Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Trump

Trump, Corte Suprema e ripristino del travel ban. Un trionfo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-06-30.

2017-06-30__Trump__001

Incipit dell’Appendice alla sentenza della Suprema Corte Americana. Si noti l’adozione di stretta osservanza dei principi legali a discapito della visione “interpretativa” prima seguita dai liberals democratici.


«The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald».

Sul travel ban introdotto dal Presidente Trump sono state scritte numerosi commenti stesi da commentatori che visibilmente non si erano peritati di leggere il testo originale del provvedimento nella sua interezza.

The White House. 2017-03-06. Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States. Executive Order.

La lettura di questo testo nella sua versione originale è propedeutica a quella del seguito dell’articolo.

*

Le susseguenti azioni legali si riferiscono a questo ordine Esecutivo, non ad altri similari: la confusione dei documenti porta inevitabilmente a disinformazione.

L’intera pratica giudiziaria è stata alla fine esaminata dalla Suprema Corte, di cui alleghiamo la relativa sentenza.

The Supreme Court of the United States. June 26, 2017. On application for stay and petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

Anche la lettura della sentenza è propedeutica a quella del seguito dell’articolo.

* * * * * * *

«PER CURIAM.

These cases involve challenges to Executive Order No. 13780, Protecting the Nation From Foreign TerroristEntry Into the United States. The order alters practices concerning the entry of foreign nationals into the United States by, among other things, suspending entry of na­tionals from six designated countries for 90 days. Re­spondents challenged the order in two separate lawsuits. They obtained preliminary injunctions barring enforce­ment of several of its provisions, including the 90-day suspension of entry. The injunctions were upheld in large measure by the Courts of Appeals.

The Government filed separate petitions for certiorari, as well as applications to stay the preliminary injunctions entered by the lower courts. We grant the petitions for certiorari and grant the stay applications in part.»

….

«On January 27, 2017, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order No. 13769, Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States. 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (EO–1).»

*

«To begin, we grant both of the Government’s petitions for certiorari and consolidate the cases for argument.»

*

«The equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance the same way in that context»

Tradotto dalla terminologia giuridica al linguaggio corrente, le corti di livello inferiore sono state faziosamente di parte.

«but our discretion must be “guided by sound legal principles,” »

* * * * * * *

«The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by reviving parts of a travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries that he said is needed for national security but that opponents decry as discriminatory.»

*

«The justices narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had completely blocked key parts of a March 6 executive order that Trump had said was needed to prevent terrorism attacks, allowing his temporary ban to go into effect for people with no strong ties to the United States. [tmsnrt.rs/2seb3bb

*

«The court issued its order on the last day of its current term and agreed to hear oral arguments during its next term starting in October so it can decide finally whether the ban is lawful in a major test of presidential powers.»

*

«Trump’s March 6 order called for a blanket 90-day ban on people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees while the government implemented stronger vetting procedures. The court allowed a limited version of the refugee ban, which had also been blocked by courts, to go into effect.»

*

«Federal courts said the travel ban violated federal immigration law and was discriminatory against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Critics called it a discriminatory “Muslim ban.”»

*

«In an unusual unsigned decision, the Supreme Court on Monday said the travel ban will go into effect “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

*

«Both bans were to partly go into effect 72 hours after the court’s decision. The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department pledged to implement the decision in an orderly fashion.»

* * * * * * * *

Considerazioni.

La sentenza è molto dura nei confronti delle Corti che avevano bloccato il bando. Con il forbito linguaggio tecnico usato dai giudici supremi, i giudici di grado inferiore ne escono quasi ridicolizzati e bacchettati.

Adesso che la Suprema Corte si è espressa in materia, è quanto meno di pessimo gusto rispolverare come fossero stati giusti ed equi, legali, i pareri espressi dalle Corti inferiori di grado: se vogliono essere rispettati, i giudici dei livelli inferiori alla Suprema Corte devono obbligatoriamente accettarne il giudizio finale.

«The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald».

E questo senza se e senza ma.

*

Ma questa non è solo una delle tante vittorie del Presidente Trump: è una vittoria strategica che sembrerebbe preludere a quella definitiva.

L’articolista di Reuters lo fa notare alla fine del suo articolo.

«The case was Trump’s first major challenge at the Supreme Court, where he restored a 5-4 conservative majority with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch, who joined the bench in April. There are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democratic appointees. The four liberal justices were silent.»

*

«Gorsuch was one of the three conservative justices who would have granted Trump’s request to put the order completely into effect»

*

La Suprema Corte è un organo politico, in grado di approvare o bocciare senza possibilità di appello l’operato di qualsiasi organo dello stato americano, ivi compreso quello del Presidente.

Questi Giudici Supremi, pur essendo carica non elettiva, detengono il vero potere decisionale, quello che conta.

Prima della nomina del Giudice Gorsuch, la Suprema Corte si sarebbe allineata sui giudizi espressi dalle Corti di grado inferiore, tutte in mano a giudici liberal.

Adesso le cose sono cambiate.

E sono cambiate al punto tale che la sentenza reca persino una appendice.

Se, come sembrerebbe essere verosimile, il Presidente Trump avrà la possibilità di nominare tre altri Giudici Supremi al posto di tre verosimilmente dimissionari a breve termine, tutti e tre liberal democratici, la Corte Suprema risulterà essere nella sua quasi totalità repubblicana, e tale rimarrà per circa una trentina di anni.

In tale evenienza, l’ideologia liberal democratica sarebbe destinata a scomparire.

Nota.

Adesso dovrebbe essere ben chiaro il peso e valore che hanno le numerose istanze legali sottoposte a Corti inferiori nei confornti di altri provvedimenti del Presidente Trump. Alla fine si arriverà sempre alla Corte Suprema.

Reuters. 2017-06-27. Supreme Court breathes new life into Trump’s travel ban

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by reviving parts of a travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries that he said is needed for national security but that opponents decry as discriminatory.

The justices narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had completely blocked key parts of a March 6 executive order that Trump had said was needed to prevent terrorism attacks, allowing his temporary ban to go into effect for people with no strong ties to the United States. [tmsnrt.rs/2seb3bb]

The court issued its order on the last day of its current term and agreed to hear oral arguments during its next term starting in October so it can decide finally whether the ban is lawful in a major test of presidential powers.

In a statement, Trump called the high court’s action “a clear victory for our national security,” saying the justices allowed the travel suspension to become largely effective.

“As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive,” Trump added.

Trump’s March 6 order called for a blanket 90-day ban on people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees while the government implemented stronger vetting procedures. The court allowed a limited version of the refugee ban, which had also been blocked by courts, to go into effect.

Trump issued the order amid rising international concern about attacks carried out by Islamist militants like those in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin and other cities. But challengers said no one from the affected countries had carried out attacks in the United States.

Federal courts said the travel ban violated federal immigration law and was discriminatory against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Critics called it a discriminatory “Muslim ban.”

Ahmed al-Nasi, an official in Yemen’s Ministry of Expatriate Affairs, voiced disappointment.

“We believe it will not help in confronting terrorism and extremism, but rather will increase the feeling among the nationals of these countries that they are all being targeted, especially given that Yemen is an active partner of the United States in the war on terrorism and that there are joint operations against terrorist elements in Yemen,” he said.

Groups that challenged the ban, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that most people from the affected countries seeking entry to the United States would have the required connections. But they voiced concern the administration would interpret the ban as broadly as it could.

“It’s going to be very important for us over this intervening period to make sure the government abides by the terms of the order and does not try to use it as a back door into implementing the full-scale Muslim ban that it’s been seeking to implement,” said Omar Jadwat, an ACLU lawyer.

During the 2016 presidential race, Trump campaigned for “a total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States. The travel ban was a signature policy of Trump’s first few months as president.

‘BONA FIDE RELATIONSHIP’

In an unusual unsigned decision, the Supreme Court on Monday said the travel ban will go into effect “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

A lack of a clearly defined relationship would bar from entry people from the six countries and refugees with no such ties.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin, who successfully challenged the ban in lower courts, said that students from affected countries due to attend the University of Hawaii would still be able to do so.

Both bans were to partly go into effect 72 hours after the court’s decision. The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department pledged to implement the decision in an orderly fashion.

“We will keep those traveling to the United States and partners in the travel industry informed as we implement the order in a professional, organized, and timely way,” a State Department spokeswoman said.

Trump signed the order as a replacement for a Jan. 27 one issued a week after he became president that also was blocked by federal courts, but not before it caused chaos at airports and provoked numerous protests.

Even before the Supreme Court action the ban applied only to new visa applicants, not people who already have visas or are U.S. permanent residents, known as green card holders. The executive order also made waivers available for a foreign national seeking to enter the United States to resume work or study, visit a spouse, child or parent who is a U.S. citizen, or for “significant business or professional obligations.” Refugees “in transit” and already approved would have been able to travel to the United States under the executive order.

A CONSERVATIVE COURT

The case was Trump’s first major challenge at the Supreme Court, where he restored a 5-4 conservative majority with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch, who joined the bench in April. There are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democratic appointees. The four liberal justices were silent.

Gorsuch was one of the three conservative justices who would have granted Trump’s request to put the order completely into effect. Fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he warned that requiring officials to differentiate between foreigners who have a connection to the United States and those who do not will prove unworkable.

“Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding – on peril of contempt – whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country,” Thomas wrote.

The state of Hawaii and a group of plaintiffs in Maryland represented by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the order violated federal immigration law and the Constitution’s First Amendment prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring any particular religion. Regional federal appeals courts in Virginia and California both upheld district judge injunctions blocking the order.

Annunci