Republicans are going ballistic over Supreme Court blocking citizenship question from 2020 Census

Liberal, progressive and Democratic Party activists have been fighting the Trump Administration’s move to add a citizenship-related question to the 2020 U.S. Census. This week, the case went all the way to U.S. Supreme Court, which in a 5-4 decision, ruled to block the question from the 2020 Census — at least temporarily. And some Republicans are absolutely furious.

Chief Justice John Roberts was part of the 5-4 majority in the ruling, and Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union, attacked him with a vengeance on Twitter — calling for his impeachment from the Supreme Court and claiming that he is an ally of illegal immigrants.

On Twitter, Schlapp posted, “I’m for impeaching the Chief Justice for lying to all of us about his support of the Constitution. He is responsible for Robertscare, and now, he is angling for vast numbers of illegal residents to help Dems hold Congress. Enough deception from GOP judges on the Constitution.”

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio isn’t happy either.  In an official statement, the GOP congressman asserted, “It should not be controversial to ask how many American citizens are in the United States of America. The only people who don’t want to know are Democrats in Congress.”

Right-wing activist Sharon Farmer McLean, an avowed Trump supporter, posted on Twitter, “Let the deportations begin and arrest of deep state criminals all the way to the top.”

Twitter user @thaddeus47 recommended a way in which “red voters “ can resist: “Red voters in Blue States simply do not answer the Census. Drops the number of people counted in the Blue States.”

In response to Schlapp’s tweet,  right-wing Twitter user Mary Miskimon asserted that she was “totally exasperated by this decision,” adding, “The court is acting well beyond its authority here claiming the administration needs to provide additional reasons. Absurd.”

Another right-wing Twitter user, Susan Miller Repasky, even went so far as to imply that Roberts was somehow blackmailed into ruling the way he did on the Census. Repasky posted, “What happened to Roberts. Does someone have something on him?”

I’m for impeaching the Chief Justice for lying to all of us about his support of the Constitution. He is responsible for Robertscare and now he is angling for vast numbers of illegal residents to help Dems hold Congress. Enough Deception from GOP judges on the Constitution.

— Matt Schlapp (@mschlapp) June 27, 2019

Jim Jordan is not pleased SCOTUS kicked back the Census question, suggests Dem influence: “It should not be controversial to ask how many American citizens are in the United States of America. The only people who don’t want to know are Democrats in Congress.”

— Michael McAuliff (@mmcauliff) June 27, 2019

The American people want to know how many citizens are in our country. And they deserve to know.

We’ve asked the citizenship question in the past.

Democrats played games and manufactured a controversy. But this shouldn’t be controversial.

— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) June 27, 2019

The Supreme Court’s decision did not permanently keep a citizenship-related question off the U.S. Census, only halt such a question for now. And GOP birther Kris Kobach, former secretary of state of Kansas and an aggressive promoter of Republican voter suppression efforts, is still hopeful that such a question will be added at some point. Kobach tweeted, “It would be a travesty if the most powerful and advanced nation on Earth remained willfully ignorant of how many citizens it has.”

It would be a travesty if the most powerful and advanced nation on Earth remained willfully ignorant of how many citizens it has. #SCOTUS /End.

— Kris W. Kobach (@KrisKobach1787) June 27, 2019

The four dissenters in the ruling were Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and two appointees of President Donald Trump: Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Thomas, in his dissent, wrote, “For the first time ever, the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale.”