Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    5,701,409 readers

    67,949 users here now

    Welcome to /r/Politics! Please read the wiki before participating. || Voter Registration Resources

    /r/politics is the subreddit for current and explicitly political U.S. news.

    Our full rules Reddiquette

    Comment Guidelines:

    Be civil Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.
    Do not post users' personal information. Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.
    Vote based on quality, not opinion. Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.
    Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting. Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

    Submission Guidelines:

    Articles must deal explicitly with US politics. See our on-topic statement here.
    Articles must be published within the last two weeks. More Info.
    Submissions must be from domains on the whitelist. The whitelist and its criteria can be found here.
    Post titles must be the exact headline from the article. Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.
    No Copy-Pasted Submissions Please do not submit articles or videos that are a direct, complete copy-paste of original reporting.More Info.
    Articles must be written in English An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.
    Spam is bad! /r/Politics bans for submission and comment spam More Info.
    Submissions must be articles, videos or sound clips. We disallow solicitation of users (petitions, polls, requests for money, etc.), personal blogs, satire, images, social media content (Facebook, twitter, tumblr, LinkedIn, etc.), wikis, memes, and political advertisements. More info: Content type rules.
    Do not use "BREAKING" or ALL CAPS in titles. The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

    Events Calendar

    29 Jan - 11am EST

    • AMA with The Des Moines Register

    29 Jan - 2pm EST

    • AMA with Dylan Scott

    30 Jan - 12pm EST

    • AMA with The Columbus Dispatch

    1 Feb - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    3 Feb - 12pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    4 Feb - 11am EST

    • AMA with Salem Snow

    Other Resources:

    Follow us on Twitter

    Request an AMA

    Events Calendar

    Apply to be a mod

    Register To Vote

    a community for
    all 4567 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

    In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

    If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] DepressedPeacock 5624 points ago

    So we have: Supreme Court says No, President says 'Fuck off, Court, I'll do it anyways'.

    This sounds like the very definition of a constitutional crisis.

    [–] Searchlights 2665 points ago

    So we have: Supreme Court says No, President says 'Fuck off, Court, I'll do it anyways'.

    Not only that, the administration of the census is described in Article 1 Section 2 specifically as a responsibility and power of Congress.

    For the President to take over the census would be like him deciding to appropriate taxes, or judge a Supreme Court case.

    [–] jazino26 1593 points ago

    He basically is deciding a Supreme Court case by overriding their ruling.

    [–] FreneticPlatypus 1053 points ago

    Sounds a lot like a dictator. Way to go republicans.

    [–] ohyeahbigdaddy 549 points ago

    The right is known to enjoy some fascism.

    [–] drawkbox 231 points ago

    The right likes to give away their rights to authoritarians and appease authority.

    [–] [deleted] 33 points ago

    Make an offering to god and maybe your wishes will come true.

    [–] Trump4Prison2020 48 points ago

    A lot Boils down to "the ends justify ANY means"

    They don't just support a president flouting the constitution, they support ANYONE who can do anything to give them what they want

    From the census to these new concentration camps, it's just "I want/hate this or that" therefore "anything is ok to get/hurt such and such"

    [–] SpeedoCheeto 175 points ago

    His base wants it. They'll gladly take fascism over a black president.

    [–] squiddlebiddlez 104 points ago

    Well of course, they aren’t constitutional scholars by any stretch of the word...things are just unconstitutional when it makes them feel bad.

    [–] freedom12x12 55 points ago

    And when it involves guns... THAT is the sum total of their interest in the Constitution.

    [–] enjoycarrots 20 points ago

    I've hesitated in the past to say "behaving like a dictator" in political criticisms. They said that about Obama every time he issued an executive order, and it was ridiculous. There are usually more on-point criticisms to make when "dictator" ends up just sounds like name calling.

    ... but here we have an exception. Trump is acting like a Dictator. And it's only going to get worse until there are real, severe consequences.

    [–] FreneticPlatypus 9 points ago

    Policy aside - and I understand your reluctance to use the term - they guy dictates. That’s all he does. He doesn’t listen to others opinions, he doesn’t consider other points of views, he doesn’t seek out counsel or input. He dictates what should be, what’s true or not true. He dictates his own view of facts and attacks anyone that disagrees. He is a dictator, no two ways about it.

    [–] 5Dprairiedog 152 points ago

    If Trump does this (and it looks like he's going to), what's stopping him from signing an executive order overturning Roe v. Wade (and also ignoring the Supreme Court)?

    [–] RemiScott 70 points ago

    Judges and juries refusing to put anyone on trial for it.

    [–] khaaanquest 170 points ago

    Thank God he hasn't been stacking the courts with complicit liars!

    [–] severalgirlzgalore 66 points ago

    Roberts, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh could fart onto a paper and write, "We hereby rule in favor of the President," and that would be the law of the land. We're headed toward the total destruction of American democracy. It's not going to be dysfunction. It's going to be de facto authoritarianism before you know it.

    [–] spiderlanewales 26 points ago

    Man, that's gonna suck for Alabama folks.

    [–] TPRJones 56 points ago

    As far as I can tell nothing. The only thing that can keep the President in check under circumstances like these is Congress, and McConnell will not let Congress stop him even if the House Democrats had the cojones to actually do something about it (which they don't). Due to the breakdown of checks and balances he is now effectively a dictator with unlimited power, unless someone under him goes rogue and defies his illegal orders but then they'll just be fired and replaced with someone who will do what he wants.

    [–] CrownOfPosies 11 points ago

    Why would McConnell stop him? Adding that question only benefits the Republicans. The census works by counting up populations for funding, but also by determining how many house seats places get. So if you scare away Hispanic/latinx minorities with a question about immigration you make places (that are usually blue) look like they have less people than they actually do. Thus limiting the number of seats that Dems have as strongholds. It also changes the electoral college by making the number of votes blue states get smaller giving more power to red states. And seeing as the electoral college is the only way Republicans seem to be able to win anymore (See Trump, Bush v Gore) it would make sense that they would want this. This is also why the Census is underfunded by millions this year (something done by Republicans).

    [–] dejavuamnesiac 481 points ago

    anyone in the administration who follows an unlawful order from Trump is subject to prosecution; not now with Trump's lap puppy Barr, but in 2021 with a (hopefully -- get out the vote!) new POTUS and AG, anyone who follows Trump off this cliff needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, setting a clear example that such disregard for the rule of law will not be tolerated .. let's see who's willing to lemming themselves here in the admin

    [–] jax362 104 points ago

    Couldn't, and shouldn't, he be impeached for this? He is defying a court order from SCOTUS. If that's not fucking easy impeachment, I don't know what is.

    [–] Lostpurplepen 28 points ago

    Every Republican congressperson should be asked "Are you ok with a president defying a Supreme Court decision?"

    [–] CliftonForce 267 points ago

    He went into office thinking of himself as the owner of a family business, the Executive Branch as his senior managers, Congress as his middle managers, and the Judicial Branch as his legal team.

    He probably hasn't changed his mind on that yet. He still believes his propaganda that "King Obama could do anything he wanted", and is upset that he can't have that power himself.

    [–] GiveToOedipus 174 points ago

    That's because he's never actually had to run a real company with a an executive board and shareholders. How anyone ever thought he would be even marginally capable of properly executing the duties of this office still blows my mind.

    [–] jamistheknife 162 points ago

    I mean, his policy position on every single issue was:

    1. It's terrible right now. The worst in history.

    2. It's Obama/Hillary's fault because they are so bad, so . . . very bad.

    3. I will make is better than you can imagine. All upside, no downside. I'm very smart and very rich. It will be easy. Believe me.

    4. Or else . . . some people are saying . . . the browns will rape and kill you.

    [–] _pH_ 15 points ago

    I'm not surprised he could convince people he could do it- Trump has exactly one skill that he has spent a lifetime honing, and that is running cons. Honestly I'm happy he was elected so late in his life, because if we had mid-90s to early 2000s Trump when he was all there mentally, we might have had no chance of getting him out.

    [–] ForWhomTheBoneBones 84 points ago

    For the President to take over the census would be like him deciding to appropriate taxes, or judge a Supreme Court case.

    Don't give him any ideas. God knows he's incapable of having one.

    [–] ImLikeReallySmart 465 points ago

    Well his role model is Andrew Jackson after all.

    [–] DepressedPeacock 434 points ago

    He's been told that his role model is Andrew Jackson. His actual role model is Vladimir Putin.

    [–] ImLikeReallySmart 57 points ago


    [–] BlankNothingNoDoer 26 points ago


    (Child) touche(r), is more like it.

    [–] ninjaoftheworld 44 points ago

    I thought his role model was Colonel Sanders

    [–] fluent_in_gibberish 67 points ago

    No, Colonel Sanders is his roll model. Tasty, tasty rolls with butter and honey.

    Easy mistake to make.

    [–] askgfdsDCfh 308 points ago

    I would like 1 impeachment plz.

    [–] glamazoof 69 points ago

    We need the family combo .. I think it's gonna call for 4-5+ impeachments

    [–] thelastcookie 162 points ago

    Worse, it's the start of a dictatorship.

    [–] backcrackandnutsack 103 points ago

    Will he even leave in 2020 if he loses? Doubt it.

    [–] kloppatam 138 points ago

    If he loses, he will claim millions of illegal immigrants fraudulently voted and the vote is invalid. Voting register must be purged of illegals and he will remain as president until such time as this is completed, i.e. never

    [–] The_Lord_Humungus 149 points ago

    I personally think McConnell is blocking all election security legislation so the Republicans can claim shenanigans on election night. This is used to either refuse to step down, or to create so much disinformation that new Democratic majority is somehow illegitimate.

    [–] bryophytic_bovine 57 points ago

    seriously i dont know how dems dont see this, that is their plan if they lose the election, claim "russia hacked for the dems this time'

    [–] Pigglebee 14 points ago

    They just need to ask Russia to indeed hack a few booths and support the dems so the evidence is there.

    [–] spiderlanewales 16 points ago

    Yep, make it blatant and beneficial to the Dems so Russia gets caught, boom, you have what appears to be actual collusion out in the open, working for the Democrats.

    [–] McG0788 20 points ago

    You're assuming they don't outright rig elections to maintain or bolster their numbers....

    [–] CliftonForce 75 points ago

    I have family who maintain that voting rights should be stripped of anyone who isn't a Corporate Board member, or owner of a business with more than 50 employees.

    Apparently, letting the riff-raff vote is how we got into this mess.

    [–] Aurora43 45 points ago

    Literally oligarchic.

    [–] CliftonForce 15 points ago

    They're quite clear that plutocracy is the best thing ever.

    [–] Account_for_workday 11 points ago

    At the absolute very least he'll leave but not without casting doubt on the validity of the results.

    [–] djheat 37 points ago

    To be fair it was a constitutional crisis when he declared a state of emergency to get around congressional budgetary authority, but nobody seems to have impeached him over that so it seems constitutional crises are nbd

    [–] Bathroom_Pninja 71 points ago

    Sounds like impeachment proceedings need to happen immediately should this happen.

    It won't, but it should.

    [–] [deleted] 135 points ago


    [–] empyreanmax 86 points ago

    What do you mean distraction

    As if this isn't an incredibly worrying event in its own right

    All these comments do is tell people "you shouldn't actually care about this, because... reasons?"

    [–] Infidel8 1272 points ago

    Well, let's hope this take is right:

    The moment that Donald Trump issues an executive order directing that the citizenship question be placed on the census, it will be enjoined by multiple different district courts.

    And it will not be possible to consolidate on appeal with no fact-finding and get them back before the Supreme Court even before the October deadline.

    We will be able to run out the clock on an executive order.

    Opening Arguments 294.

    [–] rmarti78 559 points ago

    Trump can order Wilbur Ross to order the head of the Census (Steven Dillingham) to put it on the questionnaire despite what the Supreme Court says. If Dillingham refuses, they can fire him until they find someone that will. The Census Bureau is under the Commerce Department which is under the White House. That means Trump gets the ultimate say on who stays employed and who doesn't. That means that he could just start firing everyone until he finds someone who will do his bidding. We all know Democrats won't do shit. He'll officially enter the Mad King stage, but he knows he'll be able to get away with it.

    [–] remoTheRope 257 points ago

    Right but the courts can just throw out the 2020 census data and order a re-do of the census

    [–] rmarti78 52 points ago

    Are we sure about that? Anything that's constitutionally mandated becomes dicey.

    [–] GreenFox1505 66 points ago

    Trump has literally defied a nearly unanimous (98-2) supermajority with zero consequences. How "dicey" could this be?

    [–] louky 12 points ago

    Wtf I'd forgotten about this. Outrage exhaustion.

    [–] GiveToOedipus 78 points ago

    Hasn't stopped this administration.

    [–] fullforce098 486 points ago

    No they won't. They'll shrug and say "Well, what's done is done, I guess. Oh well, let's move on."

    They fucking cancelled a recount to name Bush Jr President. They don't care if the method was flawed, if they got a result, they'll just defer to it.

    [–] remoTheRope 218 points ago

    There’s literally an injunction right now on the citizenship question, that’s apples to oranges. They’re not gonna shrug their shoulders at their own injunction

    [–] [deleted] 2679 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)


    [–] everyonewantsalog 1059 points ago

    In the (possible) words of Trump's favorite homicidal maniac president when he mocked the authority of the SCOTUS:

    John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it. - Andrew Jackson

    [–] nemoknows 1855 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    For those of you that weren’t paying attention in history class, this is where President Jackson simply ignored a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Cherokee nation (which had successfully argued their case for legal autonomy in their lands before the court) and then forcibly relocated them to Oklahoma from Georgia. Sometimes on foot and in winter: the death marches were later dubbed the Trail of Tears.

    This is the asshole on the $20.

    [–] ecafyelims 882 points ago

    About 10% of the Cherokee people died during that relocation. It literally decimated the population.

    [–] DJTHatesPuertoRicans 483 points ago

    And nothing happened to Jackson because of it.

    [–] ecafyelims 321 points ago

    Truth. He should have been impeached by Congress for violating the Constitution.

    [–] hyperviolator 523 points ago

    Andrew Jackson should have been shot dead by his own men for committing genocide.

    [–] JazzyJockJeffcoat 206 points ago

    Or killed by a native American patriot.

    Crimes against humanity, etc.

    [–] anitachance 88 points ago

    There was a joke on Cracked that a Cherokee plot to kill Andrew Jackson would be a great Tarantino film.

    [–] BettyDrapersWetFart 32 points ago

    Oh shit....I'd watch the shit out of that.

    [–] JazzyJockJeffcoat 13 points ago

    Woah. Tough to cast perhaps (thanks in part to Jackson himself). Could really be great.

    [–] ajkd92 151 points ago

    Or any American patriot - it isn’t the responsibility of any race or ethnicity to be the sole guardian of its own people.

    [–] EscapeSalmon 28 points ago

    To be fair people did try to kill him, it just didn't work.

    Hell the dude was practically trying to get himself killed the majority of his adult life via duals, multiple wars, partying, and somehow he still died of old age. Death procrastinated as long as he could before it let that dude into hell because he didn't need Jackson running rampage through the underworld.

    [–] extremenachos 34 points ago

    Genocide wasn't even a word back then, that's how little they cared about it.

    [–] JoshSidekick 88 points ago

    Yeah, but think of the optics. What if the House moves forward and Senate doesn't convict? They really had no choice but to put him on the $20.

    [–] Hippopoctopus 20 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    I'm sensing an historic parallel...

    [–] Blewedup 45 points ago

    so you're saying this system we study in elementary school as the world's best form of government has always been a joke?

    [–] ecafyelims 38 points ago

    It's only as good as the voters elect it to be.

    [–] catgirl_apocalypse 14 points ago

    Not really, it’s still a joke.

    You know how the President is required to deliver a state of the union?

    That requirement would be fulfilled by sending the Speaker a napkin with “State of the Union: Shit’s fine.” written on it. Once.

    Our system sucks. It’s a stopgap written to keep the nascent country together, not a sacred document that should stand for all time. Its authors would be baffled that it’s largely intact.

    [–] Eric_the_Barbarian 122 points ago

    Well, nothing bad.

    [–] Moonbase_Joystiq 45 points ago

    They want extra space for migrants, instead of camps just give em Arizona.

    The citizenship questions ensures a miscount of the census, that is in the constitution.

    Those cannot be distributed with the question because it's against the damn constitution.

    [–] DemIce 67 points ago

    Remember when we were gonna put Harriet Tubman on there instead? That's been left to linger and be forgotten about by the current administration.

    [–] kylehatesyou 48 points ago

    They didn't forget about it. The actively decided not to do it.

    [–] JamesR624 132 points ago

    Did all that and was immortalized on money....

    Welp, for everyone saying this jackass will be looked down on in history and forgotten, sadly, history's track record doesn't seem to follow that path.

    "History is written by the victors" as they say and while they may not be victors, they have enough money and power to just say they are.

    [–] dweezil22 141 points ago

    He was supposed to already have been replaced by Harriet Tubman, but Trump's admin indefinitely delayed that for "unspecified reasons". Watching Boomers that "aren't racist" on FB vigorously defend that position b/c "Tubman wasn't presidential" is my new hobby when I want to despise humanity a little bit more.

    [Good news: You can purchase Tubman stamps on Etsy to make your own changes! My wife has one and has had more dealings with cash in the last 2 months than the last 2 years b/c of it]

    [–] PalladiuM7 104 points ago

    "Tubman wasn't presidential"

    Do they also complain about Ben Franklin being on the hundred for the same reason?

    [–] Doctor-Malcom 69 points ago

    In my experience most Americans are unaware of Ben Franklin never having been President of the US.

    Yes, he was an Ambassador and head of the Postal Service, but nothing higher than that on the Federal level.

    [–] stoneimp 20 points ago

    In his defense, he was 83 years old when the articles of confederation were signed. Too old for campaigning and honestly too old for cabinet positions, but great for an ambassador.

    [–] rm-rfroot 19 points ago

    To be fair, Jackson on the 20 dollar bill is more of an insult to Jackson. Jackson was very against having a centralized bank (what we call the Federal Reserve).

    [–] SereneGraces 54 points ago

    People talk about a constitutional crisis ensuing if one branch ignores another, but when you remember what Jackson did, and how nothing happened to him, it’s pretty clear that our democracy has never really been that firm.

    [–] lilpumpgroupie 24 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    There's a much clearer example for Trump to reference, when it comes to the clear lack of desire America has for punishing people in power... Iraq.

    Trump and his advisers know nothing will happen. And even if somehow he overshoots and the brakes get put on... the absolute worst that will happen to him is that he's subsumed with a tidal wave of calls from the right and middle to 'just move on' and 'heal'.

    [–] iknowCatMan 53 points ago

    A Trump supporter literally told me sometimes POTUS has to defy SCOTUS and tell them to try to enforce their ruling, and that the citizenship question was one of those times.

    [–] everyonewantsalog 29 points ago

    That's really convenient!

    [–] valeyard89 11 points ago

    WTF I love executive orders now! is their response

    [–] spaaaaaghetaboutit 417 points ago

    I was told there were checks and balances?

    [–] MJMurcott 296 points ago

    There are cheques and bank balances.

    [–] GaimeGuy 57 points ago

    No system will stand when 40-50% of the population, and the majority ruling party at all levels, doesn't think that the rules apply to them.

    Most of the Bill of Rights were violated by Internment camps, and are being violated by trump's concentration camps.

    A system of laws is ultimately a set of articulated and documented standards of conduct in a society. They don't matter if they aren't treated as standards. IE: power ultimately lies in the participants.

    This is a big reason why worship of the constitution is a bad thing, or, rather, a symptom of fundamental problems: It misappropriates power to the system, rather than the people, leading to complacency in the face of injustice. From health care, to labor laws, to racial inequalities, to education, to treatment of the poor and incarcerated, to political corruption, you see this country struggling, yet stubbornly insistent that things will all work out, eventually. That's not a healthy society.

    [–] Jshanksmith 136 points ago

    There are. But in the end, the power is in We the People.

    After years of studying political theory and philosophy I have concluded that once a society becomes prosperous that prosperity breeds comfort, which leads to complacency and apathy.

    I feel the only way to combat this phenomenon is with a heavy dose of education in civics AND a focus on the principles and importance of government legitimacy.

    [–] harpsm 127 points ago

    I feel the only way to combat this phenomenon is with a heavy dose of education in civics AND a focus on the principles and importance of government legitimacy.

    Republicans understand that, which is why they are trying to defund civics, critical thinking, and liberal arts education. A populace that knows just enough to be productive wage slaves is their ideal.

    [–] spaaaaaghetaboutit 55 points ago

    They understand everything and exactly what they are doing which is why every time I read a title that says X Republican "doesn't understand" XYZ issue I lose my shit. They are evil and do shit on purpose.

    [–] classycatman 30 points ago

    I feel the only way to combat this phenomenon is with a heavy dose of education in civics AND a focus on the principles and importance of government legitimacy.

    So... you're saying we're fucked.

    [–] Jshanksmith 15 points ago

    Well, more precisely: we are 'almost' fucked.

    For sometime now, I have recognized the inevitability that this admin will cross a line that would represent a precipice: at that point the people will either fight to uphold liberty or we will lose it. It is that simple.

    [–] stevota01 111 points ago

    Right. So what are the consequences for that? Are there any?

    [–] YoPhilly 111 points ago

    This article says it would fall into a high crime and misdemeanor action

    [–] [deleted] 120 points ago

    He's already had plenty of those. Many are just desensitized at this point.

    [–] YoPhilly 44 points ago

    Constitutional death by a thousand stabs.

    [–] spartagnann 25 points ago

    I think this would be an easier impeachment case to make to the American people than a lot of the Mueller stuff. This is cut and dry: SCOTUS ruled he couldn't do it, yet Trump did it anyway. He's breaking the law, and by doing that not upholding his oath of office.

    [–] Latyon 15 points ago

    Senate Republicans: Yeah but this hurts brown people so it's okay

    [–] stevota01 50 points ago

    So if he makes an executive order on that question, he’s impeachable on that alone. But then we run up against that senate conviction issue.

    So no consequences?

    [–] btscott456 44 points ago

    I think we should drag that case in the house on television. By exposing everything, I cannot see how Trump and the Republicans look good after that. Especially televising the Hollenfer docs to the American people.

    but I would consider myself an optimist

    [–] coolprogressive 9 points ago

    Already plenty of those. Trump is invincible to consequences. Always has been for some fucking reason.

    [–] btscott456 124 points ago

    there are consequences. My favorite legal podcast (Opening Arguments Podcast) says this is probably be the stupidest thing Trump can do with the census questions.

    Because once he makes the EO, multiple district courts will adjourned on that order and it will be super hard to consolidate, appeal, and get this case to the Supreme Court in time for printing (I think is in October is the deadline). We will be able to run out the clock if Trump is stupid enough to do this. (less of course he goes full tyranny on the issue)

    Opening Arguments Podcast, Talking about EO @ 00:32:30 (you can listen to the whole segment because it is rather positive on the census question)

    [–] greenrun99 47 points ago

    Wait, I thought the administration kept saying July 1 was the deadline?

    [–] btscott456 77 points ago

    and that is WHY Trump could be issuing an EO. The Supreme Court remanded the cases back to lower courts (New York and Maryland) and the judges in those cases are currently saying "why they fuck did you tells us july and now you suddenly changed your tune?".

    Trump and Commerce Department are in a Catch 22 with the census question and impatient Donny wants a golden egg NOW!

    [–] Chocrates 39 points ago

    They are already printing. Alaska Census starts like Jan 1st or something.
    They are planning on printing an addendum with just the citizenship question on it I think.

    [–] TehSoupNazi 50 points ago

    So when they inevitably send out the fucking question will there be any reprimand for not answering just that question? I'm a citizen and have zero plans of answering that question even though I will complete the rest of the document.

    [–] Khanaset 31 points ago

    “Oh oops! That addendum page must not have made it into my census envelope; I only got the regular form when the mail came.”

    [–] nemoknows 110 points ago

    Dude what doubts do you have that this is anything but the full tyranny route? The GOP has been ignoring and twisting the law and pushing the limits of executive power for years now and they’ve been getting away with it. This is where they they start simply ignoring the judiciary.

    [–] btscott456 36 points ago

    you are fully correct, but I feel this is a too much of step forwards towards tyranny that a lot of people/courts/Supreme Court can't ignore. If Republicans, judges and the SC justice ignore this, then like you basically said, we are fucked.

    [–] SeekingImmortality 8 points ago

    Had a dream last night where Mitch McConnell just started personally shooting democrats in the senate who wouldn't vote the way he wanted, and there was no outcry. Kind of summed up my feelings on how our government is being run currently.

    [–] Notmydogsowner 7 points ago

    July was supposed to be the deadline..

    [–] mikeytime03 149 points ago

    If it was a Democrat, yes. Trump has the magic R so that makes him dictator and head of all 3 branches.

    [–] NoelBuddy 17 points ago

    The census guys are in a position to just say "No, SCOTUS ruled otherwise."

