected. SCOTUS decisions are rulings, not true/false questions for people to ponder. We may disagree but labeling things as wrong perpetuates a no room for dialogue status quo that authoritarians need.
8
In federal court lawyers have to make a motion to be relieved as counsel for a party and the court has to approve such a motion. The district judge could still block this abusive and transparent tactic. If you or I, or any other litigant behaved in this manner in district court, very significant sanctions would likely be imposed by the court, especially since the administration took the position that this issue had to be resolved urgently as a basis for getting the matter to the Supreme Court on an expedited basis given the printing deadline. That position now appears to have been false or a flat out lie, such conduct in federal court usually draws stiff fines for lawyers and parties who engage in such gamesmanship. If nothing else, such conduct shows Trump's utter contempt and Barr's indifference to the rule of law.
20
"But Mr. Barr said on Monday that the president’s statement did not surprise him because “he and I had talked” about the census issue “several times” after the Supreme Court tossed out the citizenship question."
So, either Barr is out of touch with his DOJ employees and their strategies for this, one of the administration's highest profile issues, or he's simply incompetent, or both.
Which is it?
16
@Raoul Mr. Barr is acting more and more like John Mitchell, without the courage to forthrightly say so. Mitchell at least admitted his fealty to Nixon was greater than his respect for law.
1
The primary objective of the census is to obtain an accurate count of the population. The primary objective of the citizenship question is to generate an inaccurate count. Any judge who rules in favor of the addition of the question obviously isn't in search of truth and accuracy.
15
Wait. There are legal grounds for denying a supreme court ruling?
13
Barr "gives not details
: He doesn't have them yet, they haven't figured it out. Probably in behind the scenes negotiations with Roberts and the Trump judges on what can pass muster.
6
If anyone ever had any doubts about the impartiality of Attorney General William P. Barr, that should now be put to rest.
In coming out for Donald Trump on the citizenship question while unequivocally calling the Supreme Court decision "wrong", he's left no room to guess where his loyalties lie.
This of course, with no further details.
Not surprising for a president and administration that consistently hold themselves above the law.
17
The administration already gave its rationale for including the citizenship question on the census and the Supreme Court deemed it to be "contrived." Which was their way of saying the administration was lying so blatantly even the conservative justices couldn't let it fly. How can anything the administration says now be received as anything other than another lie? The Supreme Court basically (and ridiculously) said, "Come up with something else." And so now we're supposed to believe that lawyers and politicians are sitting around a meeting room for days on end struggling to come up with...the truth? Please. They're trying to figure out which lie they can get away with. The fact that we're even engaging in this exercise is a slap in the face to intelligent Americans.
11
If there is a valid reason to put the citizenship question on the census form, as Bar asserts, how come it wasn't put forward as the legal rationale in the first place? Why did the Trump regime tell a blatant lie about wanting to "enforce the Voting Rights Act," a law -- by the way -- that Republicans of all shapes and sizes oppose with every fiber of their being?
Ominously, it appears that Barr is messing with the Supreme Court. He clearly believes that any old legal interpretation will do, a finding an entire team of Justice Department attorneys concluded didn't exist. You would think the four conservatives on the Court would strenuously object to Barr's run-around, but of course you'd be wrong.
The Rule of Law is under direct attack by this Administration, and it is shocking beyond belief that the Attorney General is leading the charge.
19
I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of lawyers/legal analysts on this. In my layman's opinion, I thought the most logical reading of the SCOTUS decision was that they were saying that the citizenship question was not impermissible in principle; it's just that this administration did not provide an adequate reason for adding it. A future administration might have legitimate reasons for doing it, and SCOTUS didn't want to have it ruled out by the precedent of this case.
If that's right, how can this administration come back with new reasoning for adding it? Isn't that essentially admitting they were lying about their initial reasons? And how can a new rationale for the question be taken as genuine, if they didn't mention it in the first go-round?
14
Good question. I have no idea what they are thinking. The Supreme Court is not in session until the first Monday of October. The administration has bungled this case. But, there are other cases, the one in Maryland. Can the administration create a record supporting the addition of the question in the Maryland case and convince the District Court to allow the question?
It would have been nice if Roberts had been clearer about whether or not it's too late for Trump to come up with his rationale to add the question this time.
