,
3 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Census question:
Many people rightly note that Roberts validated Muslim Ban 3.0, so why not Census 2.0?:
But Trump officials changed the Muslim Ban twice into a less blatant version. Enough of a fig leaf for Roberts.
Census 2.0 has to be the same question. No fig leaf, right?
Many people rightly note that Roberts validated Muslim Ban 3.0, so why not Census 2.0?:
But Trump officials changed the Muslim Ban twice into a less blatant version. Enough of a fig leaf for Roberts.
Census 2.0 has to be the same question. No fig leaf, right?
2/ I doubt Roberts is in a rush to look like a fool upholding the same census question when he could just let a trial run out the clock. I think you'd need Roberts, not Cert Rule of 4, to expedite. No? @JoshuaMatz8 @marty_lederman @CBHessick @dorfonlaw @Jennifer_Nou @stevenmazie
3/ In Muslim Ban, the courts forced a change the actual policy - twice - as a facade distancing impermissible anti-Muslim animus.
Hard to image new census language that distances from the underlying lies sufficiently for Roberts to be eager.
cc: @alegalnerd @rickhasen @aziz_huq
Hard to image new census language that distances from the underlying lies sufficiently for Roberts to be eager.
cc: @alegalnerd @rickhasen @aziz_huq