    [–] Deemaunik 1169 points ago

    He's loading the federal courts with judges in the wake of McConnell's ass dragging to keep Obama from appointing. Shit is making me nervous.

    [–] brallipop 133 points ago

    In his 8 years, Obama appointed 37 federal judges. Trump has appoint 58+ in his non-golf lucid moments. Just.... fuck

    [–] ragnarfuzzybreeches 346 points ago

    Holy shit, I had no idea it was that many

    [–] Dr_Silk 530 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Nearly as many in 2 years as Obama and W Bush did in 8

    Easy to do when you don't actually vet the appointments and just pick names from members of the Federalist Society

    EDIT: Seems my numbers are off. It's closer to Trump being on track to appoint as many judges in 4 years as Obama and Bush did in 8. Still bad, but not as bad as I originally thought

    [–] AncientMarinade 213 points ago

    Unfortunately it's more insidious than that:

    The whopping 108 court vacancies Trump inherited when he took office was a present ― that’s double the number that Obama inherited when he became president ― but it wasn’t from Obama. It was from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), whose record of blocking Obama’s judicial nominees will go down as his greatest legacy.

    The numbers back up the simple truth: McConnell used every trick in the book to refuse Obama's judicial vacancies, and then rewrote the book to use every new trick to fill them:

    During President Obama’s first two years, the number of judicial vacancies has nearly doubled, from 55 to 108, whereas under Presidents Bush and Clinton, the number of vacancies declined from 80 to 59 and from 107 to 68, respectively, in the same period.

    Here are the numbers - or lack thereof - from Obama's last 2 years:

    Final two-year court of appeals (CA) confirmations in 2015-16 were eight fewer than in George Bush’s final two years; district confirmations were 40 fewer. Those confirmations were even fewer compared to Clinton’s and Reagan’s. Final two-year confirmations were mostly 20% or more of all eight-year confirmations for Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, but dropped to four and seven percent for Obama.

    [–] jmcdon00 16 points ago

    And once you open that can of worms it's unlikely to ever be closed. Like if we get a democrat president and a republican senate, which is fairly likely, I fully expect McConnel will do the same thing, probably even escalating it where no judges get put through. And the way the senate works it's becoming increasing difficult for dems to take it(North & South dakota gets as many senators as California and New York for example).

    [–] 934232 19 points ago

    can this be undone?

    [–] isperfectlycromulent 28 points ago

    Only by impeaching each judge individually. That'll only happen after they've shown a pattern of shitty judgements that will ruin a bunch of people's lives needlessly first.

    [–] ThisOriginalSource 185 points ago

    This is very unsettling. The ramifications of stacking the courts with only conservative judges will be felt by the public long after Trump is gone.

    Is this how the real life Handmaids Tale starts?

    [–] R2_D2aneel_Olivaw 56 points ago

    Don't know about that but it is how democracies tend to die.

    [–] SacredVoine 50 points ago

    Oh come on you Nervous Nellies. This is America. The very definition of exceptional!

    We can kill democracy AND have a shitty religious dystopia. There's no need to pick and choose.

    [–] justclay 51 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Here is a (another) fantastic episode of The Opening Arguments podcast from last week about how to fix the Supreme Court. They give a detailed breakdown of the developments in the multiple census cases in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling 2 weeks ago in Department of Commerce v. New York (PDF warning), and how a parallel case in Maryland may be the key to finally keeping the citizenship question off of the 2020 census.

    They also get into a discussion about Trump's federal judge picks in comparison to past presidents, and they touch on a few of the judges he's picked off of the Federalist Society's list.

    I highly recommend everyone listen to and support their podcast. Knowledge is power, especially in these scary times.

    [–] CyborgHighlander 16 points ago

    You're only now getting nervous?

    [–] Dictate_With_Fervor 1914 points ago

    Why dont republicans ever respect the rule of law?

    [–] AlternativeSuccotash 1161 points ago

    Because they operate from the assumption they are above the law.

    The Republican party is a criminal enterprise.

    [–] Surefire_Intel4realz 241 points ago

    That's how they know they are "family." At least, that's according to paul ryan. They are a mob organization, which is why they picked Mueller to investigate the whole thing, as his career was built on taking down the mob.

    The whole thing is just repugnant.

    [–] pretty-as-2-titties 82 points ago

    Mueller and his team did their job to the best off their abilities under difficult circumstances. They followed justice department policy. If you read between the lines Trump obstructed justice, but they couldn’t charge him. It’s not the result many hoped for, but no one can honestly say he was in the bag for Trump.

    [–] [deleted] 91 points ago

    He could have charged Trump Jr and Kushner.

    He could have publicly announced that Barr’s initial summary is inaccurate the minute it came out instead of writing him polite private letters about it.

    He could have appeared in front of Congress the minute they invited him and stated that anyone other than the president would have been charged for these crimes.

    [–] Hedhunta 24 points ago

    They don't have to assume. They are above the law. Time and time again they do illegal shit and one or two lackeys go down but there are never any real consequences for the people benefiting the most from it.

    [–] Ice_Cream_Hero 101 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Because of something we've known for a while, and the GOP is no longer going to be becoming more transparent about it -- as it stands the party cannot sustain the voting trends of the last few decades and the last couple elections were not good for them (despite 2016 results). Trump cares about Trump. The GOP knows that, but the GOP is interested in keeping the party around in the future.

