SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From Slate
If we had a fair Supreme Court not driven by partisanship in its most political cases, Thursday’s blockbuster revelation in the census case would lead the court to unanimously rule in Department of Commerce v. New York to exclude the controversial citizenship question from the decennial survey. Those newly revealed documents show that the Trump administration’s purpose in putting the citizenship question on the upcoming census was not its stated one to help Hispanic voters under the Voting Rights Act, but rather to create policy that would be “a disadvantage to the Democrats” and “advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.” It’s difficult to produce a greater smoking gun than explicitly saying you are hoping to help the GOP by increasing white voting power. But this revelation, coming from the hard drive of a deceased Republican political operative and made available to Common Cause by his estranged daughter, is ironically more likely to lead the Republican-appointed conservative justices on the Supreme Court to allow the administration to include the question that would help states dilute the power of Hispanic voters.
[...]And here is where Thursday’s revelations fit in. The New York Times reported that the hard drive of the late Republican redistricting guru Thomas B. Hofeller contained documents indicating that the real purpose of including the citizenship question was to allow Republicans to draw new congressional, state, and local legislative districts using equal numbers of eligible voters in each district, not equal numbers of persons, a standard that would greatly reduce the power of Hispanics and Democrats in places like Texas. According to the Times, files on Hofeller’s hard drives, subpoenaed in litigation concerning North Carolina redistricting, show that Hofeller “wrote a study in 2015 concluding that adding a citizenship question to the census would allow Republicans to draft even more extreme gerrymandered maps to stymie Democrats. And months after urging President Trump’s transition team to tack the question onto the census, he wrote the key portion of a draft Justice Department letter claiming the question was needed to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act—the rationale the administration later used to justify its decision.”
[...]Thursday’s revelations should be damning. The ACLU is already seeking sanctions in the trial court in the census case for government officials lying about the real reason for including the citizenship question. But instead the revelations may help to prop up a case that should embarrass government lawyers to argue.
Yep.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30 2019, @11:22PM (9 children)
"There is no greater treason than doing the right thing for the wrong reason." MLKjr, quoting TS Elliot.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Friday May 31 2019, @03:21AM (8 children)
I can think of plenty of counterexamples. For example, doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason.
And when someone considers hypocrisy a greater treason than actual treason (such as the various officials who famously served as figureheads for Nazi conquest of various states), then perhaps they need a greater understanding of the virtues of hypocrisy. The key one is that you can get someone to do the right thing by exposing their hypocrisy.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 31 2019, @04:47AM (7 children)
khallow, it is tiresome for those of us with understanding and education to constantly be explaining things to you. Here is the list:
1. Right thing for right reason. Golden.
2. Wrong thing for the right reason. Lesser evil.
3. Right thing for the wrong reason. Greatest treason.
4. Wrong thing for the wrong reason. Stupid. Evil stupid.
Are we clear now? "Treason doth never prosper, for if it does, none dare call it treason." Sir John Harington (or Harrington) (August 4, 1561 – November 20, 1612)
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Friday May 31 2019, @12:06PM
What is clear is that you had nothing to say on the subject. But if you're ever willing to contribute, I'm willing to listen.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Friday May 31 2019, @12:45PM (4 children)
Let us keep in mind that the "wrong thing" can be highly advantageous for the party making the decision, say such as killing people (murder or otherwise) in order to gain personal wealth or conspiring with a foreign invader. It's not "evil stupid" in that case.
For example, suppose I make billions of dollars in profits by encouraging wars. Wrong things, wrong reasons, but billions of dollars in profits is not what I'd call "stupid".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 31 2019, @06:49PM (1 child)
And this is why you fail khallow! You are evil stupid, and a worshipper of Mammon! Quit sucking up to the rich, khallow, you loser!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 02 2019, @12:59PM
What makes being a worshipper of Mammon any less valid than your viewpoint? At some point, you'll just have to realize that name-calling isn't going to cut it. There's a lot of people in the world for which a few billions of dollars will always be more valuable than your opinions.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 31 2019, @07:23PM (1 child)
You wouldn't call it stupid because you have no understanding of externalities. Thanks for exposing yourself as being the exact same species as the corporate raiders ripping this country apart. I always knew you were, but this makes it obvious even to the dumbest reader.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday June 03 2019, @04:17AM
To the contrary, by not calling such things stupid when they frequently, obviously are not stupid, indicates I have a better understanding of such things than you.
You are too. I know you meant this in some sort of metaphorical sense, but if we were doing that, then we would have to grant that you don't actually have a metaphorical similarity to go with that empty insult.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by hemocyanin on Saturday June 01 2019, @01:02AM
I'm not going to resort reliance on a famous person as a logical argument. Instead, I will look at this from a purely pragmatic perspective: