In a bombshell reveal Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump’s administration didn’t provide a strong enough reason why a citizenship question should be added to the 2020 government census.
However, Trump being Trump, he tweeted a blistering response to the decision not long after.
Within the response, he also exercised his POTUS powers by threatening to delay the 2020 census until judges on the Supreme Court were able to understand why the citizenship question is one of vital importance.
“Seems totally ridiculous that our government, and indeed Country, cannot ask a basic question of Citizenship in a very expensive, detailed and important Census, in this case for 2020,” Trump wrote.
“I have asked the lawyers if they can delay the Census, no matter how long, until the United States Supreme Court is given additional information from which it can make a final and decisive decision on this very critical matter. Can anyone really believe that as a great Country, we are not able the ask whether or not someone is a Citizen. Only in America!”
…..United States Supreme Court is given additional information from which it can make a final and decisive decision on this very critical matter. Can anyone really believe that as a great Country, we are not able the ask whether or not someone is a Citizen. Only in America!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 27, 2019
To many, the SCOTUS decision to reject the addition of the question is absurd. The census exists to make sure we have accurate data concerning the population. With such a heavy influx in illegal aliens over the past decade, it’s not unreasonable to ask who’s a citizen and who’s not.
After all, this important program decides how much power each state has come election time. One would think that gathering accurate data about America’s population would be at the top of the priority list, for both sides.
But according to The Hill, critics argue that adding a citizenship question will lead to an inaccurate count, as they believe illegal immigrants will skip the question entirely, partly for fear of that information being passed along to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
But the Trump administration has written in court filings that the information would not be accessible to other government agencies.
Salon reported that George Hazel, a Maryland U.S. District Judge and 2013 Obama appointee, decided that new evidence discovered on a deceased Republican operative’s computer “potentially connects the dots between a discriminatory purpose” and Trump’s desire to add the citizenship question.
In other words, Democrats essentially think the question might be racist. Not that we should be surprised, because they seem to think every move the Trump administration makes is racist or bigoted.
Inflammatory freshman New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said the potential addition of the citizenship question would mean “unspeakable horrors” for illegal immigrants in America.
In what also came as a bigger surprise was the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts — a conservative member of the High Court — sided with his liberal colleagues on the matter.
He wrote that “the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of DOJ’s [the Department of Justice’s] request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the VRA.”
“Several points, considered together, reveal a significant mismatch between the decision [Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross] made and the rationale he provided,” he continued.
The Hill reported that the justices kicked the issue back to the U.S. Department of Commerce to give it a chance to explain, once again, why a citizenship question should be included on the 2020 census.
In the meantime, it appears as if Trump isn’t interested in playing games. He has some of the best lawyers working to find out how he can delay the census until liberal Supreme Court justices deem their rationale acceptable.
Here’s hoping the president digs in and holds his ground on this issue because, quite frankly, this matter shouldn’t even be up for debate.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.