Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (127948)	7/5/2019 11:43:59 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 358312

>> Not only was a redistricting rationale not mentioned by the administration in its failed legal defense of the question; it was actually something that the other side argued was the administration’s true motivation. I kind of doubt that is going to be determinative.

To: bentway who wrote (127948)	7/6/2019 10:33:50 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Respond to of 358312

...The plaintiffs argued that one motive for the question was to allow for redistricting on the basis of the citizen voting-age population. The president’s solicitor general explicitly denied that, calling it a “conspiracy theory … nonsensical even on its own terms.” Now Trump is baldly saying it was true. Trump’s accidental moment of honesty is bad news for Wilbur Ross, whom Trump is effectively hanging out to dry as a perjurer. It’s bad news for the solicitor general and the Justice Department lawyers, who have to go before federal judges and admit that their prior claims were nonsense. It would be bad news for the credibility of the Trump administration, were there still any objective debate about its credibility, which there is not, or if the president cared about being shown as a liar, which he does not. In today’s filing, the Justice Department cites the litigation over the president’s travel ban, in which the Supreme Court ultimately decided to consider only the final legal version of the ban and ignore Trump’s previous statements. Everyone living in the real world knew it was intended to fulfill the president’s campaign-trail promise to implement a Muslim ban, but the Supreme Court effectively said that as long as the government constructed a separate rationale that could pass legal muster, it was acceptable. Now, in the census case, the government wants the courts to once again ignore all of its previous statements and consider only some as-yet-unspecified rationale. In other words, the administration would like to be rewarded for lying.... theatlantic.com