If Trump can write an Executive Order to overrule the Supreme Court and also stack lawyers in

[RKP5637]

his favor, where the hell is this taking the US. I can't believe the US constitution and precedence will allow a president to start overruling SCOTUS. This sounds to me like a dictatorship!

Also, he is going to talk about the media this afternoon ... those not favorable to him and republicans ... what's next, an Executive Order to end free speech? This is getting beyond belief, and the GOP sits idly by just nodding their heads like a bunch of cowards. What happened to the GOP tough guys during the GOP primaries that are now as quiet as a mouse? ... afraid of losing the vote.

[spanone]

1. Dictatorship.

[RKP5637]

2. It is! And as I little kid I always wondered in school how Hitler took over Germany. Now, we

are living it ... and I still think many are treating it as a passing fad, much like many in Germany did, that thought it would eventually go away ... and look at what that brought Germany.

[world wide wally]

46. We tell great tales about how tough and wonderful America is...

We can't separate reality from hero worship and we think we are invincible with no room for self reflecting on what is true.

[RKP5637]

49. Quite true! I've often said America should hold a mirror up to itself to reflect the real America.

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

3. If he does

I want to see democrats yelling constitutional crisis.

But alas probably not going to happen.

[RKP5637]

4. That what I fear too. I will get kicked for this, but I feel democrats are just too damn passive

and nice sometimes about things. They need to start kicking the GOP ass! Loudly!

[FBaggins]

5. Such an order would in no sense "overrule" the Supreme Court

Keep in mind that the court did NOT rule that such a question was unconstitutional. They merely ruled that "help enforce the voting-rights act" justification was not plausible and thus the administrative process by which the question was added did not satisfy the standards for adding such a question administratively.

It was recognized at the time that the administration could race back and give a different justification. They just must have decided that there wasn't time to do it that way.

The new issue is not whether the President can "overrule" SCOTUS. It's a question of whether or not a president can use executive powers to go around the administrative procedures acts that controlled the decision-making process at a lower level.

[RKP5637]

7. "The new issue is not whether the President can "overrule" SCOTUS. It's a question of whether or not

a president can use executive powers to go around the administrative procedures acts that controlled the decision-making process at a lower level."

Thanks for more clarity!

[StarfishSaver]

8. This

This is not about Trump "overruling" the Supreme Court, but defying a district court injunction, which is still in place.

I don't think, in the end, he will since he couldn't care less if that question is actually on the census.

[FBaggins]

12. One disagreement

SCOTUS actually threw out most of the district court's ruling. There's nothing remaining that would be an injunction on adding the question in general... merely on the doing so administratively based on the pretext they created. All the bits about violating requirements that Congress be informed, or to use administrative records rather than a question, etc. are gone now.

I'm not sure how the court would rule on "we're adding it because the president wants to know how many people are here illegally and he told us to"... but it raises a new question.

I don't think, in the end, he will since he couldn't care less if that question is actually on the census.

I agree that he probably does care in the abstract (any more than he probably cares about abortion)... but he has a pretty well established pattern at this point of doing whatever he thinks would most upset liberals.

Were we smarter... we might consider shifting to reverse psychology.

[StarfishSaver]

13. I don't see it that way

The pertinent part of the lower court ruling still stands. The Supreme Court didn't vacate the injunction, so the injunction still stands. And the injunction specifically "enjoins Defendants from implementing Secretary Ross's March, 26, 2018 decision or from adding a question to the 2020 census questionnaire without curing the legal defects identified in this Opinion." The Administration is prohibited from adding that question unless and until they have cured the legal defects identified in the opinion. The Supreme Court didn't agree with all of the District Court's findings of legal defects, but did accept at least one of them. That has not yet been cured, therefore, the Administration is still enjoined from proceeding.

But it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I don't think Trump cares one way or the other. He just wants to feed red meat to his base.

[FBaggins]

36. Affirming the remand does not necessarily leave the injunction in place

The district court recognized that injunctions are not the norm in this sort of case... and SCOTUS was silent on that issue. I'd say it's an open question re: whether the injunction is still valid (indeed whether it ever was).

As an example. The injunction says "until they have cured the legal defects identified in the opinion". All but one of those supposed legal defects were rejected by SCOTUS, but they didn't feel the need to order that the injunction be modified to account for it.

So what remains is a question of what "cures" the legal defect that remains. Clearly SCOTUS expected the department to provide a new rationale to justify their decision (that was not contrived). That would go back to the district court for review (and perhaps back to SCOTUS). But what about an entirely new process for modifying the Census (by executive order)?

No district court has the jurisdiction to prospectively forbid such an action. A new ruling could quickly follow... but I don't think there would be any teeth in a claim that an entirely new process was covered by the injunction. Even if the district court tried... it would be pretty easy to argue that the remaining defect had been cured by no longer relying on the process that the court thought they violated.

[StarfishSaver]

37. The injunction hasn't been lifted by the Supreme Court or the court that issued it

so, it's still in place. And it will remain so until the court rules that the effect has been cured or decides to lift it for another reason, neither of which have occurred yet.

If you read the district court opinion, you'll see why the court issued the injunction and why it would make no legal or logical sense for the injunction to be deemed to have just gone away without a specific judicial action vacating it pending the further proceedings ordered by the Supreme Court.

[FBaggins]

38. Let's review that

It wasn't lifted by SCOTUS and so it is still in place.

The district court's injunction requires that they cure the Census Act violations and that they exhaust alternate means for gathering citizenship data before they can add the question. SCOTUS ruled that both of those determinations were incorrect... but they made no statement about modifying the injunction to account for those errors.

Do those parts of the injunction remain or not?

[StarfishSaver]

40. Let's just wait and see how this plays out

[FBaggins]

41. That seems like a dodge

It's a straightforward question. Your claim is that the lack of an explicit SCOTUS order revising/reversing the injunction means that it stands. Yet on four out of five issues, the court clearly overruled the district court.

Your claim would mean that the court's errant underpinnings for the injunction remain in place just because SCOTUS didn't use specific language. That despite a SCOTUS ruling rejecting his reasoning... the administration must still "cure" those faults before proceeding. That's clearly not supportable.

Then we need to return to the other point you didn't address. District court's don't have the power to make a blanket injunction against things that haven't happened and are not part of the case in front of them.

[StarfishSaver]

42. See it as you like

I simply have better things to do than argue with you.

[StarfishSaver]

43. Perhaps this will convince you the injunction is still in place:

Even Trump's attorneys acknowledge that it is.
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/motion-amend

See pages 7 and 8: "On June 27, in the hours following the [U.S. Supreme Court] decision, Defendants informed Plaintiffs in the Maryland action of their 'view that the injunctions in both New York [the census case heard by the Supreme Court and remanded to the district court] and this case are still in place, and we have no plans to challenge them or seek to have them vacated.'”

As I said, the injunction is still in place.

[FBaggins]

45. You're just too busy to defend your position... yet compulsively keep posting anyway?

You don't think that makes the "too busy" rationale look less likely than "I don't have an answer for that"? It already looked thin when you consider that a response would just take "Yes... I think those portions of the injunction remain in force because SCOTUS didn't order them removed when it ruled that the underlying legal decision was wrong"... or "No... those portions of the injunction are no longer in force because the legal rationale was overturned... despite the court failing to explicitly state so" - either of which would have had less impact on your busy schedule than telling me that I'm just not worth your trouble... followed by your review of this filing.


I'm not sure why I would accept Trump's lawyers' interpretation... but it's interesting that you miss the purpose of the document you linked to. It's the plaintiffs' request for the court to act to block a new attempt to add the census question. What they didn't do was sit back and relax because there's an injunction in place that keeps it from happening. Clearly they're worried that the administration's end-around strategy might not be covered by the injunction.

Keep in mind that the current question is not just whether the injunction remains... but whether it could apply at all to a speculated executive action

[StarfishSaver]

54. Today the district court converted the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction

As I told you, the injunction the district court imposed prohibiting the citizenship question from being included on the Census remained in place until lifted or vacated. Neither the Supreme Court nor the district court did so, thus the Trump administration was still bound by it.

Today, the district court made the temporary injunction permanent.

A New York federal judge has issued an order definitively blocking the Trump administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census in any form, despite the administration's insistence it has abandoned plans to add a question on the census.

Judge Jesse Furman, in his two-page order, also indicated the seriousness with which the court will continue to monitor this controversial issue, saying,"The Court will retain jurisdiction in this case to enforce the terms of this Order until the 2020 census results are processed and sent to the President by December 31, 2020."
http://m.cnn.com/en/article/h_60319d6883f95ab66d74ded880c37939

I said we'd see how it played out. This is how it played out.

[Trueblue Texan]

6. It is one thing to recognize the problem(s)...

...but the greater problem is, WHAT DO WE DO? I see all kinds of thrashing about and fault finding. That's the easy part. People don't do anything about it these problems because they don't KNOW what to do! I support progressive candidates and send my donations to the ACLU too, but I know it isn't enough. When you don't know what to do, it's draining, fills you with hopelessness, and wears you out. I'd like to hear more constructive suggestions on remedies to these problems. There are SO many things to address! Where to start?

[StarfishSaver]

9. Here's one possibility

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212265701

My suggested response to Trump's illegal order to include the citizenship question

If Trump proceeds and orders the Commerce Department to print the citizenship question on the Census, the State of New York (the plaintiff/ respondent in this case) should ask the court to enforce its injunction against prohibiting the addition of the citizenship question to the census questionnaire and to declare that any administration instructions to the contrary to be an illegal order that no employee is required to obey and any attempt to discipline an employee for failing to comply will constitute contempt of court.

That injunction should be enforced against not just administration senior officials, who are likely to thumb their noses and not fear consequences, but every Department employee and contractor. And if they defy the court order and follow Trump's illegal order, they should be threatened with arrest - and arrested if they continue to refuse to comply.

When career employees stop following Trump's illegal orders, things may start to change. The courts can help make this happen by taking steps to protect employees from retaliation.

[RKP5637]

10. That's generally been the problem, where to start. We need more progressive leadership in the

democratic party. I often feel/sense a lot of "treading the water" rather than hard core action and letting the chips fall where they may, and taking a lot of risk.

[StarfishSaver]

14. What "hard core action" do you have in mind?

[RKP5637]

15. When/if appropriate, for example, jail time. n/t

[StarfishSaver]

16. They're laying the groundwork for all of that

Including the issuing of the flood of subpoenas today. They're doing everything they're supposed to do to make that happen if/when the time comes.

[RKP5637]

18. Thanks, it is a very frustrating experience. As one of my friends just said, they are also waiting

for the appropriate time to really let the hammer fall.

[StarfishSaver]

19. I know

It is very frustrating. But doing it right takes time and effort.

I understand and agree with what they're doing, but I'm just as frustrated as you are! But in the end, they're doing it the only way that can ensure success.

[RKP5637]

22. Yes, I agree!!! n/t

[Thekaspervote]

29. Yes, they are doing everything they can!

[spanone]

17. I would not be surprised if trump ordered an end to free speech....not at all

[RKP5637]

20. Or at minimal to try to refine/define it in his favor. ... sitting presidents can not be questioned.

Yes, Stephen Miller would love that one, the little creep.

[lastlib]

21. GOP--the Bobblehead Party.

They only get to play if they lick his little balls enough. I wish that cowardly bunch would just all die and get buried face-down. I would love to see that party destroyed.

[RKP5637]

24. The GOP agenda IMO has always been to take power and money, and the hell with the country

and the people now or in the future.

[kentuck]

23. The next election will be a simple choice:

A return to democracy or a continuation to a dictatorship.

People should know before they vote.

[RKP5637]

27. That, is very succinct and absolutely correct! It should be adopted as a slogan.

"Your vote, your choice, Democracy or Dictatorship!"

[Everyman Jackal]

25. This will take us closer to a dictatorship.

Trump already has his followers. The more powerful he gets the more White people will begin to follow him. White people who think they are Christians will do what the White Christians in Germany did. They think that a dictator will only go after the people of color, the homosexuals and the Jews and that will make the White peoples lives better. Many if not most White people in this country are no different than the White people in Germany were. Trump already controls Congress. In an earlier post for a different article, I wrote that there is a 50-50 chance of a dictatorship. If he takes control of The Supreme Court and by that, I don't mean filling the court with his people but refusing to follow what The Supreme Court says I raise that to a minimum 70-30 that this country will no longer be a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

[RKP5637]

31. Well said! IMO we are on the edge! People had best WTF up! n/t

[Thekaspervote]

32. No, dotard may have his say in the senate, but certainly does not have his say in the congress

[Everyman Jackal]

34. I have not seen much if anything in the House so far

to show me he doesn't control Congress.

[tymorial]

26. We better start growing tons of bananas

That's where.

[RKP5637]

28. Yep! GOP's grand vision for the future! n/t

[brush]

30. If he tries it with an EO overrulling SCOTUS, it's on.

It'll be time to put everything else aside because if he does it and no one or no entity stops him the republic is over.

SCOTUS rulings are supposed to be the law of the land. If trump's EO overrules them his rulings become the law of the land.

[RKP5637]

33. Exactly!!! This is major, more than most Americans IMO realize. It would be a major power seize

for Trump if he can flaunt SCOTUS in anyway. And I'm sure he and his regime are well aware of that.

[NightWatcher]

39. It's ok. The Dems will hold a debate whether or not to send a sternly worded letter...

That'll stop him this time for sure.

[RKP5637]

44. Yeah, sadly I think that's quite true. n/t

[world wide wally]

47. Maybe Nancy can correct me on this because I thought we won the 2018 congressional

election because people wanted oversight.
At least that was the spin at the time.

[RKP5637]

50. K&R!!! n/t

[DavidDvorkin]

48. That would be rule by decree

And no Reichstag fire needed.

[RKP5637]

51. Often I feel we're living the "boiling frog" syndrome. n/t

[Timewas]

52. Like climate change

It goes slowly at first then accelerates and soon becomes unstoppable, we are damn close on the climate change and not that far off from dictatorship...Little steps little steps than wham

[tblue37]

53. Not cowards--co-conspirators. nt

[malaise]

55. He can't

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212284572