A plot in the Supremes

Roberts:

There have been 23 decennial censuses from the first census in 1790 to the most recent in 2010. Every census between 1820 and 2000 (with the exception of 1840) asked at least some of the population about their citizenship or place of birth. Between 1820 and 1950, the question was asked of all households. Between 1960 and 2000, it was asked of about one-fourth to one-sixth of the population. That change was part of a larger effort to simplify the census by asking most people a few basic demographic questions (such as sex, age, race, and marital status) on a short-form questionnaire, while asking a sample of the population more detailed demographic questions on a long-form questionnaire.

Analysis:

Still, the court doesn’t go so far as to say that the question can’t or won’t be added. What’s missing is an adequate explanation of why the Secretary wants to add it 

There is a  something afoot in the Supremes. Some group inside wants to break ground on new law, and no one is sure why.  It may simple be boredom, or stupidity in the face of the social media. I dunno. Like Thomas bring up eugentics, what is his point? It was not in the costitution, it is not his job.

Then we have this part about the court wanting to read intent rather than the nominal wording. This seems like a power grab, and all this seems to be some sort of Robert's nonsense.  Whatever they are up to, it will be a mess. Constitutional law is not that hard, Roberts is about to screw something up,  as bad as Citizen's United, watch the nut.

Anyway, it is Swamp stuff and the cost of having to watch Swampers screw things up is high and rising.  No doubt the eventual outcome os secession, some state voters simply do not have the time and money to track Swamp crap. This is the nuance that simply passes overhead of the average voter, like Kevin Drum, no clue about side effects or otherwise completely ignoring alternatives. This time is different fraud in the Swamp, extremely dangerous stuff in a republic.