Posted on

Watch: Whoopi Goldberg Agrees with Bernie Sanders on Freed Terrorists Having Voting Rights

During a segment on ABC’s The View Tuesday, Whoopi Goldberg defended Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) over his position that felons, including terrorists, should vote.

“Does anyone think a terrorist should have a right to vote?” Meghan McCain asked The View panel.

“Well, here’s what I’m going to say, if they let this terrorist out, because he served his time, he gets his — if he’s an American citizen…” Whoopi Goldberg said, pausing to ask McCain, “Why is your mouth open like that?”

“Because…Whoopi, he killed people,” McCain said.

“Yes, lots of people do this,” Goldberg replied.

“He is a terrorist…he’s a radicalized terrorist,” McCain said.

“Our constitution says, if you’ve done your time…you have, we hope, been reformed, you’ve been changed. If they let him out, that means they feel his time is up and he gets to become the American citizen,” Goldberg said.

“If you’ve done your time–that’s what prison reform is about–if they let this man out, they are saying, ‘He has been reformed, we have–fixed him…We have rehabilitated him,” Goldberg said later in the panel.

Controversy erupted after Bernie Sanders said at a CNN town hall event Monday that he agrees that felons, even those who committed sexual assault or terrorism, should be able to vote from prison.

“Yes, even for terrible people because once you start chipping away–you say, ‘That guy committed a terrible crime, we’re not going to let him vote,’ or ‘that person did that,’ you’re running down a slippery slope,” Sanders said.

This prompted a variety of responses, including from pop star Cher, who is typically liberal but voiced her disagreement with this policy on social media Tuesday.

“Does Bernie Sanders Really Believe Ppl In Prison Who Are Murderers⁉️ Rapists⁉️ Child Molesters⁉️ BOSTON BOMBERS.…STILL DESERVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE⁉️” she asked.

Later, she doubled down, then deleted her social media posts in the face of backlash.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

Police Officer Who Arrested Beto O’Rourke for Drunk Driving Still Believes He Tried Fleeing Scene

The Texas police officer who arrested Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX) for driving drunk in 1998 still believes the 2020 presidential candidate attempted to flee the scene of the ordeal, according to a report.

Now-former Anthony Police Department officer Richard Carrera, who arrested O’Rourke, along with his sergeant, Gary Hargrove, told the Texas Tribune Wednesday that they still maintain that the police report detailing the 20-year-old incident is accurate.

“I believe we have contradicting stories here,” Carrera acknowledged the Texas Tribune, before adding “I stand by my report.”

After giving the police report yet another read, Carrera said he has “no doubt” that O’Rourke tried to flee the scene in his Volvo.

The Texas Tribune reports:

Hargrove, 71, oversaw the crash scene but does not remember being there. However, he said he believes what his officers told him about the two-vehicle collision that occurred in Anthony, a tiny town near the Texas-New Mexico border west of El Paso.

Hargrove said the report, which he reread after the Houston Chroniclepublished it last year, shows O’Rourke “struck the [other] car from the rear and he ended up in the median pointed the wrong way, and he took that as his chance to get away.”

“He did something to lead the officers to believe that he was trying to get away,” Hargrove said. “What they put down, I believed them.”

“Beto’s DWI is something he has long publicly and openly addressed over the last 20 years at town halls, on the debate stage, during interviews and in Op-Eds, calling it a serious mistake for which there is no excuse,” O’Rourke spokesman Chris Evans told the Texas Tribune. “This has been widely and repeatedly reported on.”

Last year, the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News obtained copies of state and local police reports pertaining to the arrest. The documents state O’Rourke was found intoxicated after losing control of his vehicle on Interstate 10 and hitting a truck. Nobody was hurt in the accident in Anthony, Texas, about 20 miles from El Paso. A witness told police that O’Rourke tried to drive away, but the witness stopped him until officers arrived, the documents show. The witness also said that O’Rourke had been driving at “a high rate of speed.”

O’Rourke has talked about the 1998 arrest while campaigning to unseat incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). However, news stories about the arrest earlier in the campaign did not include details such as the crash and the reported attempt to flee.