If the 7/1 deadline that Trump's lawyers mentioned was in fact "real," then even if they come up with an acceptable rationale, it's too late.
But now they're arguing that that deadline wasn't real! Even if the new rationale is acceptable, shouldn't they be held accountable to the deadline that they had told the Court was imperative?
If Roberts still accepts a late rationale for this census, then he's sending a message that undermines the integrity of the Court: It doesn't matter whether you tell the truth or lie in your arguments.
However, Roberts could still uphold some integrity by stating: "OK, this new rationale is acceptable, go ahead and add the question in the next census." (Of course, Trump won't be President then; but Roberts still gives him a "win" if the future President wants to add the question.)
Roberts could stop the current insanity by issuing a statement like that now, rather than waiting to see what they submit after the deadline.
But my guess is that Roberts has limits to his integrity, and wouldn't do either of the things that he could/should do.
18
@Paul-A
The question is already asked on the ACS. They have all the data they're going to get. This is scare tactic ahead of a national election, that's all.
Roberts closed a screen door.
11
@Paul-A
Roberts, much like his Obamacare ruling, is trying to be "fair" instead of ruling according to the constitution....
1
I've been summoned to DC to help Barr work on this issue. And apparently I've already given him some good ideas, although I can't remember that I did so. That bonus I'll get if we succeed will sure be nice.
5
Yes my neighbor has been summoned too. Not sure why. He’s a plumber. Guess it’s ‘cause he knows how to fix things.
6
If Barr and his team devise "an acceptable" reason for adding the citizenship question to the census, someone will have to swear that this is the real reason for doing so, first in an affidavit and then at a hearing where there will be cross-examination. Conversations leading up to the new proposed reason would be a fair subject for the court to examine in order to determine if the new reason being given is not also just another cover story to conceal a discriminatory purpose. Who will the lucky person be who is selected by Barr to testify?
28
I am afraid that as long as this administration is in power the rule of law is dead. Even after two and a half years of this it is hard to believe that this is the United States of America. Recovery from this may take years, if we can recover at all.
86
@Andy, you’re talking about the same rule of law that just blithely says, “oh never mind my citizenship laws whenever you feel like it, just the ones that only apply to Trump?”
I think Chief Justice Roberts is playing with Trump. He already said the reason given for the census question is contrived, and to come up with something better. Courts tend to stay with the argument brought before it. It's like trying to change horse in the middle of a stream. Once you make an argument you have to stick with it and defend it. Commerce Secretary Ross does not want to comply with congress because he knows documents will show he's a liar. And so is AG Barr.
59
Asking the court to block the withdrawal of the attorneys is the way to go.
The intent here by Trump and his toady William Barr is so thinly veiled it’s laughable.
27
Funny that in Barr's mind those legal opinions he disagrees with are " wrong" and need to be " clarified." Does he truly believe he and DJT are more qualified to clarify decisions made by the Supreme Court and the Mueller Report?
This man and his personal interpretations of the law scare me to death. As they should any American who believes in the rule of law.
71
Simply reaffirms Barr does not act as A.G. for the U.S., he acts as Trump's personal attorney. Why should we trust anything from the DoJ when it's proven itself to be a political arm of Trump and the Republicans? Same with the SCOTUS at this point.
48
Any reason other than what the plaintiffs said it was (which is redistricting) is a lie.
What kind of administration would lie and then try to think of another lie when the first lie didn't work?
67
@Somewhere
one which actually got 4 favorable votes on the decision. think about that.
4
They are republicans. The law is just a means of power and at most a roadblock or speed bump until they can destroy it for their party agenda.
5
Previous censuses asked the citizenship question during an era in which we welcomed population growth and were intrigued by what sort of diversity we were developing. In those times, we also asked detailed questions about agriculture, or years of marriage, or number of children living versus born. We were a curious and growing nation using the census to collect sociodemographic data.
Trump has made it unavoidably clear that this time the question was to grease the slide of gerrymandering. That is voter suppression, based on origins, and is as unconstitutional as it comes.
Barr, it would seem, would defend Attila the Hun as a paragon of efficiency.
60
@Bohemian Sarah
And Trump envies Kim Jong Un and other dictators for their ability to easily get rid of their opponents/enemies.
3
This whole exercise is simply to reinforce the "Trump Brand" to the GOP base. It doesn't matter if the Trump Administration prevails; it only matters that it is viewed as fighting to make America great again against those that would re-make America into a multi-cultural, socialist republic.
22
The worst part about this whole situation is that Barr and Trump will get this question on the Census even though SCOTUS ruled against them. The rule of law is on the line here not just a question. If Barr gets this done--and he well may--we have taken another large step closer to the Constitutional Crisis that we've been talking about for almost three years. It's getting closer.
51
What reason could the Justice Department have for sticking lawyers from the consumer protection branch with this case other than this administration’s antipathy toward consumer protection in general?
16
@Michael McCollough The consumer protection branch is essentially dead at this point, so those attorneys have nothing to do. The administration has almost completely ceased to enforce consumer regulations, so they might as well give them something to do. This administration really is the worst.
8
As Native Tarheel wrote, Barr is best understood as a Loyalist and not a Patriot. Were this the Revolutionary era, he would be advocating for the King. He needs to go.
81
@Orange Nightmare who needs to go? Barr? Or Dear Leader? Or both?
And as an aside, George III, King during the Revolutionary era, was demonstrably insane, does the comparison with Dear Leader get even clearer?
@Orange Nightmare: Agree Barr must go, and let's not forget that previous crooked AGs have gone to prison.
Consider the damage being done to our body politic when its institutions are questioned by those sworn to uphold them.
20
The DOJ does not deserve what the president calls a "do-over." If the principal justification was enforcing the Voting Rights Act, and it was found to be contrived, the case should be over.
28
Just because “Barr Says Legal Path to Census Citizenship Question Exists”, doesn’t make it so. This administration has been using the “lie enough times” tactic that it’s getting worn out. They’re trying to scare people into not responding to the census.
I’d say shame on them but they don’t know the meaning.
38
No lawyer with any ethics will work on this case because it involves suborning perjury. Of course, AG Barr has no ethics.
Lawyers can lose their license for ethical violations, and the lawyers who worked on this case and have now been removed know it. And are probably grateful.
36
What would congress look like if seats were determined by the number of U.S. Citizens in a state. The immigration issue may not necessarily be strictly humanitarian - but a matter of who gets seats in the House... Interesting...
5
The clear, unambiguous issue here is that the Justice Department is not, any longer, an employee of “We, the People.”
It’s now the president’s personal battering ram. The DOJ is now whatever the president says it is.
38
Re: William Barr, Trump got what he always wanted his own Roy Cohn as the Attorney General.
44
If it is a question on the census, doesn't one have the choice of not answering? And, if one isn't a citizen, can't they just state that they are? This seems to be a question that could easily be subverted, depending on one's motives. Why make the census about citizenship, when it's supposed to be about population?
21
@Back in the Day... No; people can be fined for refusing to answer questions on the decennial census or for intentionally giving false answers. As an enforcement issue, these penalties have rarely been used in the past. That’s not to say that a vindictive administration wouldn’t move mountains to enforce these rules after, for example, politicizing the census in a cynical effort to undermine public trust in the whole process.
21
@Back in the Day... you're signing under oath that what you say is true. That's why people would prefer not to fill it out than fill it out with information like claiming to be born in the United States when they were not.
8
Making a false statement on a census form will become another crime that justifies immediate deportation.
11
Dear Democrats,
Stop wasting time! Every day that goes by is a disaster for the country. Everything takes weeks or months.
6
@Mark An actual enumeration of the people as called for in the Constitution is not a waste of time. Nor is following the law in general. If you want to advocate for an expedited resolution, perhaps your anguish is misdirected.
8
@Mark, every day this administration is in power is increasing the disaster of our loss of democracy and moves us closer to a dictatorship.
3
Considering the contrivance of their efforts, I think I’m actually a Latino when I answer the census.
23
Unfortunately though, Barr, it’s not up to you to decide if “the president is right on legal grounds” any more than it’s up to you to decide if “the president is right on historical grounds” when he discusses the airforce’s contribution to the American Revolutionary War.
73
"Mr. Barr said that he did not know whether any of the original team members wanted to stay on. “I didn’t really get into the details,” he said."
