https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M3Y6vj3QlQpSdlYcCdq3BkbnnWIrEPlf/viewpretty short read. Its the transcript from court today in the lawsuit in the lower court for the injunction against the census question, this federal judge < 4th circuit < supreme court.
its somewhat comical. There's a bleeding heart liberal plaintiff lawyer trying the world's most dramatic judicial overreach, a DoJ special counsel who woke up to Trump's tweet out of the loop and is trying to save face when he's clearly clueless, and an AAG who actually knows whats going on, and a judge who's clearly fed up with the bullshit;
ex;
Quote
MS. HULETT: The President's tweet has some of the
same effects that the addition of the question would in the
first place and some of the same effects on the 18-month battle
that was just waged over the citizenship question. It leaves
the immigrant communities to believe that the Government is
still after information that could endanger them. If you add
that to the interview that the President did, sharing that his
reason for wanting the citizenship question on the form was so
that the Government could distinguish between citizens and
illegal aliens and how nonsensical that is, it has the effect
of leading the public to believe that the Census is not only
after that information but is willing to violate some of the
provinces of protection that our plaintiff organizations have
been trying to reassure communities about.
So we strongly believe that we're going to need some
affirmative commitment, whether it's through a stipulation or
by order of this Court, an affirmative commitment from the
Government to counter misinformation wherever in the Government
that it comes from, a commitment that they will respond quickly
and comprehensively to that kind of misinformation.
Quote
THE COURT: Let me make a couple of comments, and
then I'll turn back to Mr. Gardner to get his thoughts.
I assume, although maybe I'm wrong about this, that the
parties aren't suggesting I can enjoin the President of the
United States from tweeting things. Maybe you are suggesting
that. But I will say my initial reaction to that is to have
some concern.
Quote
MR. GARDNER: Your Honor, this is Mr. Gardner. I
want to back up just a step and say that I've been with the
United States Department of Justice for 16 years, through
multiple Administrations, and I've always endeavored to be as
candid as possible with the Court. What I told the Court
yesterday was absolutely my best understanding of the state of
affairs and, apparently, also the Commerce Department's state
of affairs, because you probably saw Secretary Ross issued a
statement very similar to what I told the Court.
The tweet this morning was the first I had heard of the
President's position on this issue, just like the plaintiffs
and Your Honor. I do not have a deeper understanding of what
that means at this juncture other than what the President has
tweeted. But, obviously, as you can imagine, I am doing my
absolute best to figure out what's going on.
I can tell you that I have confirmed that the Census
Bureau is continuing with the process of printing the
questionnaire without a citizenship question, and that process
has not stopped.
but finally someone who wasn't being pants on head retarded put an end to it;
Quote
MR. HUNT: We at the Department of Justice have been
instructed to examine whether there is a path forward,
consistent with the Supreme Court's decision, that would allow
us to include the citizenship question on the census. We think
there may be a legally available path under the Supreme Court's
decision. We're examining that, looking at near-term options
to see whether that's viable and possible.
And so to the extent we can identify an option for that
to work, if we continue to examine the decision and believe
that we have a viable path forward to that work, our current
plan would be to file a motion in the Supreme Court to request
instructions on remand to govern further proceedings in order
to simplify and expedite the remaining litigation and provide
clarity to the process going forward.
So as Mr. Gardner said, it's very fluid at present
because we are still examining the Supreme Court's decision to
see if that option is still available to us.
THE COURT: That's helpful to understand, and I
appreciate you adding that.
Here's where we are. And then if either side has a
different view, I'll hear that.
By Friday at 2 p.m. I want one of two things. I either
want a stipulation, as we've been discussing, indicating that
the citizenship question will not appear on the census, or I
want a proposed scheduling order for how we're going forward on
the equal protection claim that's been remanded to this Court.
I want one of those two things by Friday at two o'clock.
and this wonderful tidbit:
Quote
THE COURT: No. Because timing is an issue. Timing
is an issue, and we've lost a week at this point. And this
isn't anything against anybody on this call. I've been told
different things, and it's becoming increasingly frustrating.
If you were Facebook and an attorney for Facebook told me
one thing, and then I read a press release from Mark Zuckerberg
telling me something else, I would be demanding that Mark
Zuckerberg appear in court with you the next time because I
would be saying I don't think you speak for your client
anymore.
too bad he can't do that to a president
This post was edited by Goomshill on Jul 3 2019 03:54pm
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.