Comments by "Colonel K" (@Paladin1873) on "LegalEagle" channel.

  1. Where does the SCOTUS have the authority to judge the reason for a census question? They are supposed to be determining if the question itself is constitutional. Using their logic, should not every question on the census be subjected to similar scrutiny? You spoke about the fear of undercounting if the question remains, but did not mention the likelihood of overcounting if it is removed, in which case the census will favor such states a California, with its huge illegal alien population. How is apportioning more Congressional districts, and thus more electoral votes, than a state deserves, fair or constitutional?
    1
  2.  @Myoron  No, it is not. The decision is 92 pages long and resulted in a 5-4 slit decision with each justice concurring or nonconcurring on parts of the ruling. This hardly qualifies as plain English. The Court failed in its primary duty - is the question constitutional? The answer is a resounding yes. That's where it should have ended. Instead, the Court decided to issue a partial ruling wherein the question was ordered removed from the census because five members of the Court felt it would lead to an under-count of citizens. The Court even recognized that these under-counted citizens would be violating the law of their own cognition if they failed to respond, and that the likely reason for their actions was that they were harboring illegal aliens (itself a crime) whom they feared would be targeted by the government for arrest. Despite the fact that the Court agreed the government would not use census data in this way, they still considered this rationale an acceptable excuse for violating the law. At the same time, the SCOTUS concern about an under-count completely ignored the possibility, indeed, the likelihood, of an over-count, which would deprive other sections of the country of fair voter representation and federal funding. The primary function of the census is to get an accurate counting of citizens for the establishment and redistribution of Congressional districts. The SCOTUS ruling, whether it allowed or disallowed the citizenship question, would not have achieved this effect. They should have limited their decision to the constitutionality of the question. As is so often the case of the Court, they decided instead to legislate from the bench.
    1
  3. The House contempt vote was over AG Barr's refusal to break the law. Why did you not mention this fact?
    1
  4.  @Dameol  According to whom?
    1