The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I certainly have no problem with the government saving lives when there's a flood and such, regardless of who is here legally or illegally. I doubt anyone would disagree on that. Same with assaulting an illegal and such. Again, that's a gimmee. To me that's different than saying representation should be apportioned with illegals part of the count in determining roughly an equal number of folks in every district, which inevitably weighs representation toward those districts with more illegals. And I realize that could cost Arizona some representation, given that estimates of the percentage of illegals as a slice of the people living in Arizona have come in at 10 percent or so at times.

Mostly I think it just sets a bad precedent to start tagging people in the Census as "you count" vs "you don't count." I can certainly see where you're coming from, too. I intend to have a plank in our platform for a Constitutional Amendment restricting the franchise to the left-handed. Frankly we're the only one's whose opinions ought to matter.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Mostly I think it just sets a bad precedent to start tagging people in the Census as "you count" vs "you don't count." I can certainly see where you're coming from, too. I intend to have a plank in our platform for a Constitutional Amendment restricting the franchise to the left-handed. Frankly we're the only one's whose opinions ought to matter.

So, again, where do you draw the line in "counting" people who are here illegally. In what way or ways "shouldn't they count" beyond the couple you previously mentioned? And please don't flip back to your example of saving people in a flood. That's a non question. Your example of left handed people is a really bad example. Allowing a citizen who is right handed to count toward representation in government while not counting a citizen who is left handed is ridiculous. Someone in the country illegally, who is a citizen of a different country, is fundamentally different in terms of allowing them to count in how representation in the American government is determined. Maybe it comes down to some folks not really caring who is here legally or not, at least in some cases with an eye on partisan advantage.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

So, again, where do you draw the line in "counting" people who are here illegally. In what way or ways "shouldn't they count" beyond the couple you previously mentioned? And please don't flip back to your example of saving people in a flood. That's a non question. Your example of left handed people is a really bad example. Allowing a citizen who is right handed to count toward representation in government while not counting a citizen who is left handed is ridiculous. Someone in the country illegally, who is a citizen of a different country, is fundamentally different in terms of allowing them to count in how representation in the American government is determined. Maybe it comes down to some folks not really caring who is here legally or not, at least in some cases with an eye on partisan advantage.

Hey, the same questions were asked prior to the 13th and 14th amendments. The good ol' 3/5 rule.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Hey, the same questions were asked prior to the 13th and 14th amendments. The good ol' 3/5 rule.

People asked about illegal immigration prior to the 13th and 14th amendments? Never heard that one before. Citations?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

People asked about illegal immigration prior to the 13th and 14th amendments? Never heard that one before. Citations?

I was referring more to slaves and natives, who were not considered citizens, but some people wanted them to be counted in the census for representation purposes.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I was referring more to slaves and natives, who were not considered citizens, but some people wanted them to be counted in the census for representation purposes.

A fundamental difference (and not the only one) is that those folks either were here for a long time (in the case of natives) or had been brought here against their will and often had lived here there entire lives and generations before (in the case of slaves). Both very different from people who of their own volition slip into the country illegally and are citizens of a different country.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

So, again, where do you draw the line in "counting" people who are here illegally. In what way or ways "shouldn't they count" beyond the couple you previously mentioned? And please don't flip back to your example of saving people in a flood. That's a non question. Your example of left handed people is a really bad example. Allowing a citizen who is right handed to count toward representation in government while not counting a citizen who is left handed is ridiculous. Someone in the country illegally, who is a citizen of a different country, is fundamentally different in terms of allowing them to count in how representation in the American government is determined. Maybe it comes down to some folks not really caring who is here legally or not, at least in some cases with an eye on partisan advantage.

The left-handed mention was a joke, Bob.

The funny thing about counting undocumented workers for representation is it would probably help the bad guys, so it's not for partisan advantage, but thanks for your charming insinuation. I've already fully explained my reasons to the best of my ability. If it didn't make sense, let's just let it go -- I don't think this is going to be a burning issue either way.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

A fundamental difference (and not the only one) is that those folks either were here for a long time (in the case of natives) or had been brought here against their will and often had lived here there entire lives and generations before (in the case of slaves). Both very different from people who of their own volition slip into the country illegally and are citizens of a different country.

Not really much of a difference, given a census is taken every ten years, and they all fit into the category of "non-citizens". Sure, the method of coming in may be different, but in the present tense (at least in terms of the time in which we are talking), there isn't a difference.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Not really much of a difference, given a census is taken every ten years, and they all fit into the category of "non-citizens". Sure, the method of coming in may be different, but in the present tense (at least in terms of the time in which we are talking), there isn't a difference.