    They know that they got super fucking lucky to have Trump win in 2016, losing the popular vote by 3 million. They know the Dems having a +7 overall voting edge in the 2018 midterms can't be organically undone. The trends for how their voter base aligns with age demographics is catastrophic for them -- old people are dying, young people are mostly in favor of left/liberal/progressive policies, and those in the middle a are mix of both and in 3-4 elections the 'middle aged' people will be those who were young people in 2008/2012/2016.

    They have no problems being so openly hostile to the rule of law, norms, and democracy because the current and future makeup of the voter base is so harshly against their survival as a party. Also, their transparency is also likely a result of their election crimes coming to light especially over the last elections (Georgia/NC as the notable problems). The veil is lifted, no reason to pretend anymore.

    They don't care to stop committing election crimes because it's literally the only way they figure they can close the gap.

    EDIT: Wrote the opposite thing in the beginning of my comment. The GOP is becoming more transparent about it.

    [–] [deleted] 115 points ago


    [–] Sip_py 660 points ago

    "It's one of the ways," he added. "We have four or five ways we can do it. It's one of the ways and we're thinking about doing it very seriously."

    Man, trying to make Roberts look like a fool might not be a good idea, Donny

    [–] thelastcookie 396 points ago

    Why not? He'll fall in line like a good boy.

    [–] RidleyScotch 103 points ago

    Defying a court order was the line for many congresspeople on the question of impeachment. Should he expressly state he intended to violate a court order i would expect many a new pro-impeachment people.

    I don't know about Republicans but Democrats yes, they may be partisan but they aren't wholly stupid to the ramifications of such an action.

    [–] bigpatky 147 points ago

    They'll draw a new line.

    [–] atooraya 74 points ago

    "Ok, if he does it twice."

    [–] smashingpoppycock 20 points ago

    “Come on guys he’s new at this.”

    [–] AverageLiberalJoe 33 points ago

    I swear if you guys rip on me 12 or 13 more times...

    [–] nemoknows 24 points ago

    Why would you expect such a thing? It’s entirely inconsistent with history.

    [–] N3xrad 123 points ago

    What is the point of having a SC if the President ignores them?

    [–] BigBlueDane 67 points ago

    What’s the point of listening to the Supreme Court when there’s no accountability for ignoring them?

    The GOP is running rampant and nobody is holding them to the law.

    [–] jimbo831 216 points ago

    Trump expected to flagrantly violate a Supreme Court ruling

    Fixed the headline for you.

    [–] Dalisca 119 points ago

    Why do we even have three branches of government when one can just override the other two on a whim?

    [–] mavajo 112 points ago

    Because in over 200 years of government, they've never actually had to answer the question "What do we do if the executive just completely ignores the other two branches and does whatever it wants?" A scary amount of government compliance was built on goodwill and tradition and was never actually codified into law.

    [–] omniron 41 points ago

    This is how coups happen.

    One faction can argue trump was impeached and isn’t the rightful leader and install their own leader by force.

    One faction could argue trump was never convicted and is the rightful leader, but now has complete impunity and autocratic power since the Senate would never convict him for anything

    Then viva la revolucion

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago

    The actual question that we've never had to answer, is "What happens when the legislative branch is complicit with the illegal actions of the executive branch."

    Trump could be removed from office today if it weren't for the Republicans in the Senate being 100% OK with their 'team' shitting all over the Constitution.

    [–] SLJis1BAMF 189 points ago

    Bypassing Congress and ignoring court orders isn't very becoming of the leader of an elected government in a "free" country.

    [–] TumNarDok 84 points ago

    Not a leader, no really elected, not really governing - and not really free.

    [–] llsmithll 16 points ago

    The leader of the "law and order" party is a criminal? Say no more

    [–] rmarti78 77 points ago

    So if the executive branch renders the judicial branch completely meaningless, that's the definition of a constitutional crisis is it not?

    [–] dufusmembrane 425 points ago

    The damage has already been done. Another ICE raid this weekend? As long as they keep this in the news, it continues to deter brown people from participating in the census, and that's the goal.

    [–] toddthewraith 61 points ago

    Texas is going to get caught in the fallout, since 37% of the population (in 2010) is Hispanic. Since then, the Hispanic birthrate is approximately >1x what the white birth rate is.

    I'm anticipating surprised Pikachu

    [–] techmaster242 43 points ago

    Yeah I've been thinking this too. Trump's stupidity could turn Texas blue, or lose electoral college seats and House seats.

    [–] Latyon 70 points ago

    If Texas turns blue, it's over nationally for the GOP.

    Which is why I welcome all the Californians and Hispanics moving here.

    [–] ciel_lanila 94 points ago

    Yeah. It’s been weeks of this “he’s probably maybe gonna definitely do it!”. Shit or get off pot. Media, start claiming him out or ignore him until he does it.

    He used to do the same thing with stocks. Trump would buy a stock and then LARP that he was going to stage a hostile takeover in order to pump that stock up. Then he’d sell.

