SCOTUS Blocks Census Citizenship Question
Writing for the Majority (5-4): Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the explanation offered by the Trump administration for adding the question “appears to have been contrived.” Justice John Roberts did leave open the possibility of change if the Administration could provide an adequate answer.
Executive branch officials must “offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public. Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise. If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case.”
NYT
USA Today has a good version of the SCOTUS decision. John Roberts and the liberal block rule against 2020 census citizenship question (for now) handing Trump administration a major defeat. Others have said there will probably not be another submission to SCOTUS on the Citizenship question. The only one who might change their “yea” vote would be Roberts if a reasonable answer was supplied by the Administration.
Donnie Fatso is just having a sad day.
In 1946 an awakened Congress realized that the executive branch was unfettered, much like the magistracy of King George III, making up rules as they go along, picking the ones they wanted to paper-over their abusive decisions and acts. Just like Nazi officers had done too, and Stalin’s ugly officers were doing then.
Our Congress enacted here to govern the way the public is noticed so their comments can be invited as rule makings move toward general applicability, before they cab be treated as lawful rules, while mandating that all rulings and generally applicable regulations are published so everybody could know and comport or defend themselves from an unbridled magistracy, with the President being just one of those magistrates. The public’s law. It governs. The point or essence of our form of government.
I want the press/media to use these court holdings to remind their readers that it is the public’s law being upheld here. Not apparent word smithing by peevish judges. It is a public law, our law.
The Administrative Procedure Act, including its rules on judicial review standards (from which comes the express language, ‘arbitrary and capricious’ – the public’s lawful standard) – – this post-war public law is one of the most important in our history.
You can see why the king/autocrat would want to weaken its meaning, as it would weaken the republican form by which we govern ourselves, unfettering this unwelcome magistracy.
JF:
For a moment I thought you were arguing against this until the last line. Peevish Judges can say most anything even if it is arbitrarily said from the bench, and even if it leads to your sitting in jail or prison for a year or two (which is the limit now for Federal Judges) until your case arrives at a COA for another rendering of justice. Even then peevish judges can take their time in deciding the validity of the arguments you made. The most sound logic does not result in a quick decision, a decision, as there is no need for such once you are convicted wrongfully. Black-robed judges sitting higher than you can say as they please.
Rules are not laws and laws are open to interpretation where rules are not.
Two decisions in favor of the public and the law. I am hoping for a few more on things which are important. JF, thank you for your comments. It is a great explanation.
Executive branch rule making properly done and underpinned by proper authorities often from the statutes, results in law, of same weight as any law.
Once in place, it takes another proper rule making to change the law.
DACA was a generally applicable rule of prosecutorial discretion which incidentally had the effect of producing rights and benefits to those outside the executive branch – – but it is wholly within the independence of the executive branch to set its prosecutorial rules, and more defensible here imo because the prior Administration recognized the need to make this regulation of their prosecutorial powers known, plain and generally applicable (ie.; a regulation). It would have been an abuse of power to proceed in silence reserving your prosecutorial discretion to use it when you want to use (to favor some, disfavor others, even threaten some to exact your own favors, for example).
You can see why these fascists want to get rid of the DACA law, to unbridle their discretion over individuals and groups. Sinister.
We need much better press/media.
JF:
The news/media would never recognize it or understand what you are saying. It took me a bit to absorb it.
JF:
You know more on this than I do. If you wish to write something, I will put it up under the JF tag and no one would be the wiser.
Bill
I will try to write more plainly.
The wiser thing to try!
JF:
The topic is interesting. I am suggesting you write a bit more on it and I will post it on AB. Make sense? Writing about DACA and the SCTUS decision would be interesting to many.
JF:
I hope you take me up on writing about the DACA decision by SCOTUS. It would be a nice piece to show case at AB.