Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

La fine dei liberal socialisti. Sono battuti strategicamente.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-07-09.

Supreme Court

Tra il quattro ed il sei giugno millenovecentoquarantadue si combatté la battaglia di Midway, un isolotto sperduto nel bel mezzo dell’Oceano Pacifico. Gli americani affondarono quattro grandi portaerei di squadra nemiche e segnarono in tal modo un punto di svolta nella guerra del Pacifico con l’arresto dell’avanzata nipponica. Con le portaerei di assalto il Giappone perse 248 aeroplani della marina e relativi piloti. Da quel momento l’iniziativa strategica passò agli americani: ci vollero altri tre anni di guerra e milioni di morti, ma era evidente che a Midway il Giappone aveva perso non una battaglia bensì la guerra.

Nulla da stupirsi se all’epoca solo l’ammiraglio Nimitz ed il generale MacArthur avessero capito la portata storica di quell’evento.

* * * * * * *

Il sette novembre 2016 l’elezione di Mr Trump alla Presidenza degli Stati Uniti ha segnato non solo la sconfitta dei liberal democratici americani in una usuale tornata elettorale: ne ha segnato la sconfitta strategica che alla fine porterà al loro annientamento totale. Come dopo Midway, serviranno molti anni, ma il destino dei liberal democratici è stato determinato in modo irreversibile.

Ma con la fine di questa componente di pensiero e politica viene a crollare tutta quella che era stata la sinistra europea.

Il fenomeno era nell’aria da tempo, preannunciato con n secolo di anticipo da Spengler ne Il Tramonto dell’Occidente.

Tramonto non dell’Occidente ma della dottrina illuminista.

Unione Europea si disgrega per devoluzione dell’ideologia liberal. – Spiegel.

Devoluzione del socialismo ideologico. – Eu Observer.

Devoluzione dell’idealismo liberal e socialista. Cahiers de doléances.

Unione Europea. Non stiamo arrivando. Siamo arrivati.

*

Ma per comprendere appieno la portata di quanto stia accadendo, sarebbe necessario valutare un altro elemento, caratteristico degli Stati Uniti, ma di portata mondiale.

Trump. Supreme Court. Il chiodo nella carne dei democratici.

Trump ed il nodo della Supreme Court.

Trump. Neil Gorsuch nominato alla Suprema Corte. Sviluppi futuri.

Sua Giustizia Antony Kennedy si ritira. Altra vittoria di Trump.

*

La Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti funge, come in molti altri stati occidentali, da supremo ed inappellabile censore sulla costituzionalità delle leggi e dei provvedimenti emanati dal Governo Federale.

I problemi hanno iniziato ad emergere da qualche decina di anni, da quando i liberal democratici sono riusciti a far nominare Giudici persone loro fedeli. La Suprema Corte era transitata da organo giuridico ad organo politico non elettivo, fedele esecutore degli ordini di partito.

Per poter conseguire i loro risultati politici, le loro Giustizie Federali avevano anche congegnato una sottile teorica in accordo alla quale le leggi non si applicano, bensì si interpretano: se ogni interpretazione è soggettiva, quella delle Corte Suprema diventa ipso facto sentenza non appellabile, e quindi ineludibile.

Operando in tal fatta, la Suprema Corte per molto tempo ha operato come vero e proprio sommo centro decisionale politico, indipendentemente da maggioranze parlamentari e dal Presidente degli Stati Uniti, instaurando de facto una vera e propria tirannide. Adesso essa sta passando di mano, dai liberal ai repubblicani, sta ritornando alla normalità legale.

*

Non a caso Sua Giustizia Kennedy era designato essere

“most powerful man in America”

*

Bene. Con la nomina del successore di Sua Giustizia Kennedy Mr Trump piazzerà un repubblicano cattolico di solide convinzioni alla Corte Suprema e, se le previsioni di confermassero, sceglierà per questa carica a vita un uomo quarantenne. Come risultato finale la Suprema Corte resterà saldamente in mano repubblicana per molte decine di anni.

«Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced on Wednesday that he would retire, setting the stage for a furious fight over the future direction of the Supreme Court»

*

«Justice Kennedy, 81, has long been the decisive vote in many closely divided cases. His retirement gives President Trump the opportunity to fundamentally change the course of the Supreme Court»

*

«A Trump appointee would very likely create a solid five-member conservative majority that could imperil abortion rights and expand gun rights»

*

«He [Kennedy] also voted with the court’s conservatives in cases on the Second Amendment and voting rights.»

*

«The replacement of Justice Kennedy with a reliable conservative would be far more consequential and would move the court markedly to the right »

* * * * * * * * * * *

«The “most powerful man in America” has announced his retirement at the age of 81. Kennedy is considered the “swing vote” among the justices and his depature will allow Trump to nominate a more conservative judge»

*

«Kennedy has long been considered the swing vote on the court between the liberal and conservative justices»

*

«His retirement will allow President Donald Trump to make a second nomination to the bench, likely giving the court a conservative bent for years to come»

*

«He often sided with the liberal justices on social issues, such as the legalization of gay marriage in 2017 and a decision in 1992 that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade.»

* * * * * * * * * * *

«Almost immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Senate Democrats argued that his replacement should not be confirmed until after the midterm elections»

*

«This is surely a valid argument, not least because Mr. McConnell’s blatantly anti-democratic ploy stole a judicial appointment from a popularly elected president and gave it to one who lost the popular vote by millions»

*

«People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases. By this logic, President Trump should not be permitted to appoint a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel investigation is over»

*

«True, that point is unlikely to stop Mr. McConnell or his colleagues»

*

«But not enough attention has been placed on the crucial question of whether the Supreme Court in the Trump era will provide an effective bulwark against autocratic lawless rule»

*

«Can the president be compelled to testify before a grand jury? Can a sitting president be criminally indicted?»

*

«It is no exaggeration to say that never before has the selection of a Supreme Court nominee been so thoroughly compromised by the president’s profound personal interest in appointing a judge he can count on to protect him.»

*

«Mr. Trump’s possible crimes are inextricable from his desire for unilateral control of the federal government»

*

«Otherwise, there will be a stain on the legitimacy of this nomination, on the performance of whomever is confirmed and, even, on the Supreme Court itself»

* * *

La reazione dei liberal democratica è scomposta come quella dei cinghiali feriti.

Tutto il ragionamento, si fa per dire, è basato su di un assunto che l’articolista del NYT riporta alquanto ingenuamente.

«Mr. Trump’s possible crimes».

Per i democratici Mr Trump avrebbe perpetrato dei crimini. Nulla da eccepire: ogni cittadini può, e spesso dovrebbe anche, sporgere delle denuncie. Ma nei paesi civili i fatti denunciati sono considerati essere ‘crimini’ solo dopo che un Tribunale legalmente costituito emette sentenza, dopo l’usuale dibattito giudiziale. Non solo, come per la costituzione italiana, anche quella americana prevede che un cittadino incriminato sia da ritenersi essere innocente fino a sentenza cassata.

Notiamo come dopo oltre due anni e mezzo di assordanti tentativi, Mr Trump non abbia nemmeno una notifica giudiziaria. Ma se i liberal democratici non lo denunciano alla magistratura sarà invero molto difficile che Mr Trump sia condannato.

Le denuncie si fanno alla magistratura competente, non dalle testate dei giornali: queste ultime sono solo calunnie.

Nota.

Nessuno sa o può predire il futuro. Ma se Mr Trump riuscisse a sostituire Sua Giustizia Kennedy con un Giudice cattolico e repubblicano per quaranta anni la Suprema Corte sarebbe preclusa alle istanze dei liberal democratici. Se così fosse, i repubblicani dovrebbero fare un monumento a cavallo a Mrs Hillary Clinton, la candidata presidenziale più arrogante e sprovvida della storia.


The New York Times. 2018-06-30. A Better Reason to Delay Kennedy’s Replacement

Almost immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on Wednesday, Senate Democrats argued that his replacement should not be confirmed until after the midterm elections this fall — a version of the same argument that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, used to stymie President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.

This is surely a valid argument, not least because Mr. McConnell’s blatantly anti-democratic ploy stole a judicial appointment from a popularly elected president and gave it to one who lost the popular vote by millions.

But there is another reason to withhold confirmation that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on: People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases. By this logic, President Trump should not be permitted to appoint a new Supreme Court justice until after the special counsel investigation is over, and we know for sure whether there is evidence of wrongdoing.

True, that point is unlikely to stop Mr. McConnell or his colleagues. But it highlights the real risk involved in letting a deeply compromised president shape a court that may one day stand between him and impeachment.

Much of the conversation since Justice Kennedy announced his retirement has been focused on whether a more conservative replacement might lead to the overthrow of landmark decisions on abortion rights, gay marriage and other issues. These are undoubtedly important concerns. But not enough attention has been placed on the crucial question of whether the Supreme Court in the Trump era will provide an effective bulwark against autocratic lawless rule.

