SC Justices skeptical of Trump bid to exclude all undocumented immigrants from census

[sunonmars]

Justices skeptical of Trump bid to exclude all undocumented immigrants from census

Link to tweet

President Donald Trump's sweeping order to exclude undocumented immigrants "to the maximum extent feasible" from the 2020 census faced skepticism Monday from a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, even as several key justices showed openness to affording Trump some discretion in a tally that could have a major political impact.

By subtracting millions of immigrants from the census total, Trump hopes to shape the apportionment of congressional seats, the allocation of billions in federal funds and the contours of the nation's electoral map for at least the next decade. If he succeeds, it would be the first time in 230 years that the process would exclude large swaths of people inside the U.S.

"A lot of the historical evidence and longstanding practice really cuts against your position," Justice Amy Coney Barrett told Trump acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall during oral arguments.

The Constitution requires an "actual enumeration" -- or, census -- be performed every 10 years to account for changes in population and that decennial redistricting be based on "the whole number of persons in each state," regardless of citizenship or immigration status.

"There's evidence that in the founding era, an inhabitant was a dweller who lives or resides in a place," Barrett said. "If an undocumented person has been in the country for 20 years, even if illegally, as you say, why would such a person not have settled a settled residence here?"

.....................

Trump's pick ain't playing ball apparently.

All going to become moot soon as Biden takes over, Trump almost out of road.

[elleng]

1. "There's evidence that in the founding era, an inhabitant was a dweller who lives or resides

in a place," Barrett said. "If an undocumented person has been in the country for 20 years, even if illegally, as you say, why would such a person not have settled a settled residence here?"

[Massacure]

3. This line of questioning isn't surprising for her.

Barret served as a clerk for Scalia and is considered a protegee of his. Scalia was a big proponent of originalism, which emphasizes what an average person during the time the constitution was written would have understood the meaning to be.

There's a certain irony here in how Conservatives love that judicial approach and how Trump's arguments are very likely to meet a buzz saw because he put in place judges who subscribe to the originalist school of thought instead of picking judges who allow judicial interpretation to evolve with the times. As an example, what an average person would call "cruel and unusual" today is probably different than what an average person would call cruel and unusual 200 years ago.

[underpants]

2. There's more than evidence. It's written clear as day in the Constitution

Trump is a moron. That’s written right here.