Posted on 07/04/2018 4:24:14 AM PDT by wtd
Citing “bad faith,” a federal judge has ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to disclose additional information regarding its decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
Judge Jesse Furman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York announced on Tuesday that lawyers representing the government must produce a log of documents that were being withheld, as well as provide an explanation for why the administration did so.
Furman further demanded that the government include documents from the Commerce and Justice Departments in their discovery.
In March, the Commerce Department announced it would reintroduce the citizenship question, which had been asked until 1960.
The lawsuit was filed by Attorneys General in New York, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.
Stating that the “Trump administration proposes to unlawfully expand purposefully narrow existing protections, without consideration of the consequences,” the AGs opposed the proposed rule, which “seeks to dramatically expand the ability of businesses and individuals to refuse to provide necessary health care on the basis of businesses' or employees’ “‘religious, moral, ethical, or other beliefs.”
According to a Washington Times report, Furman, an Obama appointee, said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross initially claimed that he added the question at the request of the Justice Department was undercut by his recent admission that he was thinking about it even before then.
Furman ordered the government to disclose all the information on its decision-making regarding the decision, and according to reports, he is unlikely to dismiss the lawsuit, despite the president and his administration’s protestations.
Following the judge’s decision, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood praised Furman, noting that she is leading a coalition of Attorney Generals that “filed a suit to protect a full and fair Census.”
“Today marked a major win in our lawsuit to protect the Census, with a federal judge ordering the Trump administration to provide vital information on how the decision to demand citizenship status was made, and what it may mean for New Yorkers and American’s across the country,” she said.
“The federal government has a solemn obligation to ensure a fair and accurate count of all people in this country. By demanding the citizenship status of each resident, the Trump administration is breaking with decades of policy and potentially causing a major undercount that would threaten billions in federal funds and New York’s fair representation in Congress and the Electoral College.”
In a letter to Ross that was posted on social media, more than 50 members of Commerce demanded answers after receiving “contradictory and misleading statements made by members of the Trump administration to Congress in regards to the process behind the decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.”
“Given these glaring contradictions between administration testimonies and recently released internal communications, we ask that (Ross) respond to (several) questions for the purpose of clarifying the origination, intention and justification of adding a citizenship question to the census.”
Yes. The question should be asked.
The number of congressmen/congresswoman should only apply to number of legal citizens and resources should be allocated only to those here legally.
Looks like this judge picked the wrong day to quit doing meth, heroin, sniffing glue, drinking a quart of whiskey a day, and smoking pot on the job.
Starting in 1970, questions about citizenship were included in the long-form questionnaire but not the short form. For instance, in 2000, those who received the long form were asked, “Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States?”
Later, the census added the American Community Survey, conducted every year and sent to 3.5 million households. It began being fully implemented in 2005. It asks many of the same questions as the census long-form surveys from 1970 to 2000, including the citizenship question.
Sanders said that in 2010 the citizenship question was removed. In fact, there was no long form that year — it had been replaced by the annual American Community Survey. The decennial census form asked just 10 questions.
...if the 2020 census form does ultimately ask about citizenship status, it will be the first time the question will be asked of all U.S. households since 1950.
The Left is hiding the historical information by conflating all US Households with whether citizenship was a question on the census. Only the 2010 census omitted the question because that Census omitted the long form entirely.
You would have better luck in finding something with a backbone by lifting up rocks in a Pacific Northwest rain forest.
So the ‘Rats don’t just play weasels on TV?
Just another nitwit LIB who somehow became a “judge”. Haven’t these losers ever read the Constitution or any of the Supreme Court decisions in these matters? I hope this fool gets impeached and removed for such bad judgment.
The point is to let Sessions know WE KNOW. That is all.
Yep he should say this judge doesn’t have standing for such an order. The judge will need to evaluate to the Supremes of he expects trump to listen.
Federal judge-president Jesse Furman can eat a pile of Mitt.
Don’t forget “the baby Harp seal cure” beforehand...
is busy burying the MISSING computer server.
After a certain number of overturned decisions, these judges need to be fired.
It’s about time a POTUS says now, and tells a judge they can either pound sand or take their complaint directly to the Supreme Court where we can argue directly on the issue of a judges right to interfere with the executive branch function of the Census, qusstioning any “Constitutional” issue the judge thinks they have.
Amen... Job performance ratings for judges.
End the lifetime appointments.
Asking the question allows you to count both citizens and non-citizens. That’s not an undercount.
Asking the question allows you to count both citizens and non-citizens. That’s not an undercount.
Ok we won’t include New York in the census, if New Yorkers want to be counted they can move to PA
““The federal government has a solemn obligation to ensure a fair and accurate count of all people in this country. By demanding the citizenship status of each resident, the Trump administration is breaking with decades of policy and potentially causing a major undercount that would threaten billions in federal funds and New York’s fair representation in Congress and the Electoral College.”
The claim falsely implies (but doesn’t say) that Trump is “demanding” citizenship status and then not counting non-citizens, as if it says “Only fill out this form if you are a citizen”. In fact they are counting everyone and just asking everyone if they are a citizen or not. What they do with that information is another matter and may affect the billions of handouts referred to but that should be litigated later.
Note this is part of a trend of the left not wanting to know something because even just knowing facts threatens their worldview.
A New York judge has an inherent conflict of interest, since the citizenship question might well lead to reduced representation for his state, and thus his DEMOCRAT party. Case should be appealed to a real court, and the judge censured or removed for failing to recuse.
Counting non-citizens as a means of determining congressional districts is an infringement of the rights of citizens. Certain congressional districts in CA, NY, TX are inflated with non-citizens. Meanwhile, other congressional districts in some of the same states and medium sized states are proportionally under represented. This would appear to be a constitutional, and voting rights violation against citizens.
I would hope that a case be brought against this judges on these grounds. A Northern NY congressional district for example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.