U.S. Supreme Court throws out challenge to Trump census immigrant plan | Reuters
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday threw out a lawsuit seeking to block President Donald Trump's plan to exclude immigrants living illegally in the United States from the population count used to allocate congressional districts to states.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday threw out a lawsuit seeking to block President Donald Trump's plan to exclude immigrants living illegally in the United States from the population count used to allocate congressional districts to states.
The 6-3 ruling on ideological lines, with the court's six conservatives in the majority and three liberals dissenting, gives Trump a short-term victory as he pursues his hard-line policies toward immigration in the final weeks of his presidency.
However, his administration is battling against the clock to follow through on the vaguely defined proposal before President-elect Joe Biden takes office on Jan 20. The justices left open the possibility of fresh litigation if Trump's administration completes its plan.
The unsigned decision said that "judicial resolution of this dispute is premature" in part because it is not clear what the administration plans to do.
"At present, this case is riddled with contingencies and speculation that impede judicial review," the ruling said. The decision noted that the court was not weighing the merits of Trump's plan.
Challengers led by New York state and the American Civil Liberties Union said Trump's proposal would dilute the political clout of states with larger numbers of such immigrants, including heavily Democratic California, by undercounting state populations and depriving them of seats in the U.S. House of …
visit seeded article for remaining content
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
396 visitors
Just enough time!
Well, I see many blue cities/states losing representation seats because they have been allowed to count illegals for several decades now.
Good!
It was a procedural ruling only and does not in any way end the legal challenges.
Only Democrats would want non US citizens to count the same as US citizens.
And vote as citizens!
Several states allow illegals to obtain driver's licenses.
While there, they can register to vote.
It's called the thank you vote to democrats.
[deleted]
From your links:
"The voter registration application must state each voter eligibility requirement (including citizenship), contain an attestation that the applicant meets each requirement, state the penalties provided by law for submission of a false voter registration application and require the signature of the applicant under penalty of perjury."
"Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws to allow unauthorized immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses. These states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington—issue a license if an applicant provides certain documentation, such as a foreign birth certificate, foreign passport, or consular card and evidence of current residency in the state."
So if an undocumented immigrant applies for a drivers license in these States they must produce "certain documents" such as their foreign birth certificate. This would of course make them ineligible for the NVRA.
In order for an undocumented immigrant to get registered to vote through their driver license they would have to falsify their license application and provide proof of citizenship which carries severe penalties and even more when trying to register to vote which is why it's so rare.
Claiming that undocumented immigrants who get licenses as undocumented immigrants are somehow able to register to vote is just beyond stupid. Just by admitting you're an undocumented immigrant who is applying for the non-citizen drivers license immediately precludes them from the National Voter Registration Act. Are there really some who are so stupid they have trouble understanding these simple facts? Or is it that some are just so shameless that they're willing to lie for partisan purposes?
So, this is one of the things that I don't like sometimes in our liberal Supreme Court justices. (Not liberal justices generally, just the current crop.) i.e., They aren't willing to go through their own process. They aren't willing to go through the Standing test or the Ripeness test, as the rest of the Court did here. Rather, they want what they want politically and, left to their own devices, would use the Court as a hammer to push ahead with it. It shows how their personal political bias can impact the decisions they reach as justices.
I don't object to justices having political opinions. I object when they throw away long standing precedent to satisfy their political desires.
The rest of the Court is willing to wait until they have a real question of law that is actually impacting someone - a mature controversy that the Court needs to resolve.
So in others words, wait until the deed is done and then complain about repercussions, instead of stopping it to begin with.
Yes. That might sound awful to some people, but until the bad thing actually happens, you generally don't have a controversy to be resolved in court. The thing you fear might not actually come to pass. Most of the justices recognized that here.