Indeed, legal experts are already debating several knotty constitutional questions that involve the president and may one day soon have to be decided by the court. Can the president pardon himself or others specifically to extricate himself from criminal investigation? Can the president be compelled to testify before a grand jury? Can a sitting president be criminally indicted?

Did the appointment of the special counsel somehow violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, as some conservatives implausibly insist? Can a president ever obstruct justice? What is the proper legal remedy for Mr. Trump’s repeated violations of the Emoluments Clause? It is no exaggeration to say that never before has the selection of a Supreme Court nominee been so thoroughly compromised by the president’s profound personal interest in appointing a judge he can count on to protect him.

While we cannot know how Justice Kennedy would have ruled on these questions, we do know that at least at times he was willing to stand up to assertions of power by the executive branch, most notably in Boumediene v. Bush, when he wrote a 5-4 decision defying the president and extending the constitutional right of habeas corpus to wartime detainees at Guantánamo Bay.

Mr. Trump’s possible crimes are inextricable from his desire for unilateral control of the federal government. It is no secret that the power of the executive branch has grown over the past several decades, under both Republican and Democratic presidents. Our executive now has surveillance capacities never before seen, vast power to conduct drone strikes and conduct lethal military operations abroad, broad authority to set immigration and law enforcement priorities and the ability to regulate enormous areas of economic and personal life.

Add to this sweeping institutional power a president who refuses to acknowledge any checks on his power as legitimate, whether those checks come from the courts, the legislature, the media, the government bureaucracy or his political opponents. This is the perfect recipe for autocracy. In such a world, the importance of checks and balances has never been greater.

This would be dangerous regardless of Mr. Trump’s legal shortcomings. But this president has, by his own admission, already taken steps to thwart an investigation into his own potential criminality. Both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate should therefore resist calls for a quick confirmation process.

Otherwise, there will be a stain on the legitimacy of this nomination, on the performance of whomever is confirmed and, even, on the Supreme Court itself. The fact that the president has every motive to ensure that happens — to promote his political agenda and to protect him personally — makes the present moment all the more frightening.


Deutsche Welle. 2018-06-27. US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy retiring, giving Trump a second pick

The “most powerful man in America” has announced his retirement at the age of 81. Kennedy is considered the “swing vote” among the justices and his depature will allow Trump to nominate a more conservative judge.

*

US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has announced he is retiring at the age of 81. Although not the oldest, he is the most senior member of the court, having been nominated by former President Ronald Reagan.

“It has been the greatest honor and privilege to serve our nation in the federal judiciary for 43 years, 30 of those years on the Supreme Court,” Kennedy said in a statement. He added that his decision was motivated by the desire to spend more time with his family.

‘The most powerful man in America’

Kennedy has long been considered the swing vote on the court between the liberal and conservative justices. His retirement will allow President Donald Trump to make a second nomination to the bench, likely giving the court a conservative bent for years to come. Conservative activists have already announced their intention to use a more conservative court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

In response to the news, the president praised Justice Kennedy’s vision and heart.

Speaking in the Oval Office during a meeting with Portuguese President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, Trump said that when considering the next nomination he would draw from a list of 25 candidates that his campaign collected during his presidential run.

Kennedy’s career on the Supreme Court earned him the nickname “the most powerful man in America,” because he was often the deciding vote between the conservative and liberal wings of the nine-member court. He often sided with the liberal justices on social issues, such as the legalization of gay marriage in 2017 and a decision in 1992 that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade.


The New York Times. 2018-06-27. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire

WASHINGTON — Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced on Wednesday that he would retire, setting the stage for a furious fight over the future direction of the Supreme Court.

Justice Kennedy, 81, has long been the decisive vote in many closely divided cases. His retirement gives President Trump the opportunity to fundamentally change the course of the Supreme Court.

A Trump appointee would very likely create a solid five-member conservative majority that could imperil abortion rights and expand gun rights.

Justice Kennedy’s voting record was moderately conservative. He wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United, which allowed unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions, and he joined the majority in Bush v. Gore, which handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. He also voted with the court’s conservatives in cases on the Second Amendment and voting rights.

But Justice Kennedy was the court’s leading champion of gay rights, and he joined the court’s liberals in cases on abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty.

In April 2017, Mr. Trump formally appointed Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016, replacing one conservative justice with another and maintaining the basic balance of power on the court.

The replacement of Justice Kennedy with a reliable conservative would be far more consequential and would move the court markedly to the right.

The bitter 14-month battle over Justice Scalia’s seat, during which Republican senators refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland, will most likely pale in comparison to the coming fight over Justice Kennedy’s seat.

Annunci