[U] WINNER(?). Let’s See What He Says, But Sounds Like His “Census Citizenship Q.” Is… D.O.A.

UPDATED: Here is the agreed injunction order; we win. End update.

You never know with this depraved joker, but the latest sourcing from inside 1600 Pennsylvania has it that he will abandon the court fights.

As I’ve always said, the federal government has other, entirely lawful means, to estimate citizenship status.

If his executive order does no more than authorize lawful collection of existing data [as we are being told], this fight has been won — by the people who still believe the Constitution means what it says, in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 [as amended by various later Constitutional amendments acknowledging that people born into bondage, people of color, and indigenous peoples, are all 100 per cent whole “free persons“, entitled to full enumeration, as well.]

And while we wait. . . here is why Trump might — the very able US DC judge in Maryland positively tattooed the lawyers yesterday evening, in a blistering six page denial order — thus:

. . . .Additionally, the Court also expects that the new DOJ team will be aware of and prepared to address potential conflicts between recent developments in this case and positions repeatedly taken before this Court by the withdrawing attorneys. . . .

For example, in defending against Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim, Defendants, through counsel, have repeatedly represented to this Court that Secretary Ross, and not President Trump, acted “as the sole decision-maker” as it relates to the addition of a citizenship question to the Census, and that, as a result, any evidence of statements made by candidate, President-elect, or President Trump suggesting discriminatory animus towards immigrant communities was not relevant to the decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. See e.g., ECF No. 54-1 (18-1570) at 8 (arguing that Plaintiffs “have not alleged facts plausibly suggesting that the sole decision-maker here — the Secretary — had a discriminatory purpose in reinstating a citizenship question.”); id. at 25 (“Given that Secretary Ross, as the sole decision-maker, directed reinstatement of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census . . .); ECF No. 82-1 (18-1570) at 24–25 (“Here there is no evidence that, as the sole decision-maker, Secretary Ross directed reinstatement of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census because of potential adverse effects on a protected class.”). . .

Defendants must realize that a change in counsel does not create a clean slate for a party to proceed as if prior representations made to the Court were not in fact made. A new DOJ team will need to be prepared to address these, and other, previous representations made by the withdrawing attorneys at the appropriate juncture. . . .

Onward. I’ll update. . . when we know we have. . . won.

नमस्ते

There are no comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: