Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Son House

Mornin’ y’all.
I’m cleaning up in Festival.
BBL


54 posted on 12/18/2020 2:42:35 AM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (If there be WAR in the offing, let it begin HERE. With ME.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: Cletus.D.Yokel

425 posts in Festival
Less than an hour.
Some FR-mail responses out there.

Hold the line, Riders.


63 posted on 12/18/2020 3:48:19 AM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (If there be WAR in the offing, let it begin HERE. With ME.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

To: bitt

Some good news, didn’t see it on the thread yet.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-green-lights-trump-removal-of-illegal-aliens-from-census-count_3624432.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-12-18-3

Supreme Court Green-Lights Trump Removal of Illegal Aliens From Census Count

The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government may remove illegal aliens from the 2020 Census count, which eliminates that population from the process of allocating congressional seats and Electoral College votes that officially determine the presidency.

The 6-3 decision in Trump v. New York issued Dec. 18 is a victory for the Trump administration.

Placed on a judicial fast track because various census-related deadlines are nearing, oral argument took place telephonically before the nine justices on Nov. 30.

The Trump administration wanted illegal aliens removed from the decennial census count to prevent them from having an impact on the apportionment of political power among the states.

States and local governments, including so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, which refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials, sued to prevent the administration’s plan from moving forward. They argued that President Donald Trump, a Republican, was attempting to interfere with the count and prevent Democratic-leaning areas with large illegal-alien populations from gaining congressional seats.

But the high court found that their challenge was premature because they could not demonstrate any so-called concrete injury they might suffer. The ruling apparently leaves open the possibility of further challenges in the future and acknowledges the Trump administration may have difficulty implementing its policy.

“At present, this case is riddled with contingencies and speculation that impede judicial review,” the court stated in the unsigned opinion.

[More at link; why does it leave open other challenges/difficulties implementing it? Rotten states?]


421 posted on 12/18/2020 3:44:17 PM PST by little jeremiah (Thirst for truth is the most valuable possession and no one can take it away from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson