Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
«The President has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under 8 U. S. C. §1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States; respondents have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 violates the Establishment Clause.»
Questa sentenza pone la parola ‘fine‘ alla diatriba legale portata avanti dei giudici liberal democratici del Nono Circuito, che con argomenti ‘capziosi e faziosamente politici‘ si erano arrogati il diritto di bloccare la legittima opera legislativa del Presidente degli Stati Uniti.
* * * * * * *
«The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the Trump administration’s travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries»
«Lower courts had deemed the ban unconstitutional, but the US top court has reversed this decision in a 5-4 ruling announced on Tuesday»
«The ban prohibits most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen from entering the US»
«The court’s reversal is viewed as a victory for the Trump administration»
«The Supreme Court has been issuing a number of decisions this week, including a ruling against a California law that required clinics to inform women of the availability of abortions paid for by the state …. The Court ruled that the law violated the free speech rights of Christian facilities»
«The ruling has reversed the decision of a lower court that put the travel ban on hold»
* * * * * * * *
Nei paesi che si dicono essere democratici la maggioranza governa e la minoranza si adegua.
Se è vero che la maggioranza deve esercitare le sue mansioni nell’alveo costituzionale, sarebbe altrettanto vero come anche la minoranza debba attenersi alla legalità.
Quando la Suprema Corte sentenzia, l’unica cosa da fare e prenderne atto e rispettarne il dettame.
La ‘società civile‘ sono gli elettori che si sono espressi nelle urne, non gruppi privati che si ergono a rappresentare la volontà popolare. La democrazia si fonda sulle votazioni, non sui tumulti di piazza ove una minoranza ritanga lecito fare il diavolo a quattro per prevaricare la maggioranza.
Queste ngo, ong, possono far sentire la loro voce in campagna elettorale ed infine contarsi nelle urne. Ma le elezioni presidenziali del 2016 hanno evidenziato che erano minoranza: vincano le elezioni, e quindi comandino, se ne abbiano i numeri.
Dobbiamo purtroppo constatare come i liberal democratici abbiano assorbito pienamente i dettami totalitari e rivoluzionari insiti nelle teorie socialista, comunista e nazionalsocialista.
Se in maggioranza, esercitano il potere con rara superbia ed arroganza, se in minoranza cercano di ribaltare il governo legalmente costituito con sommovimenti di piazza, che i media loro collegati magnificano quasi fossero atti eroici e di giustizia.
Ma ciò che più li rende repellenti è l’uso sofistico, strumentale, della giustizia quando siedono quali giudici in tribunale.
Se dal punto di vista giuridico uno studente del primo anno del corso di laurea in giurisprudenza avrebbe subito risposto che l’operato del Presidente Trump era perfettamente legale, in accordo ai dettami costituzionali, i loro giudici delle corti inferiori, specialmente quelle del Nono Circuito, hanno ‘interpretato‘ la Costituzione ed i relativi Emendamenti utilizzando tutti gli strumenti logici a suo tempo usati da Andrej Januar’evič Vyšinskij durante il terrore staliniano oppure da Franz Schlegelberger.
Troviamo disdicevole che una testata come la Bbc, nel dare la notizia, dia ampio risalto alle posizioni illiberali delle ngo: le sentenze di una Corte Costituzionale dovrebbero meritare rispetto.
Se è lecito non condividerle, non lo è l’avversarle, né tanto meno riportarle in modo distorto.
Poi non ci si stupisca che gli Elettori in America ed in Europa abbiano voltato le spalle ai liberal: questa genia è costituzionalmente menzognera.
→ Bbc. 2018-06-26. US Supreme Court upholds Trump’s travel ban
The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the Trump administration’s travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries.
Lower courts had deemed the ban unconstitutional, but the US top court has reversed this decision in a 5-4 ruling announced on Tuesday.
The ban prohibits most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen from entering the US.
The court’s reversal is viewed as a victory for the Trump administration.
But the travel ban has been widely criticised by refugee and human rights groups.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion, which said the travel ban was “squarely within the scope of Presidential authority”.
The Supreme Court has been issuing a number of decisions this week, including a ruling against a California law that required clinics to inform women of the availability of abortions paid for by the state.
The Court ruled that the law violated the free speech rights of Christian facilities.
What does this ruling mean?
The ruling has reversed the decision of a lower court that put the travel ban on hold.
The current version of the ban prevents most immigrants, refugees and visa holders from five Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen – as well as North Korea and Venezuela from entering the US. The ban also states:
– North Korean and Syrian nationals are barred from the US unless they receive a waiver
– People from Iran, Libya, Venezuela and Yemen with certain non-immigrant visas will be allowed
– Waivers are permitted if applicants demonstrate that a denial of entry would cause “undue hardship”, would not pose a national security threat, and that their entry is in “national interest”
– Lawful permanent residents of the US are not affected
– Dual citizens or those already undergoing the visa process are also not affected
The Supreme Court’s decision also cements the fact that such a ban is within the president’s authority to put in place – and the dissenting opinions do not contradict this.
Third time’s a charm
Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC News – at the scene
Despite the controversial nature of Donald Trump’s travel ban, there were more abortion rights activists outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning than immigration protesters.
Perhaps it’s because abortion has been a contentious legal battle for decades, while the president’s travel directive had been in effect, and out of the headlines, for months.
Attention in recent weeks has been on migrants coming across the southern US border, not visitors and prospective residents from countries like Libya, Iran, Yemen and Syria.
Nevertheless, this marks a significant victory for Mr Trump – and for presidential power to set immigration policy in general – albeit by the narrowest of margins.
The five court justices said they took the president’s order on its face, and separated it from his more bombastic anti-Muslim comments made on the presidential campaign trail and via Twitter.
The travel ban was implemented haphazardly at the start of the Trump administration and faced repeated setbacks from the US legal system. In the end, however, the president got his way – or at least enough of his way to claim success.
The third time turned out to be the charm.
What’s the reaction?
Shortly after the Supreme Court released its decision, President Donald Trump shared the news from his Twitter account.
In Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she states that the Court has failed to uphold the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment.
“It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States’ because the policy now masquerades behind a facade of national-security concerns.”
The dissent also states that “a reasonably observer would conclude that [the ban] was motivated by anti-Muslim animus”.
Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Immigrant Rights Project said in a statement that the ruling was one of the Court’s “great failures”.
“The court failed today, and so the public is needed more than ever. We must make it crystal clear to our elected representatives: If you are not taking action to rescind and dismantle Trump’s Muslim ban, you are not upholding this country’s most basic principles of freedom and equality.”
What’s the context?
The administration says that the countries on the ban “remain deficient at this time with respect to their identity-management and information-sharing capabilities, protocols, and practices. In some cases, these countries also have a significant terrorist presence within their territory”.
Mr Trump’s ban has seen several iterations. Iraq and Chad were banned in previous versions, but have since been removed.
Iraq was removed for having “a close co-operative relationship with the US” and Chad for having “sufficiently improved its practices”.
The state of Hawaii had challenged the ban and a federal judge blocked its implementation.
For months, the question has been whether Mr Trump’s campaign promise for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” was a motive for the ban.
The administration said that the ban was the result of carefully considering national security interests.