Figuring out which lawyers are going to get you from A to B is hardly 'details.' Telling the truth should not be such a high barr.
121
Imagine if Obama had refused to abide by Citizens United or Shelby County. If Trump worms his way around the Supreme Court to add the question, I can't see how our legal system can be preserved in any coherent form.
Given the Merrick Garland affair and all of the breaches of law by Trump up to now, I can't see how or why the Democrats shouldn't just empty the court when they come to power.
114
The original reasoning was ruled as ‘contrived’ so they are now going to try to contrive a better reason?
245
Sure. It won’t take much, and Roberts has likely told Barr what it will take.
4
@RB Yep: Roberts doesn't want his corrupt legacy to be OBVIOUSLY corrupt.
There is no precedent for an Attorney General to ignore a clear articulated SC decision as though it was unimportant. Barr needs to be impeached for this act alone.
183
Try reading the article? He’s not ignoring it, he’s working within the opinion to comply with it.
3
@DRS No, Barr is working to try to find some other justification for putting in the question. It's a case of, "If you won't buy that the dog ate my homework, how about my homework was lost in a flood? Would you buy that?" Technically not ignoring, perhaps, but certainly not complying either.
1
Barr is a Nixonian - he agrees that if the President does it, then it is not illegal.
Once we grasp that aspect of Barr’s thinking we see immediately why he is unfit for the office he holds. Had he been alive in 1776 he would have happily written a brief on why King George did not deserve the list of charges made against him in the Declaration of Independence.
135
@Native Tarheel Our Second President defended the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre. Being a good attorney means being able to argue almost any side of an issue.
2
@Matthew True, except as Attorney General Mr. Barr’s client is the people of the United States, not the tyrant King George and not the tyrant Donald Trump.
33
@Matthew Sure. Adams did so to indicate to British government that the colonists believed in justice. Likewise, justice was served with the facts of the case. The soldiers deserved to be exonerated. Nevertheless, it is a lousy comparison as the administration does not have a right to lie to federal courts.
14
True to form, Trump demands that his lawyers help him evade and/or go around the law, not obey the law.
140
The mission of the census is to count people. So limit the job to that - count people.
Maybe break it down by gender and age but that is it. Anything else is intrusive and goes beyond what we expect from the census.
26
@MIKEinNYC Wrong! For more than 160 years that question had been asked. Facts matter, except to Dems!
3
@Matthew
As usual, you are wrong. if the 2020 census form does ultimately ask about citizenship status, it will be the first time the U.S. census has directly asked for the citizenship status of every person living in every household. Fact so, indeed, matter.
10
Your 150 years thing is getting old. The question hasn’t been on for the past 70 years so let’s use that number. And it is correct (a fact) that citizenship isn’t and wasn’t ever a required or necessary item - per the Constitution - on any census ever.
So, to you, @Matthew, stick with the facts. Apparently you and Republicans don’t bother with facts.
10
I thought the Supreme Court was the ultimate answer; worked for Bush election. It struggles to remain free of partisanship. But if the president and Barr are willing to defy the Supreme Court, our Constitution unravels. We are close anyway when the administration defyies supoenas, and refuses to provide legally mandated tax returns, all to protect the president from political embarrassment. This could be serious, and all for Republicans desire for gerrymandering and permanent control of government.
57
The Supreme Court selectively ignores the most important feature of the Bill of Rights: freedom from religion. It really is a travesty.
6
Never thought I’d say this but I wish Sessions was back at least he had some ethics
126
Yes, the purpose of the Department of Justice is to do Trump's bidding by finding some way around the Supreme Court's decision.
46
@Marilynn Bachorik It is not "The Department of Justice". It is "Trump's Department of Justice".
4
Funny how when it’s something that might harm Trump, like with Mueller testifying on the 17th, we hear the “no do overs” refrain.
But if you lose in the Supreme Court? Then it seems that do overs are okay-fine.
250
@Bill Seng Of course it is appropriate for the census to count all residents.
It is also appropriate to learn how many are citizens and how many are not.
The only people who fear a census question on citizenship are illegal immigrants and politicians who want their votes.
1
@Mon Ray It's never been a question before, so I fail to see why it is needed now.
Of course, it would greatly benefit the GOP, right?
1