Reason Roundup

Supreme Court Considers Whether Trump Can Block Immigrants From Census Counts

Plus: Pennsylvania rejects mail-in vote challenge, Facebook begs for regulation, and more...

|

sipaphotosten948896
(Gabriele Holtermann-Gorden/Sipa/Newscom)

Fourth time's the charm? Three federal courts have told the Trump administration that it's not OK to exclude undocumented immigrants from U.S. census counts. Today, the issue comes before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court is slated to hear oral arguments Monday in a case called Trump v. New York.

Some background:

In July Trump issued a memorandum ordering the Census Bureau to send him two sets of numbers. The first set was for the whole number of persons in each state. And the second set — for apportionment of the number of seats in each state — was to subtract the number of undocumented immigrants from the total count.

As the memorandum candidly admitted, that might mean that California, for instance, would lose two congressional seats. Trump's stated aim was to "not reward" states where large numbers of undocumented immigrants live….

So far the president has lost his argument in three lower courts, with both Democratic and Republican-appointed judges ruling against him unanimously.

Legal blogger Amy Howe explains the SCOTUS stakes:

If the court upholds the plan and the administration is able to implement it before leaving office, the new method of apportioning House seats could shift political power away from states with large immigrant populations and toward states with fewer immigrants.

The Supreme Court will also consider a case today on federal hacking law.

In Van Buren v. United States, the Court will, for the first time, "weigh in on the wide range of digital conduct that is potentially criminalized under a federal anti-hacking law known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act," explains James Romoser at SCOTUSBlog. More on that case here.

ELECTION 2020

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled against a Republican challenge to mail-in ballots. "Petitioners sought to invalidate the ballots of the millions of Pennsylvania voters who utilized the mail-in voting procedures," the court noted in its Saturday ruling. "Alternatively, Petitioners advocated the extraordinary proposition that the court disenfranchise all 6.9 million Pennsylvanians who voted in the General Election and instead 'direct the General Assembly to choose Pennsylvania's electors.'"

FREE MINDS

Could correcting the misalignment between who hands out prison sentences and who pays for them bring about better criminal justice outcomes? A new paper suggests yes:

FREE MARKETS


Reminder:

QUICK HITS

• "Nike and Coca-Cola are among the major companies and business groups lobbying Congress to weaken a bill that would ban imported goods made with forced labor in China's Xinjiang region," reports The New York Times.

• For the fourth time, a California governor has blocked Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten from being paroled. Van Houten was 19 when she helped kill Leno and Rosemary LaBianca in 1969.

• From victims of the Drug War to legal cannabis entrepreneurs…

• Another case of a police officer experiencing no consequences for extorting sex from folks he arrests.

• Local sheriffs are still opting out of enforcing state orders banning social gatherings.

• New York City will start opening schools again for in-person learning next week.

• People are suing Tecate beer for not being Mexican.

NEXT: Trump: If the President Doesn't Have Standing to Pursue Wild, Unsubstantiated Claims of Election Fraud, Who Does?

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Three federal courts have told the Trump administration that it's not OK to exclude undocumented immigrants from U.S. census counts.

    Problematic even.

    1. Don't look at me!

      Crazy to keep fighting for what you believe in.

      1. juliawatson

        Want To Work From Home Without Selling Anything? No Experience Needed, Weekly Payments... Join Exclusive Group Of People That Cracked The Code Of Financial Freedom! Learn More details Good luck... WORK24HERE

    2. Rufus The Monocled

      Hello.

      Of course they blocked it. It's like letting criminals rule on their own crimes. It was dismissed on a technicality. Doesn't change the fact if it goes to SCOTUS Trump has a good chance of winning.

      1. The White Knight

        “if it goes to SCOTUS”

        Did you not even read the title of today’s post?

        1. Mother's Lament

          Don't worry Rufus, WK is here to knitpick you're grammatical error for you.

          1. Mother's Lament

            Will he catch it?

            1. SusanMorrow

              Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet.Akl Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions.............. Visit Here

    3. Brett Bellmore

      I think there's a strong legal case against Trump only issuing the numbers minus illegal immigrants. The case against issuing BOTH numbers looks enormously weaker.

      The urgency about avoiding the release of the second set of numbers is due to the need to avoid Americans being aware of just how much our politics are being warped by counting illegal immigrants in apportionment. But I have no sympathy for that, more information is better.

      1. loveconstitution1789

        This is more Trump "n"th D chess to give exact numbers on how many illegals they counted.

        While there is a constitutional case that Trump must include illegals there is also a strong constitutional case that he doesnt have to. Indians not taxed but live inside the USA and non-American diplomats who live in the USA are NOT COUNTED.

        1. Rossami

          True but that case would be stronger if the IRS didn't have decades of precedent claiming that illegal immigrants nevertheless owed taxes.

          1. Moderation4ever

            Good point. Hey we want immigrants to work in our restaurants, clean our houses, fix our roofs, pay our taxes. But we want to pretend they don't exist for counting.

      2. Bubba Jones

        The analysis I saw was a net change of 3 seats reallocated among 3 states. No obvious partisan advantage.

        This seems like all heat and no light.

    4. JessicaDunlap

      I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about MED this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. This is what I do..... Visit Here

    5. JessicaDunlap

      I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about GRE this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. This is what I do..... Visit Here

    6. CE

      Seems like if they filled out the Census form and we know how many of them there are, they're not "undocumented" any more.

      But the Constitution says to count the number of people (excluding Indians not taxed), not the number of citizens.

      1. Ve-Ra

        It would take a lot of work and very accurate roles somewhere to determine the number accurately. I was a Census enumerator. I didn't always turn in names. It didn't ask where were you born. Often families would tell me which kids were born in the US but there was no place to mark it down. If they were all of Hispanic or Pakistani decent they were marked the same for the whole family whether or not 2 were born in the US and 2 were not. We could add middle names but we didn't have to. A lot of the houses are done by proxy so you end up with a number and vague info about the family. Separate from the Constitutionality of it I question the actual logicistics of it.

      2. Brett Bellmore

        Right, though practice excludes certain people, such as tourists, anyway.

        As I said above, I think he probably loses if he tries to only issue the numbers minus illegals. But issuing both sets of numbers would appear to be hard to object to.

  2. The Court is slated to hear oral arguments Monday in a case called Trump v. New York.

    Hasn't his Trumpvirus done enough to those poor people?

  3. loveconstitution1789

    Fourth time's the charm? Three federal courts have told the Trump administration that it's not OK to exclude undocumented immigrants from U.S. census counts. Today, the issue comes before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Poor unreason. You Lefties wanted a political SCOTUS. You got one.

    Article I, Section 2:
    Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

    Illegals are not permitted to be inside the USA per US law, so they wont be counted like an American will be. There has to be consequences for Lefties trying to violate the Constitution without amending it to suit their Socialist agendas.

    1. loveconstitution1789

      Now that the House of Representative is looking to be 212 GOP to 220 Democrats, Census 2020 should be taking away at least 10 House seats from Blue states and handing them to Red states, like Texas and Georgia.

      Giving Republicans the majority in the House in 2021.

      1. creech

        Check your math, and your date.

        1. loveconstitution1789

          Your citation fell off.

          1. creech

            There are 435 congressaholes. And the first congress that will be chosen by the new census does not take its seat until 2023.

            1. loveconstitution1789

              Your citation fell off. There are 435 Representatives. I cannot get a firm read on the remaining 3 Congressmen, so I left them off for now.

              2020 Census Delays and the Impact on Redistricting

              My citation points out that some states have redistricting deadlines in 2021.

      2. Ve-Ra

        Clearly, you've never been to Texas if you think removing undocumented immigrants from the Census will add to Texas's numbers. I used a lot of Google translate and kids that spoke English and Spanish to help collect Census data in Texas.

        1. loveconstitution1789

          Texas is gaining +2 without illegals counted. possibly +3 with illegals counted.

          California is losing 1 House seat. Possibly -3 if illegals are not counted.

          We dont know exactly until the numbers are released because they are not counting Georgia as gaining 1 House seat but we have gained over 300,000 people in 10 years.

    2. Jerryskids

      That section was superseded by the 14th Amendment.

      Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

      That bit about the basis of representation being reduced by the number of people ineligible to vote in federal elections sounds kind of interesting.

      1. Brett Bellmore

        It's not the number of people ineligible to vote, it's the number eligible who aren't permitted to. It specifically say only male citizens at least 21 years old, so you can disenfranchise illegals to your heart's content.

        The real answer here isn't not counting the illegals. It's where you count them. If I'm vacationing in Florida on census day, I still get counted as a South Carolinian. Changes to where people are counted as residing have been done administratively in the past, such as deciding that college students would be counted as living at the school, rather than their parents' homes.

        Not counting illegals is a tough call. Counting them as resident in their home countries because they have no legal residence in the US, probably an easier one, and by precedent, wouldn't require legislation.

        But I don't think Trump has time to pull off anything of this sort, and it has come out that the Census department deliberately dragged their heels on coming up with final counts, so that they'd be done after the next President took office. So Biden will have more of a say in this than Trump, who barely had any control over the Census to begin with.

      2. Gasman

        But read the text of the 14th posted, with subsequent 19th(women), and 26th(18 year olds) additions: "But when the right to vote... is denied ... or in any way abridged, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male </del?citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

        So anyone without the right to vote (non-citizens) causes the number of citizens counted toward representation to decrease as plain text reading. Seems as if Trump is on to something here.

        1. loveconstitution1789

          Trump is really gonna stick it to Democrats by releasing how many illegals the Census Department counted.

          It wont be exact numbers of illegal but the number is going to piss off more Americans than ever before.

        2. Brett Bellmore

          The 19th amendment eliminates the bit about males, and the 26 changes 21 to 18, but nothing gets rid of the citizen part.

    3. Zeb

      If they aren't slaves or untaxed Indians, seems like that says to count them.

      1. loveconstitution1789

        And yet they dont count diplomats and other non-Americans who are inside the USA legally.

        They also exclude Indians not taxed but live inside the USA.

        It's almost like every single person inside US Territory is not counted per se.

      2. Gasman

        but it explicitly states that one must not count them if denied the right to vote

        1. Zeb

          That only applies to the proportion of otherwise eligible citizen voters who are denied the right to vote. And it doesn't say you don't count those people, but rather that you have to reduce representation apportionment in proportion to the number of citizens not allowed to vote.

          1. loveconstitution1789

            Your citation fell off.

            1. loveconstitution1789

              BTW: Unless Constitutional Amendments specifically say they repeal other parts of the Constitution (which only the 21st Amendment does) the Amendments simply add new protections and/or limitations based on the new language.

              1. Zeb

                And the original text about census and apportionment says nothing about citizenship or voting.

                1. loveconstitution1789

                  But the 14th Amendment does.

                  Amendment XIV, Section 2.
                  Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

                  1. Zeb

                    Yes. And it supports my point, not yours.

                    is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, AND CITIZENS of the United States

                    1. loveconstitution1789

                      Good 'ol Zeb. Refuses to read the citations and provides none of his own.

                      I wont even throw Trump's win in your face.

                      I will be having too much fun throwing Trump's win with Trump vs Biden in unreason's face. I still don't understand how unreason will possibly do that many fluff pieces on Trump's second term cabinet picks.

            2. Zeb

              The relevant text is just above. It's pretty damn clear and specific that it is talking about citizens eligible to vote who are not allowed to vote.
              I think it would make sense to base representation on the number of citizens eligible to vote. But that's not how it works. Sorry, the Constitution says what it says.

              1. loveconstitution1789

                Except the denial of vote which illegals are not allowed to vote in federal elections.

                Trump is gonna win this one.

                1. Zeb

                  Jesus Christ, dude. It specifically says that it is about citizens who are not allowed to vote. This really isn't fucking hard, you ridiculous idiot.

                  1. loveconstitution1789

                    Poor Zeb. You know you break him when he gets flustered.

                    Zeb doesnt read citations and doesnt provide any citations.

                    1. loveconstitution1789

                      He missed the part about subtracting "Persons" for Census purposes those that cannot vote.

            3. The White Knight

              So, if I ask for a citation I’m chastised by the CACLLs, but if a CACLL says “your citation fell off” that’s cool.

              1. Nail

                Jesus, WK get the sand out of your vagina and stop whining like a lil bitch.

                1. R Mac

                  Dee can’t stop squawking like the bird she is.

                  1. Nail

                    Literally whines like a teenage girl.

                    1. Even Whiter Knight

                      The sadness of young womyn is far more important than the privilege of evil, white, cis-het men.

                2. EISTAU Gree-Vance

                  “Mysoginyst’s gotta misogyn”?

                  Or is this more of a homophobic virtue signaling opportunity?

                  Why not both?

              2. Mother's Lament

                The White Knight
                October.22.2020 at 3:18 pm

                It means conservative and conservative-leaning libertarian, and I coined it.
                .

                1. The White Knight

                  So?

                  1. R Mac

                    It just shows how pathetic you are.

                    1. Even Whiter Knight

                      How dare you mock White Knight's attempts to create popular catchphrases by manufacturing her own acronyms.
                      You cishet white bastards don't understand the importance of acronyms to the LGBTQQWTFBBQ community.

                  2. EISTAU Gree-Vance

                    EISTAU is far superior.

    4. "Illegals" are persons. They are not slaves. Thus they are free persons. Free persons get counted.

      "Illegal" residents have been counted in every census, because the Constitution says so. But "illegal" is a new classification barely a century old. If you live here you get counted. Period. That you're not supposed to live here is an entirely different matter.

      1. loveconstitution1789

        Why does the Constitution differentiate between Persons and Free Persons?

        Indians not taxed are Persons and Free Persons but are NOT COUNTED.

        Its almost like you only get counted for Census if you are part of the American experience. You follow the rules, pay taxes, get naturalized, etc. Illegals are NOT following the rules.

        1. The White Knight

          “Why does the Constitution differentiate between Persons and Free Persons?”

          We used to have this thing called slavery. It was actually quite popular in your home state of Georgia.

          1. Even Whiter Knight

            Yes, slavery is evil when practiced by anyone but the ChiComs.

        2. Indians are not counted because they are explicitly excluded in the paragraph you quoted. Did you even bother to read what you quoted?

          There is NOTHING in that paragraph about having to pay taxes or get naturalized or even following the rules. You live here you get counted. Unless you're an Indian who is not taxed. Period.

          1. loveconstitution1789

            Except for visitors AND non-American diplomats.

            You poor people. No wonder you hate the Constitution. You cant even read well.

      2. Rossami

        The problem is in your definition of "if you live here".

        If I'm vacationing in Florida during the Census, I still get counted as a resident of Ohio. If I'm serving in the military, whether in another state or even overseas, I still get counted as a resident of my home state. If I'm away at college, ... it gets weird. But the general rule is "what have I done that shows evidence of my intent to make X my new home state" and includes things like getting a drivers license, registering to vote, signing up for jury duty and doing other things normally associated with citizenship of that state.

        Does being somewhere illegally count as making that your new state of residence? I think the question is unsettled. The Constitution does not plainly address the issue.

        1. Brett Bellmore

          That's my conclusion: They have to count the illegals, but nothing says they can't allocate those numbers to their home countries, rather than their current illegal locations.

        2. They count residents in the state. If you're visiting you're not a resident. Yes, it gets weird for college students. But if I'm living in a dorm then I get counted as a residence of that dorm.

          1. Rossami

            And that's the problem. If you're here illegally, are you a resident or just visiting? If you're a resident, you get counted. If you're just visiting, you don't. By saying that 'illegal residents get counted', you are assuming the conclusion - that the illegals are residents. But that's the very point under evaluation.

            Resident or visitor - either interpretation is plausible under the wording of the Constitution.

    5. So the solution to Democrats trying to violate the constitution without amending it is for Republicans to violate the constitution without amending it?

      Nothing in that sections, or the 14th amendment which supersedes it, would allow the president (or anyone) to deduct illegal immigrants from the census numbers for apportioning representatives

      1. Zeb

        Yeah, it says what it says, not what you wish it said.

        1. loveconstitution1789

          Except Indians not taxed.

          Y'all don't know this but this clause is a big deal among us AmerIndians.

          We're one of the few groups of Persons who can legally live inside the USA but be sovereign citizens.

          1. Brett Bellmore

            Well, you know, except for that little law back in 1924 that naturalized all Indians, so that you're in the same boat as the rest of us.

            1. loveconstitution1789

              I know right. I'm proud to be an American but not everyone is.

              You should see the discussions we have when I bring up our AmerIndian ancestors migrated from Asia so we too are immigrants.

      2. Jerryskids

        Nothing in that sections, or the 14th amendment which supersedes it, would allow the president (or anyone) to deduct illegal immigrants from the census numbers for apportioning representatives

        I daresay the Supreme Court may have something to say on that statement, and I daresay their opinion might carry a little more weight than your assertion.

        1. loveconstitution1789

          It only carries weight if the SCOTUS agrees with Lefties. That is why the Democrats are all about Rule of Man and NOT Rule of Law.

          1. The White Knight

            This is an astoundingly unaware statement coming from the commenter who leads here for the parade of the Trump cult of personality.

            1. Even Whiter Knight

              Yes, how dare he point out our hypocrisy.

              1. The White Knight

                The parody works better if you don’t break character.

    6. CE

      it doesn't say "count all Americans", it says "all other Persons". even illegal immigrants are "other persons". Even though "Indians not taxed" are not counted, that doesn't seem to be an out for people living and working and paying taxes in the USA, even if they didn't immigrate here legally.

    7. Jefferson's Ghost

      loveconstitution1789: "Illegals are not permitted to be inside the USA per US law, so they wont be counted like an American will be."

      Sorry, "Persons" refers to individuals present in the US. ''

      Please re-read UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ

    8. a libertarian

      A guy who calls himself loveconstitution is actually totally ignorant about the US Constitution? Who could have guessed

      1. Mother's Lament

        How do you figure that, Jeff?

        1. Jefferson's Ghost

          It's entirely possible for one to "love" something which one knows little about.

  4. Ra's al Gore

    https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1333099193754259456

    How courts treat election fraud. If you suspect a crime is about to be committed, they can't help you b/c no crime has been committed yet ("standing"), but once the crime has been committed they can't help you then either, because they can't stop the crime anymore (laches/moot).

    1. Don't look at me!

      It’s a trap!

    2. The White Knight

      Written like someone who has not bothered to look at any of the incompetent details of the lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign, not the well-explained rulings against those lawsuits.

      It’s not the judges’ fault the Trump lawyers are screwing up.

      1. JesseAz

        He is referring to the Wisconsin lawsuit where the judge dismissed the case as Moot because they waited to long to challenge the changes to the rules. The problem is that prior to the election these cases were often dismissed due to lack of standing as no harm had yet occurred. Do you even bother to argue from an area of information, or just keep straight up dishonest?

        1. loveconstitution1789

          THIS!

          The courts nearly all of them required the election to take place and vote counts to be completed before bringing election fraud claims.

          Luckily, Republicans on the Courts know how the game is played. They want to see the final vote count Democrats come up with after election fraud attempts, so after the judges throw out ballots the Democrats cannot produce more votes.

        2. The White Knight

          The “Wisconsin” case you refer to was just decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Maybe you should back off on your frequent calling other people “dummy”.

          1. loveconstitution1789

            WK never posts citations for its claims. Its a bot afterall.

            1. The White Knight

              Uh huh:

              https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pa-supreme-court-dismisses-republican-bid-toss-mail-ballots-halt-certification

      2. Even Whiter Knight

        This. Unless these cases make it to a higher court that rules differently and then the judges are trash.

  5. Ra's al Gore

    Biden Aides’ Ties to Consulting and Investment Firms Pose Ethics Test
    Some of the president-elect’s choices for top posts have done work for undisclosed corporate clients and aided a fund that invests in government contractors.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/28/us/politics/biden-westexec.html

    WestExec’s founders include Antony J. Blinken, Mr. Biden’s choice to be his secretary of state, and Michèle A. Flournoy, one of the leading candidates to be his defense secretary. Among others to come out of WestExec are Avril Haines, Mr. Biden’s pick to be director of national intelligence; Christina Killingsworth, who is helping the president-elect organize his White House budget office; Ely Ratner, who is helping organize the Biden transition at the Pentagon; and Jennifer Psaki, an adviser on Mr. Biden’s transition team.

    WestExec did not respond when asked for a list of its clients. But according to people familiar with the arrangement, they include Shield AI, a San Diego-based company that makes surveillance drones and signed a contract worth as much as $7.2 million with the Air Force this year to deliver artificial intelligence tools to help drones operate in combat missions.

    At the same time, Mr. Blinken and Ms. Flournoy have served as advisers to Pine Island Capital, which this month raised $218 million for a new fund to finance investments in military and aerospace companies, among other targets.

    1. Ra's al Gore

      The team recruited by Pine Island Capital Partners — which is led by John Thain, the chief executive of Merrill Lynch at the time of its collapse in 2008 during the recession and sale to Bank of America — was chosen based on its members’ “access, network and expertise” to help the company “take advantage of the current and future opportunities present in the aerospace, defense and government services industries,” including artificial intelligence, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing in September describing the new fund, Pine Island Acquisition Corporation.

      Pine Island Capital has been on something of a buying spree this year, purchasing the weapons system parts manufacturer Precinmac and a company until recently known as Meggitt Training Systems and now known as InVeris, which sells computer-simulated weapons training systems to the Pentagon and law enforcement agencies.

      Another person listed as a member of the Pine Island team is Lloyd J. Austin III, a retired Army general who is also under consideration for defense secretary, according to a person familiar with the selection process.

      1. Ra's al Gore

        Potential Biden Officials’ Firm Is Promising Big Profits Off Those Connections
        Former government officials Tony Blinken, Michele Flournoy & Lloyd Austin may run Biden’s national security agencies — their firm is telling investors it expects to profit off ties to those officials.
        https://www.dailyposter.com/p/breaking-potential-biden-officials

        The company says Thain and CEO Philip Cooper founded the firm “on the idea that a talented group of accomplished, highly respected, commercially-savvy and long-tenured former government and military officials, when fully aligned and engaged, could enable a first class investment team with better access, better information, better expertise and better management skills than those typically found in private equity firms.”

        "This is so explicit that it's astonishing Pine Island even put it on paper,” said David Segal of Demand Progress, a grassroots group pressing Biden to reject Cabinet appointments tied to corporations. “This is not an example of people who happen to work at a big company — these are partners at a firm whose stated business model is to profit from the revolving door and connections gained from time in government."

      2. Don't look at me!

        Refilling the swamp.

        1. Brett Bellmore

          It's always easier to refill the swamp than to drain it, you've got all those alligators volunteering to help, instead of fighting you.

          1. The White Knight

            Especially when your predecessor didn’t actually do any draining.

            1. Even Whiter Knight

              Because we stymied him at every turn, lol.

              We even had to impeach him over fake totally real Russian stuff.

  6. Earth Skeptic

    "Three federal courts have told the Trump administration that it's not OK to exclude undocumented immigrants from U.S. census counts."

    Fine. But can we exclude undocumented immigrants from federal (and state) benefits?

    1. Earth Skeptic

      Including for being counted in the state population for apportionment of federal grants?

    2. Answer: yes.

      The Constitution is clear, you must count all the residents, with the only exception being untaxed Indians. But it says nothing about benefits. Perfectly fine to restrict benefits to citizens only. But you still have to count non-citizens.

      You could have course seek to amend the Constitution. But conservative act like liberals these days and would rather ignore the Constitution than obey the law. Pathetic.

  7. loveconstitution1789

    Trump vs Biden is gonna be a great win over Democrats. 12th Amendment House vote here we come.

    Lefties wanted a politicized SCOTUS. They got one.

    Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett know that they have to smack down massive Democrat election fraud now or they wont be able to stop the Lefties ever again.

    1. loveconstitution1789

      Amendment XII
      The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

      I wonder when unreason will get their Trump second term attack article all loaded and ready to go?

      1. newshutz

        The ship has sailed. There is no way to determine a legal vote from an illegal vote, so invalidating some votes is not possible. No one has the cohones to invalidate all the votes, so there is no relief for the vote fraud.

        Courts will bend over backwards to avoid a ruling that there was fraud, but there is nothing that can be done about it now.

        So no fraud ruling, no matter the facts.

        1. Brett Bellmore

          Precisely. Back when the Supreme court refused all those pre-election challenges to states violating their election laws?

          THAT was when Trump lost the legal fight.

          1. newshutz

            Because Federalism, SCOTUS defers to state courts on the meanings of state laws.

            1. loveconstitution1789

              Its why the SCOTUS will likely send this to the House under the 12th Amendment.

              State voting is still horrendous and corrupt. The 12th Amendment is clean with each state getting one vote.

              Trump wins!

              1. The White Knight

                You’re kidding, right:

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-campaign-requests-recount-of-hand-recounted-results-in-georgia-which-is-unlikely-to-change-outcome/2020/11/21/18ad955e-2c73-11eb-8fa2-06e7cbb145c0_story.html

                How can you be that opinionated, and ignorant, about what is going on in your own state.

              2. loveconstitution1789

                Poor wk. these unreason bots are getting worse and worse for unreason staffers to spread their lies.

    2. loveconstitution1789

      Dominion server crash delays recount in Georgia’s Fulton County: report

      HAHA. Dominion servers crashed but Americans should trust that Dominion equipment correctly counted and all legal ballots.

      This is supposed to be a hand recount in Georgia but it appears that the same old monkey business is happening with the election officials.

      1. The White Knight

        The hand recount was the previous recount. This one, the second recount request by the Trump campaign, is being done by machine. Everyone who has been paying attention know that, except apparently a guy who lives in the very state where all this is happening.

        1. loveconstitution1789

          Your citations keep falling off.

          This was the only hand recount. Its why the dominion server crashed to prevent the actual vote counts of paper ballot backups from being revealed.

          1. The White Knight

            You’re kidding, right:

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-campaign-requests-recount-of-hand-recounted-results-in-georgia-which-is-unlikely-to-change-outcome/2020/11/21/18ad955e-2c73-11eb-8fa2-06e7cbb145c0_story.html

            How can you be that opinionated, and ignorant, about what is going on in your own state.

          2. loveconstitution1789

            Poor unreason bots. They finally copy a link comment to two replies and the links dont back up unreason lies.

    3. BLPoG

      How much money would you like to bet on that? What odds would you offer or accept?

      1. loveconstitution1789

        All unreason staffers resign when Trump has his second term as President.

        Since they believe Biden won, it should be an easy bet.

        1. BLPoG

          I see. So you're not willing to back it up at all. You just want to make instance non sequiturs.

        2. loveconstitution1789

          Poor unreason staffers. They just wont take my bet.

          What is unreason’s entire budget for one year? I should bet that. That way unreason staffers wont get paid for one year. Its expensive to live in the urban bubbles they live in.

    4. The White Knight

      Can you link to this Trump v Biden case you keep referring to?

      1. Even Whiter Knight

        And make it notarized... with two supreme court justices signatures.

        1. newshutz

          about time TWK got his own parody.
          I don't have the energy, but Jeffty5 would be a good name for Jeff.

  8. Donald Trump has granted clemency to less than half of 1% of the more than 10,000 people who petitioned him for it through the end of the 2020 fiscal year...

    Fiscal year, eh?

    1. How does this compare to past presidents?

  9. Ra's al Gore

    WHY IS ALL COVID NEWS BAD?
    Three professors, two from Dartmouth and one from Brown, have produced a paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research titled, “Why Is All COVID-19 News Bad News?” It focuses on the U.S. press, and its findings are disturbing:
    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/11/why-is-all-covid-news-bad.php

    onsistent with the existing literature (Gentzkow and Shapiro 2010 and Gentzkow, Glaeser and Goldin 2006), our results suggest that U.S. major outlets publish unusually negative COVID-19 stories in response to reader demand and interest.
    ***
    Overall, we are unable to explain the variation in negativity with political affiliation of an outlet’s
    audience, or U.S case count changes, but we do find that U.S. readers demand negative stories (as evidenced by article popularity).

    So it may be that most Americans are behaving like sheep primarily because they are, in fact, sheep.

    1. Earth Skeptic

      More like lemmings.

      1. Nardz

        The new mascot of libertarianism

    2. Social Justice is neither

      I notice the political affiliation of the writers/editors isn't included in the reasons excluded from being explanatory. Almost like it's propaganda being forcibly pushed at people regardless of their views.

  10. Hillary Clinton also never wanted a concession.

    It's funny how Trump's crazy but she isn't. I guess one man's childishness is another woman's sage advice.

    1. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-biden-should-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156

    2. Earth Skeptic

      Are womyn still allowed to be more emotional (I mean, feeling)?

      1. Rufus The Monocled

        Isn't it WAMYN?

      2. Unicorn Abattoir

        Hillary's emotions are just a subroutine in the animatronics. Anyone can see that.

        1. newshutz

          I thought she was a lizard person, and Mittens was the robot.

    3. creech

      "She Persisted."

    4. The White Knight

      But she manned up and conceded, anyway.

      Trump seems only capable of toddler-like behavior.

      1. She didn't want Biden to concede under any circumstances.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege

          She was actually planning to fight it until Obama told her she needed to concede. She certainly didn't do it because she had accepted that she lost.

      2. Even Whiter Knight

        "Trump seems only capable of toddler-like behavior"

        When will we get a president again like JFK, or Clinton, who treats the Oval Office with the sanctity it deserves.
        Thank goodness Biden seems like the kind of guy who will make the Oval Office the kind of place again that will welcome our daughters. Our lovely, lovely smelling daughters.

  11. Ra's al Gore

    Lesson: Never give your kids over to your enemies to be educated. Also, fuck the GOP establishment for spending generations sending kids to die overseas while letting this happen.

    The Rich Kids Who Want to Tear Down Capitalism
    Socialist-minded millennial heirs are trying to live their values by getting rid of their money.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/style/trust-fund-activism-resouce-generation.html

    Heirs whose wealth has come from a specific source sometimes use that history to guide their giving. Pierce Delahunt, a 32-year-old “socialist, anarchist, Marxist, communist or all of the above,” has a trust fund that was financed by their former stepfather’s outlet mall empire. (Mx. Delahunt takes nongendered pronouns.)

    “When I think about outlet malls, I think about intersectional oppression,” Mx. Delahunt said. There’s the originally Indigenous land each mall was built on, plus the low wages paid to retail and food service workers, who are disproportionately people of color, and the carbon emissions of manufacturing and transporting the goods. With that on their mind, Mx. Delahunt gives away $10,000 a month, divided between 50 small organizations, most of which have an anticapitalist mission and in some way tackle the externalities of discount shopping.

    1. Rat on a train

      With that on their mind, Mx. Delahunt gives away $10,000 a month not so much that it hurts while continuing to live a life of luxury

    2. Don't look at me!

      Almost makes you want to reconsider bringing back a punishing inheritance tax.

    3. Earth Skeptic

      If that fucktard had any balls/ovaries/bits of gamete-related tissue to serve as a metaphor for personal fortitude, it would instantly give away all its money, foreswear any future inheritance, and take a job as a migrant fruit picker.

    4. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland

      I'm in favor of a 100% wealth tax if you are a socialist

    5. EISTAU Gree-Vance

      Wow. That’s taking “Everything is so terrible and unfair” to the next level.

  12. Nike and Coca-Cola are among the major companies and business groups lobbying Congress to weaken a bill that would ban imported goods made with forced labor in China's Xinjiang region...

    Well at least someone is looking out for the U.S. consumer.

    1. Longtobefree

      OK, so where are all the calls to boycott the slavers?

      1. CE

        yeah, shouldn't they be canceling China?

        1. Jason A

          They're following LeBron's example. On their knees...not praying...

  13. Rat on a train

    Tecate: Schelmetty is asking a judge to allow his suit to be filed as a class action so that other consumers can also seek damages he can get a larger settlement while the class gets a coupon for half off a six pack. He is suing for unspecified damages.

    1. CE

      this beer is so fake we're going to sue them to get some of it.

  14. Ra's al Gore

    Don't forget, a positive case is 40 replication cycles, which is useless. Covid exists, but the death/case count is inflated with the GOP in the White House, and will be corrected when St. Biden gets there.

    Biden Got the Coronavirus Death Toll Wrong | Opinion
    https://www.newsweek.com/biden-got-coronavirus-death-toll-wrong-opinion-1535367?fbclid=IwAR2CX_1xDhNASmo9wz69bbwEvBP7L3SS_-RoUfwwxSeQellRGunFh4VFcHs

    "The case definition is very simplistic," Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of Illinois Department of Public Health, explains. "It means, at the time of death, it was a COVID positive diagnosis. That means, that if you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means, technically even if you died of [a] clear alternative cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it's still listed as a COVID death."

    The CDC currently puts the number of confirmed coronavirus deaths at 204,000. But even the "best estimate" 0.26 percent fatality rate is a significant overestimate because of how the CDC counts deaths. And though public health officials have been transparent about how they are counting coronavirus deaths, the implications for calculating the infection fatality rate often go unstated.

    Medical examiners from Colorado to Michigan use the same definition Ezike described. In Macomb and Oakland Counties in Michigan, where most of the deaths in that state occurred, medical examiners classify any death as a coronavirus death when the postmortem test is positive. Even people who died in suicides and automobile accidents meet that definition.

  15. Earth Skeptic

    ENB is demonstrating her powers of cognitive dissonance again.

    First, the census has to count all the peeples, because the Constitution says so.

    Second, Pennsylvania has to count all the mail-in votes, despite the constitution saying not to.

    Cool.

    1. loveconstitution1789

      +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

      unreason is slowly starting to see what is coming with election 2020. They wont accept that their propaganda didnt get Biden elected after all.

  16. For the fourth time, a California governor has blocked Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten from being paroled. Van Houten was 19 when she helped kill Leno and Rosemary LaBianca in 1969.

    19 in 69? California doesn't want a bunch of olds walking around free.

    1. Jerryskids

      It's probably safe to parole her, I don't think there's any danger she'll be killing the LaBiancas again.

  17. Earth Skeptic

    "Could correcting the misalignment between who hands out prison sentences and who pays for them bring about better criminal justice outcomes?"

    Sure. All punishment (and, next, determinations of guilt) should be based on future cost of said punishment.

    OK, now do rape.

    (Helpful aside: whipping and branding are pretty cheap.)

    1. Zeb

      Well, you have to consider cost. At some point, it's not worth it.

      1. Earth Skeptic

        But what if whipping and branding can be done by volunteers?

  18. Earth Skeptic

    "Nike and Coca-Cola are among the major companies and business groups lobbying Congress to weaken a bill that would ban imported goods made with forced labor in China's Xinjiang region," reports The New York Times.

    But if they support BLM, its totes OK.

    1. Rat on a train

      Uyghurs aren't black.

      1. Rufus The Monocled

        Or wear Nike.

    2. Ra's al Gore

      Wall Street loves them some slave labor. It's like the Triangle Trade, where the North got wealthy trading slaves then said slavery was just a Souther thing.

      Wall Street donors line up behind Biden in massive third-quarter fundraising haul
      https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/16/wall-street-donors-line-up-behind-biden-in-massive-third-quarter-fundraising-haul.html

      1. Ra's al Gore

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeuaTpH6Ck0
        1776 - Molasses To Rum, John Collum

      2. loveconstitution1789

        Democrats have always been good at spinning their involvement in the slavery of humans once it was generally not politically advantageous to have slaves.

        Keeping Black Americans in housing projects and on welfare in Blue states is not considered a form of serfdom or slavery because of the media.

        White people being blamed for slavery when Jews were enslaved by Egyptians and nearly all "great" civilizations had slaves.

        1. Longtobefree

          Damn, you act like slavery was an economic institution, not a racist one.
          Quit reading all those damn history books written before wokeness.

        2. Earth Skeptic

          Liar! Only white American males owned slaves (after inventing the practice while oppressing women and Indians at Jamestown).

          If other non-white cultures in other places held people in bondage, that was just noble indigenous tradition. Or something.

  19. Ra's al Gore

    https://twitter.com/LPNational/status/1333159317730709505

    You are essential. No virus can change that and no government has the right to tell you otherwise while threatening your ability to earn a living or live your life.

    Also, it's a really good idea to wear a mask, avoid crowds, and consider others during a pandemic.

  20. Local sheriffs are still opting out of enforcing state orders banning social gatherings.

    All those family pets left unshot.

    1. Jason A

      LOL! Good take...

  21. Ra's al Gore

    https://twitter.com/JesseKellyDC/status/1333187606784450567

    I know this makes people uncomfortable, but 1000 years from now they will absolutely study how America became so soft that we let a virus with 99%+ survivability lay waste to the largest economy on the planet. They will marvel at it.

    It’s just....amazing. Amazing.

    1. Rat on a train

      I remember reading about periods of mass hysteria in history books. I never thought I would see it in person.

      1. Earth Skeptic

        Well, behavioral economists got prizes for documenting that people are not rational. Now we see confirmation on a societal level.

    2. Unicorn Abattoir

      1000 years? 1 or 2 years. Any it will be all Trump's fault.

      1. Rat on a train

        If he had only resigned when given the numerous opportunities, none of this would have been necessary.

  22. Ra's al Gore

    Jennifer Psaki to Be Press Secretary as Biden Names All-Female Communications Team
    Ms. Psaki, who served in prominent communications roles in the Obama administration, said she saw her job as trying to “rebuild trust.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/29/us/politics/psaki-biden-press-secretary.html

    1. Ra's al Gore

      https://twitter.com/MattWolking/status/1333241066984759296

      Here’s Jen Psaki hugging Russia's Foreign Minister and Russia’s chief foreign affairs propagandist while wearing a pink hammer and sickle hat

      1. Ra's al Gore

        https://twitter.com/kayleighmcenany/status/1333215317007413249

        President
        @realDonaldTrump
        already has an ALL FEMALE Senior White House Press Team.

        So does
        @VP
        ...

        So does
        @FLOTUS
        ...

        So does
        @SecondLady
        ...

        The completely DISCREDITED
        @washingtonpost
        once again reveals their blinding propagandist Fake News proclivities Downwards arrow

        1. Earth Skeptic

          Settle down. News is not based on things that actually happened.

        2. Even Whiter Knight

          Yes, their biological sex is female but they aren't actually womyn.

          They're all slaves of the patriarchy, like Sarah Palin or Margaret Thatcher.
          Biden is appointing actual womyn.

  23. New York City will start opening schools again for in-person learning next week.

    The bloodbath.

  24. Rufus The Monocled

    People who wear masks outside reveal themselves to be fearful ignoramuses.

    It's like wearing a K-Way in a fire.

    Oh how I wish karma exists and public officials who have unleashed this pernicious habit face a hasher justice at some point.

    Masks are the pitchforks for the witch hunters. The asymptomatic are the witches.

  25. Ra's al Gore

    https://twitter.com/MartinDaubney/status/1333020122152390657

    Utterly heartbreaking image of a Britain that’s been lost. Ordinary, hardworking business owners have been crushed, while the comfortable middle classes demand more restrictions, while the working classes ferry stuff to them
    Quote Tweet
    Charlie Veitch
    @CharlieVeitch
    · Nov 28
    The tears of a man who lost his business to Lockdown, and who then got arrested for the thoughtcrime of complaining.

    1. Ra's al Gore

      https://twitter.com/Loknayn/status/1332746545465335808

      BLM vs anti lockdown protests - both during lockdown. Officers take an oath to serve impartially and "without fear or favour." Does this look impartial to you?

      1. Ra's al Gore

        https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1332725450712502272

        Nobody can answer the question sufficiently.

        Why is there a 2 tier policing system in the UK that treats lockdown protesters like criminals while literally kneeling and bowing for Black Lives Matter?
        Quote Tweet
        RT
        @RT_com

        Russia state-affiliated media
        · Nov 28
        Arrests made as anti-lockdown protesters march in #London, defying police warning to obey #Covid19 restrictions

        1. Ra's al Gore

          https://twitter.com/michael_broc/status/1332661975550226432

          First picture is the Extinction Rebellion protest camp at Euston.

          Been there for weeks, no police.

          Second picture is the lockdown protest down the road at Kings Cross.

          Look at the difference in policing

          1. Ra's al Gore

            https://twitter.com/michael_broc/status/1332680260165509131

            Police had to take the arrested women into a shop to prevent the crowd from freeing them

      2. Rufus The Monocled

        In Etobicoke (Toronto), police sent 97 cops (six on horseback) in a show of excessive theatre force to shut down Adam Skelly's restaurant. They arrested him and barricaded his restaurant.

        Disgraceful cowards.

        And the head chief who gave an interview needs to brush up on his civics. Doug Ford issued a DECREE. It's not a law. Law is when it passed through Parliament through Royal Assent.

        What these clueless cops are doing is doing the dirty work of dictators like Ford and Legault and of course state governors.

  26. loveconstitution1789

    Trump’s Michael Flynn Pardon Is Only The Beginning Of The Justice This Nation Deserves

    Poor unreason. They went all in with the Mueller hoax.

  27. "Donald Trump has granted clemency to less than half of 1% of the more than 10,000 people who petitioned him for it"

    Absolutely outrageous.

    Fortunately Joe Biden will become President soon and implement Charles Koch's #EmptyThePrisons agenda.

  28. People are suing Tecate beer for not being Mexican.

    Codifying cultural appropriation.

    1. Rat on a train

      Tabasco, you're next.

  29. loveconstitution1789

    Media Say Biden’s Female-Led Comms Team Is A First. It’s What Trump Has Now

    Imagine what the retarded media will say when Trump still has a woman as Comm department into his second term.

  30. Ra's al Gore

    https://twitter.com/ThinkEmily/status/1331924155583909888

    Picture this: you are 82. You have moderate dementia which is in fairly fast decline. Right now you know your loved ones, and you have capacity to make decisions. In 12 months time this may not be the case.

    Is it unreasonable for covid NOT to be the biggest concern for you?

    1. lap83

      You also have to be concerned about the lady gunning for your job. Oh, you said 82

    2. CE

      No story on the President-Elect falling and breaking his ankle? Or questioning whether the "playing with my dog, here's the photo" cover story is true or not?

  31. loveconstitution1789

    The ‘Not My President’ Crowd Needs To Sit Down And Shut Up

    unreason can be included in these Lefty clowns who refused to accept that Hillary lost and conceded quickly.

    1. The White Knight

      Link to an example of an article where Reason refused to accept that Hillary lost.

      1. Even Whiter Knight

        Yes, and we want it approved by the Prophet PBUH.

  32. Ken Shultz

    "Could correcting the misalignment between who hands out prison sentences and who pays for them bring about better criminal justice outcomes?

    Is this circular reasoning?

    1. Longtobefree

      Blessed are those who run around in circles; they shall be known as big wheels.

  33. Ra's al Gore

    BREAKING: Two weeks after the election, the private equity firm of Biden’s potential national security nominees started telling investors it expects big profits off Pentagon contracts and its political connections
    https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1332786853834088449

  34. loveconstitution1789

    Missouri Doctor Says People Who Don’t Mask Are Like ‘Enemy Combatants’

    We had 14 people at our Thanksgiving celebration. No masks. No social distancing.

    Georgia has no unconstitutional mask mandates. Schools and businesses are open.

    Georgia is doing great. New businesses are being built. People from all over the USA are coming and spending money.

    1. Jerryskids

      Bad news - all those people coming to Georgia are coming just so they can vote for Ossoff and Warnock.

      Given that most of them are probably moving to Atlanta, how careful are the registrars going to be about checking their eligibility to vote and following up on the potential violation of state law concerning moving here temporarily just to vote? That is, you should be required to show a Georgia driver's license to register to vote, an out-of-state driver's license ain't gonna cut it because it actually proves you're not a resident of Georgia. But I can totally see registrars accepting the argument that the Covid has made it difficult to get a Georgia driver's license and therefore they're going to accept "alternative" means of establishing residency.

      But how many new registrants without valid Georgia driver's licenses or with brand-new Georgia driver's licenses are going to get flagged for checking up on in a month or so to see if they are still Georgia residents or if they've moved back to where they came from? Is it a non-zero number? I doubt it.

      1. CE

        If they move there and register by Dec 7th, they will get to vote.
        Technically it's illegal to move there temporarily just to vote, but how long is temporarily? And who's going to check a week or 2 or 4 after the votes are counted?

        1. loveconstitution1789

          These dummies tell on themselves on social media.

          They will pump money into the Georgia economy and still wont win.

          Perdue beat Ossoff by 80,000 votes.

  35. Ra's al Gore

    https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1333182290952736769

    “Promise of hashtag.”
    Quote Tweet
    Stephen L. Miller
    @redsteeze
    · 16h
    This is a Jen Psaki all-timer

    1. Ra's al Gore

      https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1333169652885819395

      Incoming Biden White House press secretary Jen Psaki once conceded her own talking points about Egypt were ridiculous on a hot mic moment (former State Dept flak, those folks know how to spin)

  36. Ra's al Gore

    https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1333130179418460166

    Looks like Tony Blinken -- Biden's pic for SecState -- is doing some resume scrubbing.

    "WestExec recently made changes to its website to remove some language that promoted its work in China."

  37. Ken Shultz

    "Incarceration rates fell dramatically in California after 1996, when a reform shifted the costs of incarceration (but not other responsibilities) from the state to the county.

    These statistics may be deceptive. California has lost suits related to overcrowding since the 1990s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Plata

    They've been under court order to reduce prison populations for a very long time. They may be attributing to "reform" what could be better explained by overcrowding and court orders to reduce overcrowding. Regardless, talking about reduced prison sentences amidst an uptick in the prison population that was so high, the courts ordered them to release duly convicted violent criminals is a stretch.

  38. Sometimes Bad Is Bad

    Well if you’re not a citizen and you can’t vote and you can’t have welfare benefits why are we counting you again?

    I kid of course because Tammany hall makes sure all illegals get what they need.

    1. Zeb

      Because the constitution says to count the number of people, not the number of voters or citizens or people eligible for welfare.

      1. loveconstitution1789

        That is NOT what the Constitution says.

        Indians not taxed but inside the USA are NOT COUNTED.

        1. loveconstitution1789

          In other words, all PERSONS inside US Territory are not counted like you claim.

          1. Zeb

            So, are you claiming that they are properly classified as "Indians, not taxed"? I suppose you could make that argument for some immigrants. But they are legally required to pay taxes, so I think it would be a hard on to make. The point of the "Indians" part was to address the nominally sovereign Indian nations that existed within states.
            Sorry, dude, the Constitution says what it says. And immigration status is not mentioned in defining who gets counted.

            1. Earth Skeptic

              How about we simplify things: anyone not actually paying taxes does not count (and does not vote)?

              1. Zeb

                I think that would require an amendment for the counting part. I could get behind limiting the vote to tax payers, but that would also require an amendment.

              2. CE

                that would be good, but make it net taxpayers only who get counted and get to vote. if your salary and your pension come from the taxpayers, why should you get a say in how to spend taxes?

            2. loveconstitution1789

              No...your claim is that everyone inside the USA should be counted. Per the constitution, that is NOT how the Census count works.

              I know your position is weak but ignoring this point just blows your team's agenda.

              Additionally, many illegals are Indians. They have Indian tribe ancestry from Mexico and South America, mixed with Spanish ancestry. This is not being made as an argument currently but maybe it should. The federal government should then refuse to tax them and they now fall under that clause.

              1. Zeb

                I don't have an agenda here. I'm just looking at what the Constitution actually says. I'm not saying anything about how I think it should be. You are just taking what you want to be the case and assuming that that is what the Constitution says.
                I suppose if the government declared illegal immigrants with indigenous American ancestry to not be subject to tax, that could work. But as it is, illegal immigrants are subject to federal taxes, so it doesn't work now.

                1. CE

                  and the Indian tribes and FedGov have pretty strict rules for who is considered a member of each tribe.

                  1. Zeb

                    LC1789 is an idiot, I don't know why I bother.

                    1. loveconstitution1789

                      poor Zeb. He is flustered. The Constitution says what it says Zeb.

                      IIRC you still wont admit that Article I, section 9 gives Congress the power to regulate immigrants as of 1808.

                      Zeb and his ilk hate the Constitution and this is why. The clear language of the Constitution dont line up with their agendas. So they spin and lie to get what they want. When someone points out how they are wrong, they get flustered.

            3. Nardz

              They are also legally required to not reside within the US.

              1. Zeb

                But they do.

                Look, I'm not giving my opinion here. As I've said, if I were in charge, I would say apportionment should be based on the number of citizens or eligible voters in a state. I'm reading the text and saying what it says. If I'm wrong about what it says, please correct me. But it sure looks like the constitution says that you count all people residing in a place for the census. Indians and slaves are a moot point now since Indians are no longer really sovereign nations, but voting US citizens with some special status. So it comes down to what does "all other persons" mean. Which seems pretty simple. It should probably be more explicit on how to treat immigrants and visitors. But it isn't. I don't think that means that the court should just make something up.

              2. loveconstitution1789

                Zeb could reference past Census recordings to backup what he is claiming.

                They didnt count visitors to the USA, which Illegals are.

        2. CE

          What part of "all other Persons" isn't clear to you? "Indians not taxed" are excluded before the "all other Persons" phrase.

          1. loveconstitution1789

            Except non-Americans Diplomats and visitors.

  39. The Constitution is clear. You count the people living here, reglardless of their citizenship. When did "conservatives" stop reading the Constitution?

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

    Undocumented immigrants are Persons. They are not slaved, thus they are free. Free Persons. They get counted. Unless you can determine that they are Indians not taxed.

    1. loveconstitution1789

      Indians not taxed but live in the USA are also NOT COUNTED.

      Funny how Lefties want all "Free Persons" counted but Congress cannot regulate all "Such Persons" with regard to national borders.

      Article I, Section 9.
      The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

      1. loveconstitution1789

        It wont matter anyway. Blue states are losing House seats to Red states and Republicans get to Gerrymander as their hearts wish per the SCOTUS.

      2. Zeb

        What do you think that proves?

        Why do you think that illegal immigrants are "not taxed" (that seems to be the argument you are making)?

        1. loveconstitution1789

          I know your position is falling apart but this is where you are pivoting?

          1. Zeb

            I'm not pivoting anywhere. Just trying to follow your weird reasoning.

            I'm not talking about how I want things to be. I think it would make more sense if representation were based on how many citizens or voters live in a state. But that's not what the Constitution calls for.

            1. loveconstitution1789

              I know the Constitution is weird for you. You are working backwards from your opinion to the language of the Constitution.

              I work from the language of the Constitution to support my position.

    2. creech

      Does retired cousin from Poland, staying at one's house for a couple months while touring the sights, get counted? How about Ghanian student finishing up her degree at Princeton in May 2021? Or Norwegian sailor left behind when his ship sailed because he needs to be hospitalized for heart conditions? They all seem to be "persons" that should be counted but then subtracted for fair congressional representation purposes.

      1. Zeb

        The correction for people not allowed to vote has nothing to do with immigrants. It refers specifically to citizens who are otherwise eligible to vote. The point was so that states couldn't just disenfranchise large numbers of voters without consequence.
        The questions you ask are good ones, but I don't think the Constitution provides clear answers.

        1. Nardz

          "Indians not taxed" are excluded because they were considered citizens of a separate government, like foreign nationals present without status granted by the US

          1. Zeb

            If that's what they wanted it to say, then that's what they should have written. They chose to only specify Indians and not citizens' of other nations.
            I think it is pretty clear that they did not intend to limit the census only to citizens. It also seems quite reasonable to think that they didn't intend to count foreign visitors. But illegal immigrants who intend to take up residence are a category that didn't really exist at the time. And are a category distinct from citizens, permanent legal residents and foreign visitors.
            It's really just something not addressed. It probably should be modified somehow to clarify these things. That's what constitutional amendments are for.

          2. loveconstitution1789

            Yup. same reason we dont count non-American diplomats and visitors.

            You have to have a legal reason to be living in the USA or you're a visitor per US law.

            1. loveconstitution1789

              Lefties need non-Americans to have financial and voting power over Americans or they will have national political power again.

              1. loveconstitution1789

                The easiest manner to test who is correct is to view past Census recordings.

                They didn't record visitors.

    3. Sevo

      Does that thereby include, oh, those here on a visa?

      1. loveconstitution1789

        They want everyone counted to help Democrats even though non-American diplomats, visitors, and Indians not taxed are NOT counted.

        Its why the Census asks residency questions.

        1. Zeb

          You are seriously the stupidest person on here. Can you really not imagine that people might argue based on actual facts and not on what they want to be the case?
          I don't want everyone counted and I certainly don't want to help Democrats. That has no bearing on what the Constitution actually says.

          1. loveconstitution1789

            Poor Zeb. He is just stating facts is what he says.

            He provides no citations to back up what he says.

  40. Sevo

    I guess we should all move to Scotland, since it seems there are no major problems left there:

    "Scotland becomes first country to make sanitary products free"
    [...]
    "MSPs at the Scottish parliament unanimously approved a bill brought forward by Labour health spokeswoman Monica Lennon, bringing in the legal right of free access to items such as tampons and sanitary pads.
    [...]
    The Labour MSP has been working to tackle period poverty since she was elected to Holyrood in 2016..."
    https://news.sky.com/story/scotland-becomes-first-country-to-make-sanitary-products-free-12141414

    Well, I had to read it twice also - "period poverty"....

    1. Zeb

      Men are generally larger and therefore need to spend more on food than women. So food should be free for men.

      1. Longtobefree

        Maybe so; but how to tell "men" in these woke times?
        Can we really just take their word for it?

        1. newshutz

          check under the kilt

          1. Even Whiter Knight

            Yes, but they might have a feminine penis.

        2. Yes. You're obligated to take their word for it.

    2. Earth Skeptic

      Menstruation is oppression!

    3. Earth Skeptic

      Scotland: stores replace tampons and sanitary napkins that cost money to obtain from manufacturers with wads of peat moss. Organic fans pleased.

      1. De Oppresso Liber

        Better used there than smoking up their whisky. Yech.

        1. Zeb

          Now you've gone too far.

    4. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland

      I will laugh when a tyranny goes and takes all of the tampons and pads. And claims discrimination if they try and stop him

      1. Jerryskids

        Did your auto-carrot actually change "tranny" to "tyranny"? Because "tranny" is a well-known sort form of "transmission".

        1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland

          Yes it did

    5. Ve-Ra

      This is so utterly ridiculous. Toilet Paper isn't free and I need it every day, not just a few days a month. And if I can't afford pads then I can just use toilet paper. There is a lot of crap out there women have to put up with but it isn't the government's job to make sure I have no worries and nothing to spend money on. I am highly disappointed in Scotland.

  41. Ra's al Gore

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/electric_vehicles_will_drive_us_to_serf_city.html

    This is something to think about if you plan to buy a new vehicle anytime soon. Peters also speculates that because of cost, not many EVs will actually be sold. If this seems like a game stopper for the EV market, it isn't. Circumstances will force people to rent or lease an EV.

    Get them to pay monthly, forever. No more ownership -- no matter how long you pay. Just serial debt in exchange for access to transportation as defined, delimited and controlled by the owner therefore, which probably won't be you.

    If so, this means that for all intents and purposes, private ownership of cars will be limited to the well-to-do. The hoi polloi will be reduced to taking on debt or more likely paying month-to-month for the privilege of driving an EV.

    The Masters of the Universe envision a Great Reset in accordance with the United Nations' Agenda 2030.

    Transportation control one of the cogs in their new world construct. The end game of EVs, the Green New Deal, the Paris Climate Accord, facial recognition AI, and possibly things like vaccination permits for travel is more control and power for the elite and less freedom for the rest of us. This highway to the future is leading us straight back to serfdom.

    1. Earth Skeptic

      Serfin' USA!

    2. It's really not the cost - that will come down and it's not too outrageous right now.

      What's going to get you will be software licensing. Sure, you'll own the car but not the software to run it.

      IRobot is offering a 'service' where you pay an upfront fees and then a monthly charge. In return you get a robot vacuum and, in three years, they'll trade you for a new model.

      Don't pay that monthly fee though and your not turns off.

      In the UK rent-to-own is becoming the norm. Though without the 'to-own'. Instead you're leasing appliances.

      It'll all sound like a deal - until you go find that your car doesn't work because you left a service area. And us rural fuckers will just be SOL.

      2050's going to come and see us operating (illegal) cars from decades earlier like we're fucking Cuba.

  42. Blargrifth

    Placing the fiscal burden for county jails would be a great help to reduce unnecessary incarceration. Even better would be to stop electing judges and prosecutors. The judicial branch is correctly insulated from the democratic process at the federal levels, and even works this way in some states. Deputizing these positions would do much to remove poor incentives and increase fidelity to the rule of law.

    1. Longtobefree

      I am just a college graduate; please explain how nomination by the (elected) executive and confirmation by the (elected) legislative branch results in a judiciary insulated from politics.
      Read up on how many ninth circuit judges have deferred retirement waiting for Trump to go. Review the calls for RBG to retire so Emperor Husein could nominate her replacement.
      Everything is politics except politics, which is money.

  43. Rich

    The law is clear — every single person is included in the census, and every single person is represented in Congress.

    Married people, though, ....

  44. Unicorn Abattoir

    I'll say this about Biden - He's consistent.

    He called a lid for the day at 9:29 this morning.

    1. Ra's al Gore

      His health is fine. Shut up, Russian.

      1. Even Whiter Knight

        He's resting up to bring back sanity, dignity and nice smelling little girls.

  45. hateba4827

    SOCIALISM!!!! Read More

  46. Bubba Jones

    “ They allegedly had sex in and "on the hood" of his patrol car as he had promised her they would earlier that day during her arrest.”

    Is it wrong for cops to keep their promises?

  47. Jerryskids

    It's funny reading all these arguments over what the law "clearly" says about the census. If the law were clear, this wouldn't be a Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court doesn't hear clear cases.

    As far as what the Constitution says about illegal immigrants, it doesn't say a damn thing about illegal immigrants because there was no such thing back in the day, it says nothing about illegal immigrants for the same reason it says nothing about motor cars or radios or the internet. So you have to look at the general language and make inferences, which is where the Supreme Court gets involved.

    Television and radio are simply extensions of broadcasting, so the same freedom of the press rules that apply to newspapers and books got extended to them as well, but it wasn't a given that this would be so, just as the Fourth Amendment rules on security in one's person, houses, papers, and effects has been slow to be extended to cell phones. There's nothing clear on how the Court might decide this case.

    1. CE

      Because there was no check when you immigrated to the US back then. You just showed up and had a go of it. Everyone was an undocumented immigrant, or descended from one.

      1. Illocust

        Ellis Island?

        1. Zeb

          Wasn't a thing when the constitution or 14th amendment were written.
          I think this is simply a question not addressed in the Constitution.

        2. loveconstitution1789

          You wont be able to convince these open border types with facts like the constitution. The states regulated immigration until 1808 when congress took over.

          According to these guys, it was a free for all in port cities and forts on the frontier. Nobody asked any questions or tried to keep undesirables out of the USA.

    2. Zeb

      Seems to me like the honest, textualist approach would be to say that it doesn't address the question of illegal immigration (for the reasons you posit) and go with what it says (or change it). The language is pretty clear. There are specific exceptions for who doesn't get counted.
      Seems better to me to be stupidly literal in interpreting things rather than inventing meanings that aren't in the plain text. If it's no good, then change it. We need more clarity in what laws mean, not less.

      1. I, Woodchipper

        ^this, for sure

      2. The White Knight

        "(or change it)"

        In our current national environment, with deep partisan division, where many people don't have faith that elections are on the up and up, is amending the Constitution a realistic option?

        1. Jason A

          Feature, not a bug...

        2. Zeb

          No, not really. Which is why you fall back to doing what the words say.

      3. loveconstitution1789

        Luckily we have a conservative 5-4 decision block that will reaffirm that illegals as uninvited visitors dont need to be counted.

  48. I, Woodchipper

    Local sheriffs are still opting out of enforcing state orders banning social gatherings.

    not ALL cops are bastards then.

    1. Zeb

      At least not in all ways.

  49. newshutz

    The only way I see to not count illegals, is if the SCOTUS rules that they are not residents.

    It is one of the problems with restricting immigration, when it is not authorized by the Constitution.

  50. Paul B

    They should sue Tecate Beer for calling itself “beer”

  51. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)

    I moved from Utah to Texas earlier this year during the period the census was being taken. Would it have been proper to allow myself to be counted in Utah and in Texas even though I legally resided in both states during the count? No. I reported only to the census in Texas, because that is where I intended to establish residence going forward.

    Citizens of the US are not afforded apportionment of representation (i.e., numbered among the free persons) for each state in which they maintain a residence. There is a clear concept of "permanent residence" involved.

    To count persons temporarily in state (or not counting persons temporarily absent from the state) for apportioning representation among the many states was certainly not the intention of the Constitutional Convention. Undocumented immigrants (illegal aliens), regardless of the length of their residence, are by definition temporarily in a state, as they cannot legally establish "permanent residence". To count them dilutes the rights of sovereign citizens and creates perverse incentives. That is wrong.

    1. I had that argument during the last census when I was ordered to get units staying in my barracks to fill out census forms.

      I pointed out that my barracks was a *transient* barracks - where the residents were staying for less than 30 days for training before returning to their home bases.

      They did not care.

    2. Zeb

      But what do you do about citizens who are transient and have no intended permanent residence? It would not seem appropriate to exclude them from the census.
      Which is why I think representation would be better based on the number of voters in each state. But that's not what the constitution calls for. It calls for an actual count. And immigration is such a different issue today than it was at the time that this really is an issue that calls for an amendment. In the 18th century, if you moved somewhere far away, you were almost certainly going to stay there for a long time. These weird edge cases didn't matter. Now, when people can easily move across the country several times in a year, things are a bit different.

      1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)

        But what do you do about citizens who are transient and have no intended permanent residence?

        Why would anyone care if a jurisdiction they don't plan to stay in gets an extra representative? Only other people who want to use them as political capital care.

        1. That's exactly why we have to care.

          Because jurisdictions far away have an effect locally - even though they shouldn't.

          I don't need CA to have a couple extra representatives if I can avoid it because *they won't leave me alone*. If all that that shit affected was CA then, yeah, it wouldn't matter. But it doesn't.

    3. Even Whiter Knight

      This is why you CACLLs are so dumb, you don't understand that voting is so important that you should do it as many times as you can get away with.

    4. Gaear Grimsrud

      Good points Chuck.

  52. People who can not vote are not represented in Congress.

    All this does is give the people who *can* vote in those districts a louder voice.

    We're told it's not appropriate to break bad laws because we're supposed to use the system - voting politicians in and out of office - yet how can someone use that system if they can't vote? How do they get their opinion heard when they have no power?

    As I've said before - I'm pro immigration. And non-citizens should not be counted for apportionment.

    1. And I say that as a resident of a state with a large immigrant population.

    2. Also, if the law is clear - then why is it going to SCOTUS?

    3. tlapp

      I completely agree with you as a son of legal immigrants.

  53. Don't blame Coke and Nike.

    The only reason you need to ban something is because people want it. Things people do not want do not need to be banned.

  54. B G

    CA losing two districts from having illegals excluded seems optimistic. I'd guess that L.A. County alone could lose 3 districts with another 2-5 lost across the rest of the state if the current illegal immigrant population were subtracted from the total for congressional redistricting.

    With estimates of the total illegal population in the U.S. ranging from 10-14 million, and that 25% of those live in CA, that's at least 3-4 districts worth of population in the state being here without legal authorization. With the closure of so many "low-skill" businesses in the state due to the pandemic, and the county/local goevernments' ongoing war with the construction insudtry in the state, that number might actually be much lower for the time the census has been collecting data, though as many of them often go back south where living is much less expensive when there's less available work.

  55. tlapp

    So people here illegally and not allowed to vote get representation. Wrong. Need those eligible to vote be represented, not have their influence diminished by illegal activity.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.