The census definition may be the same, but to say because of that isolated fact there aren't other significant differences doesn't make much sense.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

The left-handed mention was a joke, Bob.

The funny thing about counting undocumented workers for representation is it would probably help the bad guys, so it's not for partisan advantage, but thanks for your charming insinuation. I've already fully explained my reasons to the best of my ability. If it didn't make sense, let's just let it go -- I don't think this is going to be a burning issue either way.

Not a burning issue. True. I really wasn't thinking about who gets a partisan benefit or not, just what makes sense IMHO.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Not a burning issue. True. I really wasn't thinking about who gets a partisan benefit or not, just what makes sense IMHO.

That's why your partisanship accusation was so out of left field. Each of us has a different idea of what makes sense, which is fine. Why drag the partisan BS into it?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

That's why your partisanship accusation was so out of left field. Each of us has a different idea of what makes sense, which is fine. Why drag the partisan BS into it?

I said some folks, which is undoubtedly true. If you count yourself in those folks or not is up to no one but you.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I said some folks, which is undoubtedly true. If you count yourself in those folks or not is up to no one but you.

But, irrelevant to the discussion. But, that's how you roll.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

That's why your partisanship accusation was so out of left field. Each of us has a different idea of what makes sense, which is fine. Why drag the partisan BS into it?

Partisan BS in a political thread is like Rosie O'Donnell gravitating to a buffet.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I said some folks, which is undoubtedly true. If you count yourself in those folks or not is up to no one but you.

You're being dishonest today. "My opponent himself can only know whether he is a scoundrel and a drunkard..."

Please. I expect that gamesmanship from some of the people on the board, but you're better than that.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Partisan BS in a political thread is like Rosie O'Donnell gravitating to a buffet.

While Bob is partisan he is usually intellectually honest. Somebody seems to have stolen his keyboard this morning. He's playing Fishy games.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Regarding who "deserves" to be counted for representation:

Let's look at Manhattan, East Side, Midtown: the United Nations. There are hundreds of people there who are not US citizens and never will be. The specific individuals themselves come and go, replaced by others. They have absolutely no interest in any state or city political issues whatsoever.

Does that district "deserve" representation based upon all those foreign nationals who reside there? They don't vote, they don't even stay here, and they are here legally. Yet is their mere presence alone sufficient to have that district be over-represented compared to any other measure?

Kepler himself cited the exception for those who are already subject to another sovereign nation and who pay no taxes here, although he elided its potential significance.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

You're being dishonest today. "My opponent himself can only know whether he is a scoundrel and a drunkard..."

Please. I expect that gamesmanship from some of the people on the board, but you're better than that.

No. By saying some folks I purposely was casting a wider net than any one person, such as yourself, rather than responding specifically to you. Not sure why you're getting wound up.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Regarding who "deserves" to be counted for representation:

Let's look at Manhattan, East Side, Midtown: the United Nations. There are hundreds of people there who are not US citizens and never will be. The specific individuals themselves come and go, replaced by others. They have absolutely no interest in any state or city political issues whatsoever.

Does that district "deserve" representation based upon all those foreign nationals who reside there? They don't vote, they don't even stay here, and they are here legally. Yet is their mere presence alone sufficient to have that district be over-represented compared to any other measure?

Kepler himself cited the exception for those who are already subject to another sovereign nation and who pay no taxes here, although he elided its potential significance.

I would say yes in that they're using the region's services, so if you're allocating representation by population these people count. You can't not investigate a crime if a foreign national working for the UN gets mugged for example. One could also argue that they're contributing to the local economy....

I'm interested in this suit because doesn't Texas have a huge amount of people living there illegally or unregistered to vote? Seems to me they'd be kicking back a few Congressional seats if a couple of million people are no longer counted. I'd assume Florida, Georgia, and California as well due to AG workers.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I'm interested in this suit because doesn't Texas have a huge amount of people living there illegally or unregistered to vote? Seems to me they'd be kicking back a few Congressional seats if a couple of million people are no longer counted. I'd assume Florida, Georgia, and California as well due to AG workers.

To the extent that this data is accurate, TX is third behind CA and AZ for per capita illegal immigrants.

I'm surprised MS and LA are so low -- I'd have thought they were much higher. Based on population the big absolute numbers are in CA, TX, NY and FL, though CA and TX really dwarf the rest.