“I drove drunk and was arrested for a DWI in 1998. As I’ve publicly discussed over the last 20 years, I made a serious mistake for which there is no excuse,” O’Rourke said in a statement after reports broke about the arrest.

O’Rourke had just turned 26 when the arrest happened. He did a court-ordered diversion program and a drunken-driving charge was dismissed. According to police, O’Rourke recorded a 0.136 and 0.134 on breathalyzers, above a blood-alcohol level of 0.10, Texas’ legal limit for driving at the time.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

Survey: Nearly Half of Teachers Under 35 Want to Negotiate Salary, Benefits Without Unions

A recent survey of 2,000 teachers in 22 states found 48 percent of teachers under 35 would prefer to negotiate their own salary and benefits for themselves, without the involvement of teachers’ unions.

However, 50 percent of teachers who are over 35, and 56 percent who have a total family income above $100,000, disagree with having to negotiate their own contract, according to the data.

The survey, commissioned by the nonprofit Teacher Freedom – which provides teachers with information about how to opt out of union membership and alternative associations to union membership – was conducted by Dynata, in March 2018, in states affected by the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision delivered three months later in June.

“A collective bargaining agreement is a lot like a big cable package,” said Colin Sharkey, the executive director of the Association of American Educators (AAE), according to Education Week. AAE is a national professional organization for educators and the largest supporter of the Teacher Freedom group.

Education Week noted Sharkey likened the finding that younger teachers were more likely to prefer to negotiate their own contracts to millennials opting out of cable bundle contracts in favor of streaming services.

“[I]it’s not as ingrained in them to have one-size-fits-all bargaining,” he said.

The report continued:

[Sharkey] said teachers tend to think they could benefit financially if they were able to negotiate their own salary. Right now, salaries are determined on a step-and-lane schedule that applies to teachers across the district—teachers receive raises for years of service and degrees earned. But Sharkey said some teachers who work in hard-to-staff subjects, like high school science, want the opportunity to negotiate higher pay.

Other teachers say they want a chance to argue for a pay raise based on their performance in the classroom, Sharkey said. Also, he said, younger teachers might not stay in the profession as long as their predecessors, so the step-and-lane salary schedule wouldn’t necessarily make financial sense for them.

The survey also found that while the overall percentage of teachers preferring a pension versus a 401(k) retirement plan was equal (35 percent for each option), younger teachers (41-27 percent) and those with incomes less than $50,000 (42-24 percent) were more likely to prefer the 401(k) retirement plan option.

“It shouldn’t come as a surprise that so many educators want to be free of government-imposed union ‘representation,’ which far too often is used by union officials to boost their own power at the expense of the very teachers they claim to represent,” Patrick Semmens, vice president of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, told Breitbart News. “It is indisputable that many provisions in union-imposed contracts actually harm wide swaths of teachers, especially rigid seniority rules and opposition to merit pay, which treat younger teachers as second-class employees no matter how effective they are in the classroom.”

Despite being forced to be members of teachers’ unions prior to the Janus decision, the survey found only 39 percent of teachers actually agree with how unions spend their money.

A study released by Center for Union Facts in May 2018 revealed that, from 2010 to 2017, labor unions sent $1.3 billion in member dues to progressive groups aligned with the Democrat Party without obtaining the approval of their members.

Among the recipients of union dues funds were the Clinton Foundation, Planned Parenthood, Center for American Progress, Democracy Alliance, and the Democratic Governors Association.

As expected, the Teacher Freedom survey showed Democrats (48 percent) and teachers with family incomes above $100,000 per year (45 percent) were more likely to be satisfied with how unions spend their dues, while Republicans (43 percent) were less likely to support how the union distributed its dues money. The survey also found that a fair number teachers in general either did not know much about how their union spent their dues or were neutral on the subject.

The data also showed that nearly half of the teachers (46 percent) disagreed with the requirement that union fees be paid as a condition of employment, while 36 percent agreed. Democrats (45 percent) were more likely to agree with forced union dues, but more Republicans (60 percent) said they disagreed. Among those teachers with income less than $50,000, 59 percent disagreed with forced union fees.

“Fortunately, a solution exists,” Semmens said. “End union bosses’ monopoly and let teachers decide to advocate for themselves or select a private organization to advocate on their behalf.”

“States like Virginia and North Carolina, which already ban government union monopoly bargaining, prove that letting teachers choose whether or not to associate with a union works,” he added. “That solution also fixes the First Amendment issues inherent in government-imposed union monopoly representation.”

Teacher Freedom provides a list of alternate associations teachers may voluntarily join that offer professional benefits, such as liability insurance and job resources.

The margin of sampling error for the Teacher Freedom survey’s aggregate results is 2.2%, but is higher for some subgroups.

 

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

WATCH: Mike Francesa Reads Lyrics from Controversial Kate Smith Song to Determine if Racist

The decision of the New York Yankees and Philadelphia Flyers to ditch the songs and statues associated with 1930’s era songstress Kate Smith, has become a heated topic of conversation in the sports world.

However, few people have actually read the lyrics from the controversial songs once sung by the woman who is far better known for her stirring rendition of God Bless America.

Enter WFAN host and sports talk legend Mike Francesa.

On Tuesday, Francesa took several calls from people who claimed they were not offended by the lyrics from songs like That’s Why the Darkies Were Born. In order to see for himself, Francesa acquired the lyrics with the intent of reading them on the air. Once the WFAN host received the lyrics, he found it hard to get through.

Watch:

The Yankees stopped playing Smith’s version of God Bless America this year, during the 7th inning stretch. The Flyers removed the statue to Smith that was once displayed in front of their stadium.

Follow Dylan Gwinn on Twitter @themightygwinn

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

CNN Anchors ‘Stunned’ Democratic Candidates Want Terrorists to Vote

CNN’s late-night hosts on Tuesday marveled that some Democratic candidates are "way out there," now supporting enfranchising jailed terrorists.

Hosts Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon were speaking during their usual handoff between their two shows, when they took a moment to weigh in on the state of the Democratic candidates for president in 2020.

Cuomo said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), though not even a Democrat, has set the progressive agenda for Democratic hopefuls. "Top 2020 Democratic hopefuls have been following Bernie Sanders’s lead on many progressive policy stances," he said.

Cuomo worried about the extremes to which candidates might follow the Vermont senator. He pointed to Sanders’s recent support for letting murderers vote from jail.

"Last night, Senator Sanders said that people in prison, even terrorists like the Boston bomber, have the right to vote while they’re imprisoned," Cuomo said.

Lemon expressed shock at the position. "Uh, I’m stunned, as you can see," he said. "You can see on our faces and the responses."

"Listen, I’m glad we asked the question," Lemon said. "I think it’s going to be an issue."

He predicted it was going to be a campaign issue for those who had said "yes, they should be able to vote even the most awful people among us," or those who had said "we should have a conversation about it."

During a CNN town hall Monday, Harvard student Anne Carlstein asked Sanders about his support for voting rights for those convicted of terrorism, murder, or sexual assault.

"I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy," Sanders said. "Yes, even for terrible people."

Sanders described a vision of a "vibrant" democracy, in which everyone voted. "Even if they are in jail, they’re paying their price to society, but that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our Democracy," he said.

Sanders has previously expressed support for the position.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) dodged the question when asked this week. "While they’re incarcerated, I think that’s something we can have more conversation about," she said.

Fellow 2020 candidates Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) and Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D., Ind.) both said this week that they oppose prison voting. Swalwell went further, saying those put away for violent crimes should "never" regain the right to vote.

Sen. Kamala Harris initially sidestepped the question on Monday, pointing to her support for ex-felons voting. "I have been long an advocate of making sure that the formerly incarcerated are not denied a right to vote," she said.

When asked whether that extended to "people who are convicted, in prison, like the Boston Marathon bomber, on death row, people who are convicted of sexual assault," Harris answered with wording similar to Warren’s.

"I think we should have that conversation," Harris said.

Cuomo noted that Harris had raced to retract her earlier view. "Do I think that people who commit murder, people who are terrorists should be deprived of their rights? Yeah, I do," she said. "I’m a prosecutor."

Lemon was unimpressed with the reversal. "Well, last night that’s not what she said," he said. "She can revise her position and change her mind, but I think that is going to be an issue."

Cuomo raised the specter of the radicalization of the Democratic party. "You know what it frames? It frames the proposition for voters as: these people are way out there in the Democratic Party. Wow have they gone far left."

The post CNN Anchors ‘Stunned’ Democratic Candidates Want Terrorists to Vote appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

Posted on

WaPo Responds To Sri Lanka Massacres By Focusing On ‘Far-Right Anger’

In response to a horrific series of radical Islamist jihadist attacks Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka that killed 290 and left an additional 500 injured, Rick Noack of The Washington Post has decided that the proper subject of his ire ought to be…”far-right anger in the West.”

Yes, seriously.

Here is a portion of Noack’s piece, entitled, “Christianity under attack? Sri Lanka church bombings stoke far-right anger in the West”:

To some, [the attacks were] further proof that Christians in many parts of the world are under attack. Several churches were targeted in Sunday’s bombing attacks, along with hotels and a banquet hall. At one Catholic church in Negombo, more than 100 people were killed. The attack took place on Easter, one of the most important dates on the Christian calendar. …

Regional branches and sites associated with Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party framed the Sri Lankan bloodshed as an attack “against us Christians,” even though the party officially claims to be open to members of all religions …

Local party branches in the city of Solingen and eastern Germany lashed out at journalists for initially refraining to establish a link to Islamist terrorism. Some far-right groups claimed hypocrisy and double standards, arguing that attacks on Christians failed to receive the same response as attacks on Muslims. …

Katie Hopkins, a British writer and provocateur, complained on Twitter that American liberal figures such as former president Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were not using the word “Christian” to describe those killed in the church bombings. …

American far-right activists offered their own responses. “Followers of Jesus worldwide are being killed and otherwise terribly persecuted every day,” Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration aide now best known for his anti-Muslim rhetoric, said on his radio show. “All too often, their losses go unremarked.”

Well, as it turns out and as The Daily Wire reported earlier today, Islamic State has belatedly taken credit for the Sri Lanka massacre. And as it turns out, “followers of Jesus worldwide,” to use Frank Gaffney’s language that Noack apparently deems so irksome, are those who attend church on Easter Sunday. Really, this is not rocket science.

What Noack really seems to have an issue with is notion of the oppressed Christian — but the oppression of Christian in Islamist and totalitarian societies is a well-known fact, as The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh pointed out yesterday. And as Becket Adams of the Washington Examiner notes, “Christians in the Middle East have just survived a genocide attempt by ISIS. Christians in pitiless, autocratic regimes, including Iran, China, and North Korea, are subjected regularly to persecution. In fact, Christianity is the most harassed faith in the world, followed closely by Islam, according to the Pew Research Center.”

This is hardly the only recent instance of The Washington Post publishing a defamatory hit on Western conservatives. Just last week and in a similar cultural context, as The Daily Wire’s Emily Zanotti reported, The Washington Post published a disgraceful and calumnious smear against Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro:

Self-described “expert” on “far-right extremism” Talia Lavin has struck again, this time falsely accusing Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro of stoking the flames of racism against Muslims and pushing conservatives toward a race war over the destruction of Notre Dame cathedral. …

Shapiro, she claims, blew a dog-whistle for anti-Muslim violence when he commented that Notre Dame was a “monument to Western civilization” and “Judeo-Christian heritage.” To drive her point home, she juxtaposed Shapiro with Richard Spencer, perhaps the best known American neo-Nazi, as if Shapiro had anything to do with Spencer, whom Shapiro has repeatedly and vociferously condemned.

Lavin’s claims are downright bizarre. Notre Dame is, indeed, a monument to the civilization — the Western civilization — that built it over the course of several hundred years. It is not simply a work of art and architecture, but a monument to Christianity, and specifically Catholicism. It is a place of worship that houses one of France’s largest collection of holy relics and religiously-inspired art and sculpture.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml

Posted on

NRA: Supreme Court Should Move Forward on Gun Case Despite NYC Attempt to Undercut Suit

The National Rifle Association on Monday called New York City’s proposed change to the gun law set to be examined by the Supreme Court a "feeble attempt to stop the lawsuit over the city’s unconstitutional firearm travel ban" that shouldn’t prevent the Court from hearing the case.

"New York City’s problem is they think they’re regulating a privilege instead of a fundamental, constitutional right," Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. "The city’s attempt to slightly modify its unconstitutional law is a nakedly transparent delay tactic. We are confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will reject New York’s shenanigans and allow the case to proceed."

The group’s statement comes in response to dueling court filings from lawyers representing New York City and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

Earlier this month, the city filed a motion informing the Court that a proposed rule change would address the complaints made by the gun-rights activists suing the city. It said the restrictions on traveling outside of the city with a legally owned gun would be reduced and gun owners would be able to legally travel to a few new locations with their firearms.

"The proposed rule," Richard Dearing, a lawyer representing the city, told the Court, "would amend S 5-23(a) to allow premises licensees to transport a handgun listed on their premises license directly to and from any of the following additional locations, provided that the handgun is transported unloaded, in a locked container, with the ammunition carried separately: Another premises of the licensee where the licensee is authorized to have and possess a handgun; A small-arms range/shooting club authorized by law to operate as such, whether located within or outside New York City; and A shooting competition at which the licensee may possess the handgun consistent with the law applicable at the place of the competition."

The city said the changes would resolve the issues central to the case and asked the Court to delay hearing the case until after the rule change went into effect.

"If adopted in accordance with established procedures, the proposed rule would render this case moot before the parties complete the merits briefing in this case," Dearing said. "For this reason, I also write to request that the Court stay the current briefing schedule pending final action on the proposed rule."

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association responded with its own filing on Friday.

"This litigation has been ongoing for more than six years," Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for the group, told the Court. "Throughout those six years, respondents have vigorously defended the City’s novel handgun transport ban, which prohibits law-abiding New Yorkers from taking their licensed handguns anywhere—including any legal destination outside of the state of New York—other than the meager seven authorized shooting ranges within the limits of the 8.5-million-person city."

The group argued there is no reason for the Court to delay proceedings in the case even if the city does end up changing their law.

"This Court routinely grants certiorari despite the possibility that subsequent government action could move the proverbial goalposts or otherwise shape the issues being reviewed," Clement said. "If this Court routinely stayed the briefing in cases involving potential government action of that nature, it would be difficult for cases involving potentially unlawful government action to be briefed at all. There is certainly no reason to put the briefing on hold here merely because respondents have initiated a rulemaking process."

The NRA said the city’s proposed law change is evidence that it knows its gun law violates the Second Amendment and is merely an attempt to prevent the Supreme Court from reinforcing precedents set in other landmark gun-rights decisions.

"The City of New York clearly knows that its current restrictions on the carrying and transportation of lawfully owned firearms are unconstitutional and will fail under any standard of constitutional review, as the NRA has been saying for years," Cox said. "This is nothing more than a naked attempt by New York City to resist Supreme Court review of policies that even New York must recognize as inconsistent with the holdings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. The City of New York did not respect its citizens’ Second Amendment rights before the Supreme Court granted review in this case and it will not respect them going forward."

The post NRA: Supreme Court Should Move Forward on Gun Case Despite NYC Attempt to Undercut Suit appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

Posted on

Vegan Restaurant That Charged Men 18% More Than Women Is Closing Its Doors

A restaurant that declared it would charge men 18% more than women for the same service will close its doors at the end of the month.

Handsome Her, a vegan café in the Melbourne suburb of Brunswick, will close its doors on April 28, writing on Facebook that the two women responsible for running the business “are off to our next adventure up north where we will be doing some hands-on work, something we have missed sorely whilst being at 206 Sydney Rd, Brunswick.”

There is no indication that the restaurant is closing as a result of charging men more than women – a policy that was implemented back when the restaurant opened and only applied one week a month.

As the Sydney Morning Herald reported in 2017, when Handsome Her made headlines for its charge-men-more policy, the café posted a chalkboard outside with three rules:

House Rules, Rule #1: women have priority seating. Rule #2: men will be charged an 18% premium to reflect the gender pay gap (2016) which is donated to a women’s service. Rule #3 respect goes both ways.

The question naturally arose as to how an establishment can claim to respect both genders when it is clearly discriminating against one.

The wage gap in Australia, as in the United States, comes not from discrimination (though that’s not to say discrimination never happens) but from the different choices men and women make in their careers. Women tend to go into lower-paying fields or positions that offer more flexibility – leading to fewer hours worked. Women also tend to leave the workforce to have children. The “wage” gap does not compare the actual earnings of men and women working the exact same job, but the average earnings of men and women across all jobs and industries.

Yet activists, like those at the Handsome Her café, use the difference in average earnings to claim women are not treated equally in society, or are undervalued.

In announcing the café’s closing, owners also announced a “last hurrah” to be held on April 28. The event will offer “a pay as you feel scheme from 3pm until our stock runs out for all food items on both our day and night menus (think rice bowls, steamed buns, jackfruit burgers etc)…” The proceeds of the event will be donated to Maiti Nepal, an organization works to prevent human trafficking, specifically in Nepal.

In addition to a policy of charging men more, Handsome Her also wrote in its farewell note that it “tried to demonstrate ways of doing business more ethically and responsibly by abandoning take-away cups, single use straws and napkins, by shopping locally and supporting women owned businesses.”

The business said it donated to multiple feminist causes and “strived to bring lesbianism back into fashion.”

“While it is a shame to lose the physical space (and we understand how essential it is for women and lesbians to hold space), we leave knowing that the communities we have made transcend the trendy vegan café on Sydney Rd, Brunswick. We look forward to continuing Handsome Her in a variety of other, more creative ways and expanding our efforts to drive change with flexibility and mobility throughout Australia,” the owners wrote.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml

Posted on

At Census Question Oral Arguments, SCOTUS Seems to Lean Trump

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices seemed ready Tuesday to preserve the Trump administration’s addition of a question about a person’s citizenship status to the 2020 decennial census.

The case, Department of Commerce v. New York, is the high court’s first direct look at an administration policy since it upheld the "travel ban" last year, SCOTUSBlog reports. It concerns the administration’s attempt to add a question asking respondents "is this person a citizen of the United States?" to the 2020 census.

That question has appeared on the long-form Census for decades, as well as on the American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, two large-scale annual surveys conducted by the Census Bureau to estimate key statistics about the population.

But this fact did not deter objectors from the left, who argued that it would reduce response rates among illegally resident people. This, they argued, would lead to inaccurate estimates of figures used to calculate federal aid and congressional apportionment, among other things.

This concern was strong enough that a group of 17 states, lead by New York, sued the Department of Commerce to get an injunction on the question. They argued that the decision to add the question was "arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law," in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. A lower court agreed, enjoining the addition of the question, at which point the administration appealed to the Supreme Court.

At oral arguments on Tuesday, however, it seemed like the balance of the court was swinging against New York. Justices John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh directed most of their questions towards the state’s lawyer, with Kavanaugh arguing that Congress gave the Secretary of Commerce "huge discretion" to select questions.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, for their part, pushed back on the idea that a citizenship question would reduce response rates in-and-of itself, suggesting that other factors which differentiate citizens and non-citizens may explain any disparities. The liberal justices, for their part, seemed intent on agreeing with the claim that a question about citizenship would undermine the accuracy of the census’s count.

"There’s no doubt that people will respond less," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

A decision in the case is expected over the summer. The Census will be carried out beginning April 1, 2020.

The post At Census Question Oral Arguments, SCOTUS Seems to Lean Trump appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com