DOJ replaces entire lawyer team representing Census question fight

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
28,973
15,729
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#6
Federal judge rules DOJ can not change lawyer team saying

Defendants provide no reasons, let alone 'satisfactory reasons,' for the substitution of counsel," wrote District Judge Jesse Furman, citing upcoming deadlines.
"As this Court observed many months ago, this case has been litigated on the premise -- based 'in no small part' on Defendants' own 'insist(ence)' -- that the speedy resolution of Plaintiffs' claims is a matter of great private and public importance."
 

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
6,849
6,404
1,743
Tulsa
#7
Question 13 from the 2000 census: Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States?

And the word CITIZEN is capitalized on the form.

So it seems this was standard procedure until Barry removed it. And now it is racist to go back to the traditionally asked question.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
28,973
15,729
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#8
Question 13 from the 2000 census: Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States?

And the word CITIZEN is capitalized on the form.

So it seems this was standard procedure until Barry removed it. And now it is racist to go back to the traditionally asked question.
It's not that simple and some Obama conspiracy..please read up on it only 1 in 6 received the question in 2000
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
28,973
15,729
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#10
1 in 6? Interesting when I searched for 2000 census I got the 16% option. Not the 84% options.
It only went out on the long form census in 2000...1 in 6 households received that long form...the 2010 census was then the first to do only the short form census of 10 questions and no long form ....this was similar to 1970 when the citizenship question was on the long form and not short form

The last time it was on every census questionnaire was 1950
 

CowboyOrangeFan

Mmmm, yeah.
A/V Subscriber
Jun 9, 2006
4,976
3,495
1,743
Florida
#12
Federal judge rules DOJ can not change lawyer team saying

Defendants provide no reasons, let alone 'satisfactory reasons,' for the substitution of counsel," wrote District Judge Jesse Furman, citing upcoming deadlines.
"As this Court observed many months ago, this case has been litigated on the premise -- based 'in no small part' on Defendants' own 'insist(ence)' -- that the speedy resolution of Plaintiffs' claims is a matter of great private and public importance."
It will be mildly amusing when those original lawyers get sanctioned. This whole case has been a cluster fuck. Although, when something originates from this White House, it rarely turns out any other way.
 
Mar 11, 2006
1,776
1,409
1,743
#13
It will be mildly amusing when those original lawyers get sanctioned. This whole case has been a cluster fuck. Although, when something originates from this White House, it rarely turns out any other way.
Question for you: what legitimate argument do the far-lefties have against reinstating the citizen check box? Certainly, there are nefarious and illegal reasons, but what legitimate ones?
And was having the checkbox on previous census before Obama really troublesome, but no one said anything .. or did I miss the complaints back then.
 

CowboyOrangeFan

Mmmm, yeah.
A/V Subscriber
Jun 9, 2006
4,976
3,495
1,743
Florida
#14
Question for you: what legitimate argument do the far-lefties have against reinstating the citizen check box? Certainly, there are nefarious and illegal reasons, but what legitimate ones?
And was having the checkbox on previous census before Obama really troublesome, but no one said anything .. or did I miss the complaints back then.
It hasn’t been on the short form in a while. Fortunately for those who oppose this they don’t have to come up with a reason. All that needed to be done was for those who support it is to come up with a legitimate reason. That shouldn’t be hard. Hell, the judges basically just old them that.

The problem is that they don’t have one. There is no reason for it. Well, one that is legitimate anyway. They do a survey every year with this question (the reason their is no longer a long form). So they have the data.

All they want to do is underrepresent those areas where illegals might be clustered. That isn’t a legitimate reason. In fact it goes against what the constitution calls for. Hence their legal problems.
 

OSU79

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 22, 2009
10,715
10,636
743
Back home in God's (Green) Country
#15
All they want to do is underrepresent those areas where illegals might be clustered. That isn’t a legitimate reason. In fact it goes against what the constitution calls for. Hence their legal problems.
You have provided the exact reasoning for why the question SHOULD be included. If included, areas where illegals are clustered would be ACCURATELY represented, instead of given extra governmental representation based on non-citizens.

And I say this as a conservative who believes DACA kids should be given a path to citizenship and doesn't care if illegals already in the country are not deported, though I wouldn't necessarily grant them a path to citizenship (that would resolve itself in a generation anyway). All I would ask is that we control the border ASAP - which doesn't mean it has to be perfect and doesn't bar legal immigration, but it must stem the uncontrolled flood of illegal immigrants. I also believe Trump is amenable to most of these points if the Democrats would bargain in good faith - but it would be such a win for America as a whole that the Democrats would not allow it on Trump's watch. I also believe the Republicans would not allow Obama to accomplish something similar (going back numerous administrations on both sides), leading to the current state of affairs.

PS: I'm also sure many Conservatives would disagree with my self-proclaimed conservatism and many Liberals would call me a Fascist.
 
Last edited:

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
19,035
8,603
1,743
Earth
#18
It only went out on the long form census in 2000...1 in 6 households received that long form...the 2010 census was then the first to do only the short form census of 10 questions and no long form ....this was similar to 1970 when the citizenship question was on the long form and not short form

The last time it was on every census questionnaire was 1950
Yep that's about when we started turning a blind eye to illegal immigration due to the need for cheap labor.