RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: BREAKING: Judge Blocks DOJ Legal Team Shake Up In New York Census Case - RightNation.US

Jump to content

BREAKING: Judge Blocks DOJ Legal Team Shake Up In New York Census Case DoJ motion dismissed as "patently deficient” Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,169
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 09 July 2019 - 05:07 PM

BREAKING: Judge Blocks DOJ Legal Team Shake Up In New York Census Case
By Tierney Sneed
July 9, 2019 5:33 pm
(too short to excerpt)

In a scalding order that called the Justice Department’s motion to change lawyers “patently deficient,” a federal judge in Manhattan on Tuesday blocked the move by the Justice Department to withdraw several of its attorneys from the census citizenship question case in New York.

With the exception of two DOJ lawyers who are withdrawing from the case because they have left their position at the Justice Department altogether, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman is not letting the other attorneys withdraw because the department failed to provide “satisfactory reasons” for their exit from the case.

“Defendants provide no reasons, let alone ‘satisfactory reasons,’ for the substitution of counsel,” Furman said. Furman said that the government’s vague claim in its withdrawal motion that it did not expect the withdrawal to cause disruption to the proceedings was “not good enough, particularly given the circumstances of this case.”

The Justice Department announced on Sunday it was replacing the lawyers who were defending the government in the case after it made an incredible reversal in how it was approaching its next steps, after the Supreme Court last month blocked the administration’s original effort to add a citizenship question.

On Tuesday the Department said publicly and in court that it would not seek to get the question re-added to the 2020 census. But after an angry President Trump tweet on Wednesday that said the administration was going to keep fighting, the government told courts in New York and Maryland that it was searching for a new way to get the question included on the survey. That announcement put it at odds with several representations it made previously that the census forms needed to be sent to the printers on June 30.

“As this Court observed many months ago, this case has been litigated on the premise — based ‘in no small part’ on Defendants’ own ‘insist[ence]’ — that the speedy resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims is a matter of great private and public importance,” Furman said in his order Tuesday. “If anything, that urgency — and the need for efficient judicial proceedings — has only grown since that time.”

The Department of Justice has not offered many details as to why it was shaking up its legal team, prompting speculation that the career attorneys were not comfortable with the direction the administration was going in trying to get the question re-added.

In comments to the press on Monday Attorney General Bill Barr said that he could “understand if they’re interested in not participating in this phase.” But he also said he did not know the details as to why they were exiting the case.

LINK

This post has been edited by That_Guy: 09 July 2019 - 05:08 PM

0

#2 User is online   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,046
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 09 July 2019 - 05:41 PM

Might as well have posted "Trump Wins Reelection". The left thinks that putting illegal aliens ahead of citizens and legal residents is a winning issue - among other sociopathic delusions.
0

#3 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,945
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 09 July 2019 - 06:27 PM

It’s curious that apparently this question was on previous years’ census forms until removed. No controversy then, but now it’s the end of the leftists’ world if it’s included again.

Things that make you think, Hmmmmm.

Sokay, more votes against America’s would be destroyers in ‘20.
0

#4 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,800
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 09 July 2019 - 06:40 PM

Here’s the key question about this specific topic. Do we want to count total number of Americans in the USA, or do we want to count Americans and legal residents, or do we want to count Americans and legal residents and illegals?

I know what I think it SHOULD be for CENSUS purposes, as required by law.
0

#5 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,903
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 09 July 2019 - 06:45 PM

View PostNoclevermoniker, on 09 July 2019 - 06:27 PM, said:

It's curious that apparently this question was on previous years' census forms until removed. No controversy then, but now it's the end of the leftists' world if it's included again.

Things that make you think, Hmmmmm.

Sokay, more votes against America's would be destroyers in '20.


Remember apportionment is not about noses, its about the right to vote which is tied to a redress of grievances. An illegal cannot come to our country and demand "representation". If they want that they are more than welcome to go back where they belong and demand all the representation they deserve there.
0

#6 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,440
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 09 July 2019 - 09:01 PM

View PostNoclevermoniker, on 09 July 2019 - 06:27 PM, said:

It’s curious that apparently this question was on previous years’ census forms until removed. No controversy then, but now it’s the end of the leftists’ world if it’s included again.

Things that make you think, Hmmmmm.

Sokay, more votes against America’s would be destroyers in ‘20.


I want someone to answer the question of why an EO can remove it, but an EO can't reinstate it. Unless Barry's EOs amount to additional Commandments from up on high?
0

#7 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,440
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 09 July 2019 - 09:05 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 09 July 2019 - 05:07 PM, said:

BREAKING: Judge Blocks DOJ Legal Team Shake Up In New York Census Case



So do 'splain, T_G, why a nation should count non-citizens in its census, a census used to allocate/reallocate congressional representation unless you want illegals to vote and be considered officially equal to citizens. If you could, please respond with a direct answer, no questions back to me, and no 300 post-replies parsing my question into 36 pieces.
*****************
ETA: It's getting to the point that whenever I read or hear the term "Federal Judge", I grab lubricant

This post has been edited by Howsithangin: 09 July 2019 - 09:05 PM

0

#8 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,108
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 09 July 2019 - 09:14 PM

View PostHowsithangin, on 09 July 2019 - 09:05 PM, said:

So do 'splain, T_G, why a nation should count non-citizens in its census, a census used to allocate/reallocate congressional representation unless you want illegals to vote and be considered officially equal to citizens. If you could, please respond with a direct answer, no questions back to me, and no 300 post-replies parsing my question into 36 pieces.
*****************
ETA: It's getting to the point that whenever I read or hear the term "Federal Judge", I grab lubricant


You've answered your own question with the part I bolded/enlarged/underlined. That's exactly why this anti-American stupidity matters so much to the leftists. They know the illegals vote in huge percentages for Democrats. The Democrats don't actually give a hill of sh*t about the illegals themselves, any more than they care about American citizens. They just want the votes, and the power those votes will provide.

<_<
0

#9 User is offline   donsaliman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 2,900
  • Joined: 19-March 03

Posted 10 July 2019 - 01:13 AM

People vote for who they want and the winner becomes President or to the house or senate, or mayor, etc, the Judge is selected not by the voters, but yet a single judge, can change what the majority voters want and make an order to his or her views.

Make decisions based on the law and not your views
0

#10 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 12,212
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 10 July 2019 - 01:46 AM

View Postdonsaliman, on 10 July 2019 - 01:13 AM, said:

People vote for who they want and the winner becomes President or to the house or senate, or mayor, etc, the Judge is selected not by the voters, but yet a single judge, can change what the majority voters want and make an order to his or her views.

Make decisions based on the law and not your views

If judges were to do that, how would progressives advance their agenda?

Leftism/progressivism can't survive without an activist judiciary that rules based on politics, vice law.
0

#11 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,169
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 10 July 2019 - 04:11 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 09 July 2019 - 09:14 PM, said:

They know the illegals vote in huge percentages for Democrats.


You've seen evidence of this?
0

#12 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,800
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 10 July 2019 - 06:05 AM

 That_Guy, on 10 July 2019 - 04:11 AM, said:

You've seen evidence of this?

You have evidence that they don’t?
0

#13 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,278
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 10 July 2019 - 11:19 AM

 That_Guy, on 09 July 2019 - 05:07 PM, said:

BREAKING: Judge Blocks DOJ Legal Team Shake Up In New York Census Case
By Tierney Sneed
July 9, 2019 5:33 pm
(too short to excerpt)

In a scalding order that called the Justice Department’s motion to change lawyers “patently deficient,” a federal judge in Manhattan on Tuesday blocked the move by the Justice Department to withdraw several of its attorneys from the census citizenship question case in New York.

With the exception of two DOJ lawyers who are withdrawing from the case because they have left their position at the Justice Department altogether, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman is not letting the other attorneys withdraw because the department failed to provide “satisfactory reasons” for their exit from the case.

“Defendants provide no reasons, let alone ‘satisfactory reasons,’ for the substitution of counsel,” Furman said. Furman said that the government’s vague claim in its withdrawal motion that it did not expect the withdrawal to cause disruption to the proceedings was “not good enough, particularly given the circumstances of this case.”

The Justice Department announced on Sunday it was replacing the lawyers who were defending the government in the case after it made an incredible reversal in how it was approaching its next steps, after the Supreme Court last month blocked the administration’s original effort to add a citizenship question.

On Tuesday the Department said publicly and in court that it would not seek to get the question re-added to the 2020 census. But after an angry President Trump tweet on Wednesday that said the administration was going to keep fighting, the government told courts in New York and Maryland that it was searching for a new way to get the question included on the survey. That announcement put it at odds with several representations it made previously that the census forms needed to be sent to the printers on June 30.

“As this Court observed many months ago, this case has been litigated on the premise — based ‘in no small part’ on Defendants’ own ‘insist[ence]’ — that the speedy resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims is a matter of great private and public importance,” Furman said in his order Tuesday. “If anything, that urgency — and the need for efficient judicial proceedings — has only grown since that time.”

The Department of Justice has not offered many details as to why it was shaking up its legal team, prompting speculation that the career attorneys were not comfortable with the direction the administration was going in trying to get the question re-added.

In comments to the press on Monday Attorney General Bill Barr said that he could “understand if they’re interested in not participating in this phase.” But he also said he did not know the details as to why they were exiting the case.

LINK


pissinginthewind.gif
0

#14 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,278
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 10 July 2019 - 11:20 AM

 That_Guy, on 10 July 2019 - 04:11 AM, said:

You've seen evidence of this?


What's your opinion on Megan Rapinoe?
0

#15 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,945
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 10 July 2019 - 12:10 PM

View Postzurg, on 10 July 2019 - 06:05 AM, said:

You have evidence that they don’t?

Correct! The left has pushed for "guilty until proven innocent", so T_G better put up evidence that it's not happening, or we're gonna figure it is.
0

#16 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,108
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 10 July 2019 - 12:44 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 10 July 2019 - 04:11 AM, said:

You've seen evidence of this?


:lol3: Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!! :lol3:

Anybody who's not deaf, dumb & blind knows this.

:rolleyes:
0

#17 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,773
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 10 July 2019 - 12:47 PM

There was a presidential commission that looked into the claims of widespread voter fraud.
https://www.pbs.org/...ead-voter-fraud

They did not find it.
0

#18 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,945
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 10 July 2019 - 01:38 PM

View PostLadybird, on 10 July 2019 - 12:47 PM, said:

There was a presidential commission that looked into the claims of widespread voter fraud.
https://www.pbs.org/...ead-voter-fraud

They did not find it.

The hi-larious part of all this is that the BLACK franchise will be that which is diluted. Maybe then someone will get their weaves bent out of shape.
0

#19 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,169
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 10 July 2019 - 02:17 PM

 MontyPython, on 10 July 2019 - 12:44 PM, said:

Anybody who's not deaf, dumb & blind knows this.


Then posting evidence in support of your claim shouldn’t be a heavy lift...
0

#20 User is offline   ASE 

  • You do NOT have a right to NOT BE OFFENDED!!
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 7,750
  • Joined: 15-June 03

Posted 10 July 2019 - 03:31 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 10 July 2019 - 04:11 AM, said:

You've seen evidence of this?

For those folks too dense or intellectually obtuse - willfully or otherwise - to comprehend...

Whether of not they vote illegally - the reason the dems want them counted on the census (without any indication that they are here illegally) is that when they pack them into states that are alloted a certain number of reps, with the apparent increase in population, they are allotted even MORE reps which increases the power of the dems, especially in already solid blue states, and may be enough to change a red to blue.

The dems of today are using the illegals much the same way they used slaves in the past - the slaves get counted (even though they were not allowed to vote) and the slave-holding states were then given more reps, and more power and influence in elections. If they vote illegally, then the dems get a two-fer!!

If you are not supposed to be here, your presence here should not be considered when it comes to alloting representatives. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. If you are, you are unconstitutionally diluting the rightful representation of the citizens who do have a right to be here.

This post has been edited by ASE: 11 July 2019 - 01:39 PM

0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users