And it dismissed charges that the Commerce Department had simply invented a justification for adding the question to the census as unsupported by the evidence. In Supreme Court arguments in April over the legality of the decision, the Trump administration argued that the benefits of obtaining more accurate citizenship data offset any damage stemming from the likely depressed response to the census by minority groups and noncitizens. Hofeller’s 2015 study had “played no role in the department’s December 2017 request to reinstate a citizenship question to the 2020 decennial census.”
In a statement issued on Thursday evening, the Justice Department said the accusations in the filing were baseless and amounted to “a last-ditch effort to derail the Supreme Court’s consideration of this case.” It said Mr. The disclosures represent the most explicit evidence to date that the Trump administration added the question to the 2020 census to advance Republican Party interests. Critics say adding the question would deter many immigrants from being counted and shift political power to Republican areas. Those documents, cited in a federal court filing Thursday by opponents seeking to block the citizenship question, have emerged only weeks before the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the legality of the citizenship question. 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. Hofeller had played a crucial role in the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.įiles on those drives showed that he 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. Hofeller achieved near-mythic status in the Republican Party as the Michelangelo of gerrymandering, the architect of partisan political maps that cemented the party’s dominance across the country.īut after he died last summer, his estranged daughter discovered hard drives in her father’s home that revealed something else: Mr. And that, friends, is what being a power couple’s all about.WASHINGTON - Thomas B. You might expect Cardi’s eventual guest verse to be an emotional affair, but on “Clout,” she says screw all that, firing shots at all kinds of adversaries and temporarily stealing the spotlight: “Soon as these bitches got something to sell, they say my name, say my name, Destiny’s Child,” she growls.
And on “Don’t Lose Me,” he finally addresses his breakup and eventual reconciliation with Cardi, pledging to be a better person. It’s hard not to get a little misty-eyed hearing the title track, on which Offset addresses each of his four childrefƒn over a Metro Boomin angel choir: “My son Kody, he three, rappin' already like me.” “Red Room” is a moody meditation on the past, as he recalls being raised by a single mother and watching his friends die.
Rather than deflect the drama, Offset faces it head-on here: FATHER OF 4 isn’t just an introduction to the rapper as a solo artist but a recalibration of his public perception, embracing the role of proud father and opening up about his past over solemn chamber-trap beats. The most traditionally skillful lyricist of the Migos, Offset’s also the most talked-about these days-mostly with regard to the ups and downs of his marriage to Cardi B. Teasing your album with a video of your very famous wife giving birth to your daughter can sometimes have that effect.
But Offset’s FATHER OF 4 is the first of the group’s solo offerings that feels like a true event. In the wake of 2018’s Culture II, though, each member of Migos has struck out on their own: Quavo led the charge with QUAVO HUNCHO, with Takeoff’s The Last Rocket close behind. It once felt like a breach of social contract to pick your favorite Migo: The Atlanta trio were great because they were great together.
0 kommentar(er)
