7/7/2019. A study of the Supreme Court opinions, on the legality of a citizenship question being on the 2020 census, showed that nine people pulled off the street at random would have a better chance of agreeing on anything. You and I can argue about it until we’re ready to pop a blood-vessel, sure the other is an idiot, and at least two Supreme Court justices will agree with each of us. Why even go to law school? Evidently, the only reason is to be able to write lengthy, wise-sounded prose. It certainly isn’t to learn how to consistently interpret the law. Unless some of the justices are flagrantly disregarding their training. See below and despair. An X means the answer is ‘No.’

Four justices think the question on the census is unconstitutional and five justices think it’s fine.* Of the five who believe it’s fine, two justices don’t even think the courts have the right pass judgment on the Secretary of Commerce’s census decisions. These opinions are completely , 180 degrees, opposite from each other.

How can this happen since all nine justices are supposed to be experts on the constitution? Maybe, because almost half of the justices don’t care much about the constitution. Maybe, they decide what they want the judgment to be, and then use lengthy sentences and legalize to twist and tear the constitution into the necessary shape.

“…the Secretary’s decision to add the citizenship question was arbitrary and capricious…” Supreme Court J ustice Breyer in his minority Opinion on the citizenship question, with which Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor agreed

Justice Breyer thechart.blogs.cnn.com

Since the citizenship question was asked on every single census from 1790 to 1950, it’s incredible to think that all of those years it was unconstitutional, arbitrary, and capricious, and no one noticed. No amendment to the Constitution has been passed on citizenship questions. It breaks all credibility to state, now, that such a question is unconstitutional.

All of the various opinions on this case can be found here.

Notice in the table, above, that the liberal justices — Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor — voted as a block, whereas the conservative judges had a variety of opinions. As a Block, the liberal justices determined that the citizenship question, used on the census for 160 years, was all of a sudden unconstitutional, arbitrary and capricious.

The Supreme Court justice oath of office: “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

It sure seems that the liberal judges do not take this oath seriously, and have chosen instead to enslave their minds to liberal group-think, marching along like good little wind-up soldiers.

To protect the United States’ constitutional foundation, it is critical that all additional Supreme Court justices be conservative. This case, alone, proves that liberal judges cannot be trusted with this enormous responsibility.