Posted on 07/01/2019 11:08:06 AM PDT by Starman417
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts may go down in judicial history as the worst Republican SCOTUS pick ever. The man who found Obamacare constitutional by inventing the fiction that it was a tax, has joined the court’s four liberals to block a citizenship question on the 2020 Census, not because it is unconstitutional, but rather because he didn’t like the Trump administration’s reasons for asking for it.
The man who supervises the FISA Court, which blindly accepted every lie and fake document the Obama FBI and DOJ put before it to justify the deep state coup against the Trump presidency, says the reasons Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross presented for requesting its inclusion, well, didn’t smell right. As the New York Times reported:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said the explanation offered by the Trump administration for adding the question “appears to have been contrived.”…So bleepin’ what? The question before the Court is whether adding the question to the Census form was constitutional or not and certainly whatever reason Ross gave made more sense than your reason, Justice Roberts, for calling Obamacare a tax. How about the reason that the federal government has asked its, dare we use the word, citizens the question before. The Supreme Court is a great admirer of precedent, is it not, As Breitbart News notes:“The secretary,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “was determined to reinstate a citizenship question from the time he entered office; instructed his staff to make it happen; waited while commerce officials explored whether another agency would request census-based citizenship data; subsequently contacted the attorney general himself to ask if D.O.J. would make the request; and adopted the Voting Rights Act rationale late in the process.”
“Altogether,” the chief justice wrote, “the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the secretary gave for his decision.”
The first census to ask about citizenship was the one conducted in 1820, and the last was 1950. After 1950, the Census Bureau – which is part of the Commerce Department – has continued to ask that question on the “long form” census form that goes to some census-takers, as well as on its yearly questionnaire that goes to a small number of households each year, called the American Community Survey (ACS).The Census is used for everything from the distribution of federal funding, to enforcing the Voting Rights Act, to the required redrawing of Congressional district lines. The reason the Democrats want to count illegal aliens is to shift the demographics of America, pick up extra Congressional seats from places like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, and turn red states purple if not outright blue.
Asking this question is necessary to the functioning of a modern state and is an international norm, not the wet dream of white supremacists. As Hans von Spankovsky writes in the Washington Examiner:
To have an informed debate, shouldn’t we have accurate information about the citizen/noncitizen population of the country? In fact, even the United Nations recommends that its member countries ask a citizenship question on their census surveys, and countries ranging from Australia to Germany to Indonesia all ask this question. Only in the U.S. is this considered at all controversial — and it shouldn’t be.Knowing who we are is as important as knowing how many we are, a fact recognized internationally by nations still holding on to their sovereignty. As Marc A. Thiessen writes in the Washington Post:
There is nothing wrong with asking about citizenship. Canada asks a citizenship question on its census. So do Australia and many other U.S. allies. The U.S. government asked about citizenship for 130 years — from 1820 to 1950 — as part of the decennial “short form” census and continued to do so in the “long form” survey — distributed to 1 in 6 people — through 2000, when the long form was replaced by the annual American Community Survey. The ACS goes to about 2.6 percent of the population each year and asks about citizenship to this day. …The citizenship question on the census matters because citizenship itself matters or at least it still should. In an era where progressives insist education and health care is a right for every human being and that proving who you are shouldn’t be a requirement to vote, where illegal aliens from South America can get in-state college tuition but children of war vets from neighboring states cannot, does citizenship even matter?Illegal immigrants are here illegally. If they choose to violate U.S. law yet again by refusing to participate in the census because of a perfectly legitimate question about citizenship, that’s not the U.S. government’s fault.
(Excerpt) Read more at Floppingaces.net...
The theory is that the issue is the adoption of his children from Ireland via an unknown Latin American country. It is and was illegal at the time of their adoption for any Irish born child to be adopted by anyone other than a resident of Ireland. The adoption records are sealed, but that wouldn't stop someone with the right resources.
Roberts is just getting ready to replace his mentor, RBG.
There is a way to get rid of the traitor. During President Trump’s second term a deal could be made with the rats in the event 2 vacancies came up. Give the rats one in return for support of the removal of the traitor.
Too bad for America that the data being used to blackmail and control Roberts cannot be outed. A more treacherous bastard you will not find than little man Roberts.
Roberts has been bought and paid for. His decisions are not his, he is told what his decisions are. Eventually, there is a good chance he will have a full breakdown from the internal pressure.
“The purpose of the census is to count citizens, not people passing through the country.”
The purposes of the census is to apportion Congressional seats.
It originally counted (and appointed Congress by) residents under federal control, citizens or not, with slaves counted at a 60% rate.
Since the slaves were freed under Amendment XIII, Section II would have been unnecessary to get the result the Democrats now want. Why Section II was added to the Constitution I do not know, but it was added and it must be given effect. The text may have just been misplaced as Section II instead of Section I, but we all must live under Amendment XIV as written until it gets amended, even the very smug Chief Justice Roberts.
Should the census count illegals,? Why, yes. But since Congress must get apportioned by citizens resident in the several states, a citizenship question must be an integral part of the census, regardless of the incompetence or truthfulness of an administration official or the pro-immigrant feelings of any federal judge.
If a US lawyer breaks the laws of Ireland, can that US lawyer be disbarred? Must that lawyer be disbarred?
Does Irish law provide for criminal punishment for such an adoption offense?
Can Irish officials be permitted to extradite Roberts?
Roberts wouldn’t be removed from office, but merely required to adjudicate from an Irish penal facility.
roberts showed that he is unfit for the court with his decision on bammycare. It is not a tax, and he knows it.
The entire Supreme court system is 100 % corrupt.
Anything of real importance, and Roberts votes left. Every time. What a disgrace.
I’m not a Roberts fan but in what way is the involuntary taking of citizen’s money to fund Obamacare not a tax?
This Deep State mole was put in place by the witless “W” Bush. Then they got rid of Scalia.
I don’t think Roberts can be held accountable by any means other than impeachment.
The NYT tried to expose the adoption story, but backed off after they got “pushback” over the privacy issue. Since when does the NYT care about any conservative’s privacy, and when did “privacy” become a legitimate cover for a crime? Note that this was 1 month prior to his confirmation hearings. The same NYT that had no problems libeling every Republican SCOTUS nominee since Thomas was suddenly worried about the privacy of Roberts? So, who really told the NYT to “stand down”? And why?
Didn’t he sustained a head injury earlier in life? He obviously is of two minds and therefore unqualified for a slot much less the Chief slot.
More than a year ago there was a prophecy that Roberts would be one of three or more Supremes who, along with Obloviate, et al, will be going to Gitmo, Leavenworth or similar. But the Deep State is so deep and wide, it will take a while for all those aspects to be adjuticated.
Yes this guy suks,but from what I have read,we have very sh*tty lawyers making arguments in front of the court.
Roberts was blackmailed according to this recording Unaffordable Careless Act
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.