Country sees 28th consecutive day with over 100,000 new coronavirus cases recorded
- Scott Atlas resigns as pandemic adviser after controversial tenure
- Congress races to avoid government shutdown amid pandemic
- Wisconsin and Arizona certify Joe Biden election victories
- Sign up to receive First Thing – our daily briefing by email
Richard Wolffe has filed his latest column for us: Trump’s legacy is the plague of extreme lies. Truth-based media is the vaccine
Whether he knows it or not – and all the evidence suggests he knows nothing worth knowing – Trump’s legacy is the toxic politics of lies: a permanent campaign of fabrications and falsehoods.
No matter that he clearly lost the 2020 election by landslide margins in the electoral college and the popular vote. What matters is the never-ending sense of grievance that someone or something, somewhere – liberals, minorities, judges, reporters – have conspired to wrong Trump and oppress his long-suffering fans.
The Los Angeles Times editorial board this morning have published a very clear view on how they think the supreme court should rule in the case of the census that is currently before them: The Supreme Court should reject Trump’s cynical attacks on the census
Rather than count everybody in the country, as the constitution stipulates, the Trump administration is seeking to exclude people whose immigration status it disapproves of. The paper writes:
He’s trying to cook the final numbers sent to the states under a July memo in which Trump asserted that, when it comes to congressional reapportionment, “it is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
If the president’s scheme is found to be lawful, California, Texas and Florida each might lose at least one seat in the House (with more than 2 million migrants living in the state without authorization, California could lose up to three seats) to which they otherwise would be entitled, while Alabama, Minnesota and Ohio could each gain a seat.
While a change in administrations might make Trump’s effort moot, it would still be best for the Supreme Court to put this kind of chicanery to bed by affirming the Constitution’s clear language on the breadth of the census, and its use in reallocating House seats, and to reject Trump’s reasoning for ignoring historical precedent and clear constitutional language for political reasons. Just because Trump and the immigration hard-liners who support him dislike the Constitution’s requirement that apportionment be based on an enumeration of “the whole number of persons in each State” doesn’t mean they get to redefine as they see fit.