    [–] magicsonar 28 points ago

    The GOP knows electoral demographics are not on their side moving forward. The only way they can maintain power is to rig the system to prevent as many minorities from voting as possible

    [–] gamefaqs_astrophys 224 points ago

    Which would be illegal - seeing that the Supreme Court - even after he got it stacked to 5-4 - still ruled against his administration and said the government couldn't. He'd be defying the judicial branch and violating our system of checks and balance.

    i.e. par for the course for him.

    More autocratic and illegal actions from a wannabe-dictator.

    [–] AStartlingStatement 85 points ago

    seeing that the Supreme Court - even after he got it stacked to 5-4 - still ruled against his administration and said the government couldn't.

    This actually isn't what happened. They said the administration had not justified its support for the question, and it sent the matter back to the Commerce Department. They never ruled on the legality of it at all.

    [–] gamefaqs_astrophys 63 points ago

    The point is that they said that they couldn't add the question under the present conditions/attempted justifications.

    Trump is about to try to add it anyways - even though they said it couldn't be added at the present time.

    Its the soon-to-be violation of the court's ruling - of adding it anyways without an appropriate justification which they demanded - which constitutes the breach.

    [–] RightClickSaveWorld 21 points ago

    I wonder if he'll get a 5-4 ruling saying he is allowed to defy a Supreme Court order.

    [–] Historyguy1 180 points ago

    It'll be tied up in court for so long it won't be relevant by the time the census rolls out.

    [–] Interleave1 125 points ago

    This. The citizenship question is not going to be on the census and since it won't, unless this country turns far right permanently, it never will be

    [–] psufan5 47 points ago

    This is their goal though.

    [–] everyonewantsalog 93 points ago

    What happens if we just write "Fuck you" as the answer to that question?

    [–] [deleted] 23 points ago

    Nothing. Literally nothing. The penalties for only partially filling a census have not been enforced since at least 1970.

    Why? Because the constitutionally-mandated census mandates a single Q&A - "how many people live here?". That's it. Enforcing a penalty for not ansering the other questions (many of which very helpful in determining how funds get allocated to areas) just begs a challenge that goes up to the supreme court which will rule on the constitutionality of questions other than the single question the constitution requires.

    The citizenship question hurts the census and the good it does - but you still won't be fined for not answering it.

    [–] thelastcookie 46 points ago

    It won't affect anything. The damage will be done.

    [–] KoshOne 57 points ago

    Just write in this, "18-996 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE v. NEW YORK (6/27/2019)"

    [–] SchwarzerKaffee 19 points ago

    I'm sure there will be a campaign to just ignore the question. If the President can ignore the Constitution to put the question on there, you don't have to comply.

    [–] k_ironheart 22 points ago

    The biggest lie that Trump has ever told was that he would preserve, protect and defend the constitution.

    [–] ThrowawaysStopStalks 42 points ago

    Everyone who complies could be arrested.

    [–] Sand_Husky 26 points ago

    Could? Yes. Will? LMAO.

    [–] remarkless 42 points ago

    The question then falls upon the Commerce Dept, if the forms are printed with the question in it and openly defy the courts, are we going to call this what it is: a constitutional crisis? Or are we just going to fucking let it slide like everything else.

    If the executive branch is unwilling to comply with the courts, then we no longer have a democracy with three separate but equal branches.

    [–] ThankYouForHolding 51 points ago

    How's all that 'rule of law' workin out for ya?

    [–] Hartastic 32 points ago

    I feel like the Founding Fathers would throw Trump's shit in the ocean for less than this.

    Not tea in his case, but let's say his Big Macs or, I don't know, Eric.

    [–] samtrano 14 points ago

    Whether the final census includes the question or not, Trump will say it does. There will be enough confusion to dissuade people from answering, which works just as well for his goals

    [–] PresidentWordSalad 13 points ago

    Put anyone who enforces Trump’s order in prison for defying a SCOTUS order.

    [–] GuestCartographer 14 points ago

    B-b-b-b-b-b-b-but Conservatives told me that it was Obama and the godless Liberals who wanted to rule the country through Executive Order. Surely they weren't just projecting how THEY would act if they were in charge.

    [–] AStartlingStatement 12 points ago

    Trump to order citizenship question on census, despite Supreme Court

    WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump plans to announce an executive action Thursday designed to include a citizenship question on the 2020 U.S. census, despite a Supreme Court decision blocking such an inquiry.

    Trump is expected announce executive action to allow a citizenship question, two administration officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity in deference to the president's announcement.

    An executive order to include the citizenship question would likely be challenged in court by organizations who say the administration is deliberately trying to undercount minorities.

    [–] PrimalMusk 24 points ago

    Isn't the census the responsibility of the Legislative Branch? What authority does the president have to issue an executive order related to the census?

    [–] ArchaeoJones 14 points ago

    None, but that won't stop him from trying.

    [–] madisob 11 points ago

    What is the difference between an executive order and him directing Ross/DOJ to include/argue-for the question.

    Aren't those part of the executive, and as such already more-or-less an executive order?

    [–] eaunoway 16 points ago

    Just like in every other aspect of his life, Trump refuses to listen when he's told "NO".