On Friday, the US Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a win by rejecting a challenge to the president’s efforts to remove millions of illegal aliens from the 2020 Census.
The ruling went 6-3. The Court referred to the challenge led by the state of New York and immigrant rights groups (which are really about illegal aliens getting de facto amnesty) “premature” because the way they described the consequences of the president’s arguments is still considered “conjecture.”
“At present, this case is riddled with contingencies and speculation that impede judicial review,” the high court said.
“The President, to be sure, has made clear his desire to exclude aliens without lawful status from the apportionment base.”
“But the President qualified his directive by providing that the Secretary should gather information ‘to the extent practicable’ and that aliens should be excluded ‘to the extent feasible,’” they added.
The Court ruled that it was too early to rule on the legality of Trump’s plan, saying that it isn’t clear how many illegal aliens who don’t belong here the president is asking to exclude and whether the number of House seats would be affected. I don’t know why those considerations are even a part of the equation. The people Trump wants to exclude from the US Census are not living here legally. It shouldn’t even be up for discussion.
“Consistent with our determination that standing has not been shown and that the case is not ripe, we express no view on the merits of the constitutional and related statutory claims presented. We hold only that they are not suitable for adjudication at this time,” the court said.
Three America-hating leftist justices dissented, making the ridiculous claim that the attempt to removed illegal aliens in the country from the US Census is unlawful. These justices see it in a political sense of Democrats vs Republicans, instead of how Trump see it as illegal aliens are not lawfully here. They cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars each year, and a portion of them commit crimes against American citizens.
“I believe this Court should say so,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, joined by the other two Justices who want to destroy our Constitution, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. They rarely ever rule for the Constitution.
How is it unlawful to counting illegal aliens as illegal aliens and now US citizens? Does Bozo Breyer not know the difference? Does he not value US citizenship? Honest to God, how can a Supreme Court justice believe that illegal aliens should be counted as citizens? It just boggles the mind and it frightens me to no end for the future of the republic.
The Trump administration wants to remove non-citizens from the census count. The Democrats are upset that it could alter the representation some states receive in the House of Representatives, which is based on population. But these noncitizens should never have been counted in the first place.
Is it the height of bullschtein to believe that our Founding Fathers wanted non citizens counted as American citizens.
If Trump was to win this case, then big Democratic states with large illegal alien populations like New York, California which has a large population of illegal aliens who are protected by sanctuary cities like New York City and Los Angeles who help illegal aliens evade federal law enforcement from deporting them, they would be disproportionately impacted. Well, Boo hoo. They should have thought of that before they counted illegal aliens in the first place.
Think about this. The state of California alone could up to three seats if illegal aliens are no longer counted as citizens. The average congressman represents about 700,000 people. That’s up to two million one-hundred thousand illegal aliens that we know of illegally living in just one state alone. There are probably three times as many that have never been counted.
The census has already been completed. Officials at the Commerce Department that oversees the US Census Bureau are trying to figure out the number of illegal aliens in the country. Not an easy task since they are as untrustworthy as a Democrat.
Supreme Court to weigh Trump’s plan to exclude illegal aliens from apportionment base
Trump and the attorneys representing the effort have argued that their case is both Constitutional and within his Constitutionally lawful authority as president. But since when has that ever mattered to the leftists on courts? For example, President Barack Obama created the DACA program out of thin air, something that a president is not allowed to do. The constitution’s Article I gives sole authority of creating laws to Congress. Obama did DACA through an executive order with zero powers behind it. Ever since George Washington, any president can rescind any past president’s executive order, except when it’s President Donald Trump because the Supreme Court told President Trump that he was not allowed to shut down the unconstitutional DACA executive order.
They are doing great work but they are seeking contributions to help cover their expenses. Their favorite eating place? Chick-Fil -A
Matt Braynard@MattBraynard·– We are sharing this data with the campaign’s legal team in addition to expanding this double-voter search to all fifty states and to election day voting. This requires us to purchase a national voter file. 4/5255932.8K
President Donald Trump and conservatives have scored two major victories in the Supreme Court with religious freedom on the line.
In a 7 – 2 decision that united some liberals with the conservatives on the court, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor, The Daily Mail reported
n the Obamacare case, the high court ruled 7-2 the administration acted properly when it allowed more employers who cite a religious or moral objection to opt out of covering birth control.
“We hold today that the Departments had the statutory authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption. We further hold that the rules promulgating these exemptions are free from procedural defects,” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said in the majority decision.
As a result of the Obama-era health law most employers must cover birth control as a preventive service, at no charge to women, in their insurance plans. The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania case tested whether the law properly provided religious exemptions is called.
The other ruling Wednesday also dealing with religious exemptions was in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru.
The court sided with two Catholic schools in a ruling that underscores that certain employees of religious schools, hospitals and social service centers can’t sue for employment discrimination.
#new#SCOTUS sides w/ Trump administration 7-2 making it easier for some for-profit companies, religious affiliated groups including universities, hospitals, charities- to opt out of providing contraception health insurance to their workers, under the Affordable Care Act #ACA
#SCOTUS comes through with big decisions for religious freedom: 1. Exempts religious schools from forced conformity with discrimination laws 2. Permits exemption for Sisters of the Poor so they won’t be forced to violate their conscience and provide contraception. Two wins for us
BREAKING: #SCOTUS upholds Trump-Pence rule, dismantling no-cost birth control coverage. TL;DR once again, this is about control — they are seeking to control ALL aspects of our lives. From birth control coverage to abortion access to LGBTQ+ rights, all freedoms are at risk. /1
“The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission,” Justice Samuel Alito said in the decision.
“Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate,” he said, CNBC reported.
Alito’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.
The schools argued that the ministerial exception prevented them from facing those lawsuits, but the teachers countered that they should not qualify as ministers under the 2012 Supreme Court precedent that established the rule.
In that case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the Supreme Court outlined four factors for lower courts to consider when weighing whether an employee.
Opinion| In a stunner for Supreme Court watchers and liberals everywhere, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has sided with President Donald Trump on an asylum issue.
It was a major victory for President Donald Trump and his administration on Thursday when the Supreme Court ruled that asylum seekers who have their claims rejected cannot object, The New York Times reported.
In a victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that immigrants whose requests for asylum were rejected in bare-bone summary proceedings may not contest the denials in federal court.
The case, which concerns the fundamental question of who is entitled to seek habeas corpus, will affect thousands of asylum seekers.
The vote was 7 to 2. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
The case concerned Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a member of Sri Lanka’s Tamil ethnic minority who was apprehended about 25 yards north of the Mexican border near San Ysidro, Calif.
He sought asylum, saying he would face a credible fear of persecution if he were returned to Sri Lanka.
His request was considered under “expedited removal” procedures called for by a 1996 law that streamlined asylum applications from people caught near the border and barred courts from reviewing most aspects of the determinations made under the procedures.
Mr. Thuraissigiam, a farmer, told an asylum officer that he had been savagely beaten in Sri Lanka by men who had blindfolded and abducted him.
He said he had spent 11 days in a hospital recovering from his injuries. “Habeas has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful detention, but respondent invokes the writ to achieve an entirely different end, namely, to obtain additional administrative review of his asylum claim and ultimately to obtain authorization to stay in this country,” the decision written by Justice Samuel Alito said.
He notes–concluding that this approach “fails because it would extend the writ of habeas corpus far beyond its scope ‘when the Constitution was drafted and ratified.’”
The decision was joined by all conservative members of the court, including Chief Justice John Roberts, and another liberal Justice Stephen Breyer. Democrats on Twitter were furious with Justice Ginsburg, someone who they routinely celebrate.
On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that California cannot block churches and other religious organizations from conducting services indoors because of the COVID-19(84) pandemic. The decision was a huge victory for First Amendment rights and for Religious Freedom.
But the Court failed to roll back all coronavirus-related restrictions enacted on religious gatherings in California, so believers still live in a religious gulag out there.
What gets me is that not a single person in the entire mainstream news media will point out the fact that there are three Supreme Court justices who voted against stopping a governor, the state if you will, from trashing the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion clause.
Apparently, the justices were incapable of coming to an agreement on certain other restrictions created against religious gatherings like not allowing singing in church and lowering the lawful capacity of churches during services because the state said they were necessary for public health. The numbers have come out and COVID-19 has a mortality rate just under that of the flu, and we haven’t banned religious services for the flu.
If the state argued that the virus is more easily transmitted indoors, then why has it been so hell-bent on locking its citizens down in their homes during the pandemic? Are they arguing that the pandemic virus spreads more easily only inside houses of worship and nowhere else indoors? Did anyone think to ask that question?
Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion that “federal courts owe significant deference to politically accountable officials with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.'”
“The State has concluded, for example, that singing indoors poses a heightened risk of transmitting COVID–19. I see no basis in this record for overriding that aspect of the state public health framework,” Roberts wrote. “At the same time, the State’s present determination—that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero—appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.”
The state didn’t force such draconian restrictions on many other types of businesses, so it came off looking like a bunch of godless socialists wanted to attack houses of worship, because, well, obviously.
Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas excoriated California for having “openly imposed more stringent regulations on religious institutions than on many businesses.”
Gorsuch wrote in his opinion “California singles out religion for worse treatment than many secular activities” evern after the High Court recently made “it abundantly clear that edicts like California’s fail strict scrutiny and violate the Constitution.”
Democrats have not abode by the Constitution for a very long time so they are expected to not adhere to rulings that come down from the Supreme Court that they disagree with.
Gorsuch went further and accused California officials of “playing favorites during a pandemic, expending considerable effort to protect lucrative industries … while denying similar largesse to its faithful.”
Gorsuch concluded, “As this crisis enters its second year— and hovers over a second Lent, a second Passover, and a second Ramadan—it is too late for the State to defend extreme measures with claims of temporary exigency, if it ever could. Drafting narrowly tailored regulations can be difficult. But if Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California’s churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry.”
I am shocked and stunned that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) hasn’t already publicly threatened Gorsuch for making a ruling that he doesn’t like. Oh, wait, he already did that last year.
Writing the dissenting opinion, Kagan claimed the court’s decision “orders California to weaken its restrictions on public gatherings by making a special exception for worship services.” Maybe that’s because worship services have a Constitutional guarantee in the First Amendment. Kagan should read it sometime.
“Justices of this Court are not scientists. Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic,” Kagan wrote. “Under the Court’s injunction, the State must instead treat worship services like secular activities that pose a much lesser danger. That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.”
The same argument could be made about Governor Gavin Newsom and his band of legislative marauders. They are not scientists nor do they know about public health policy. If they can listen to the “science” then so can six conservatives who sit on the Supreme Court. Either way Religious Freedom will take the win.