Quantcast
Connect with us

How the DOJ just asked the Supreme Court to essentially become a ‘branch of the Trump administration’

Published

on

- Commentary
William Barr testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee (C-SPAN/screen grab)

With the fate of the nation’s electoral maps — and thus the very basis of democracy — hanging in the balance, the Supreme Court is poised to rule on the controversial Census case. But at the last minute, Justice Department Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote new a new plea to the justices asking them to take an even more extraordinary step than simply ruling on the issue before them.

ADVERTISEMENT

Indeed, law professor Richard Hasen wrote in Slate on Tuesday that if the court goes along with Francisco’s request, it will essentially act as a part of the Trump administration.

The controversy arose when Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross decided to include a question about citizenship on the 2020 Census, which experts believe will reduce compliance with the survey in ways that benefit Republicans and white people electorally. The Justice Department claimed that it had asked Ross to include the question to protect the Voting Rights Act, but critics argued that this was a mere pretext and that the real purpose was to distort the Census results.

Now, more evidence has emerged that not only was the excuse for including the question a pretext but that the Commerce Department was actively working with a GOP operative whose goal was to create maps “advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.” In light of this new evidence, a lower federal court has sent a separate case challenging the Census question back to a trial court. It’s this case that Francisco wants the Supreme Court to weigh in on, even though doing so would be an extraordinary breach, according to Hasen.

“This is outrageous,” Hasen wrote. “The issue has not been fully briefed. It was not the subject of oral argument. It involves evidence for which there has been no fact-finding. For the Supreme Court to decide the issue on this basis is the definition of lawlessness. It is not how the Supreme Court normally does business, and the solicitor general should know better. If the court starts doing this it becomes no more than a branch of the Trump administration.”

He compared the case to the court’s Bush v. Gore decision, which ultimately handed the 2000 presidential election to Republican George W. Bush instead of Democrat Al Gore. That was an extraordinarily consequential decision on its own for many reasons, not least of which is that Bush went on to nominate two Supreme Court justices — John Roberts and Sam Alito — who could be key votes in the Census case.

ADVERTISEMENT

But the Census decision could be even more wide-reaching than a single presidential election. The Census is used to determine maps for elections across the country, and its data is used for countless other important purposes. Intentionally distorting its results could have drastic unforeseen consequences.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump’s fevered imagination goes on full display

Published

on

I live in a ghost town – at least Donald Trump seems to think so. It’s “a ghost town!” he exclaimed more than once at Thursday night’s second and last debate with Joe Biden. “Take a look at New York and what’s happened to my wonderful city. For so many years, I loved it. It was vibrant. It’s dying. Everyone’s leaving New York.”

He’s wrong, of course, and although he keeps saying it, like so much of what Trump claimed during those ninety minutes on Thursday, repetition doesn’t make it any truer. Yes, New York has taken a lot of hard knocks these past few months, lost far too many of our people to this hideous disease and seen too many businesses falter or close.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump still looked like a callous psychopath despite his relatively calm demeanor at the final debate

Published

on

The word on the media reviews for Thursday night's second — and blessedly last — debate of the presidential campaign is that it was civil.

"It was civil, calm, sedate, substantive (at times) and, almost, even normal," Shane Goldmacher at the New York Times writes.

This article was originally published at Salon

Continue Reading
 

2020 Election

Expert: Trump’s funneled lips are a primal display associated with intense emotion and anger

Published

on

President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden met on Oct. 22 for the final debate in the 2020 election and, like the first debate, it was unusual.

COVID-19 forced social distancing and largely took the studio audience, with their laughter, cheering and booing out of the equation.

What’s more, with norm-breaking interruptions and stealing of speaking time an inherent part of Donald Trump’s debate strategy, the contentious crosstalk between the two candidates and the moderator made long sections of the candidates’ first debate nearly impossible to hear or follow. The threat of having the microphone cut off effectively muted this aggression.

Continue Reading
 
 
Democracy is in peril. Invest in progressive news. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free. LEARN MORE