Pubblicato in: Senza categoria

Trump vs Liberal. Ultima battaglia per la vita o la morte nel generale silenzio.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-10.

Reni Guido. San Michele Arcangelo schiaccia satana. 1636

La settimana che precedette la battaglia di Midway fu caratterizzata da un assurdo silenzio radio su ambo i fronti. Una calma surreale, irreale, irrazionale che preludeva ad un qualcosa di epocale.

Poi, dal 4 al 6 giugno 1942 si scatenò l’inferno ed in una forma prima impensata ed impensabile: a Midaway gli americani affondarono quattro portaerei di assalto giapponesi, che persero sia gli equipaggi sia 248 piloti esperti ed ottimamente addestrati. Gli Stati Uniti avevano vinto la guerra con il Giappone: ci vollero poi altri tre anni per ottenere la vittoria finale, ma Midway segnò il punto di svolta, l’inversione degli equilibri.

Dal 23 aprile negli Stati Uniti si sta combattendo la battaglia finale per il dominio dell’Unione. Il vincitore avrà modo di annientare nel tempo il perdente, e nessuna delle parti e disposta a fare prigionieri: sarà la mattanza. I liberal democratici sanno più che bene che saranno trattati per come hanno trattato.

Luogo di scontro è la Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti ed attori sono le Loro Giustizie togate. Le sentenze che saranno emesse cambieranno il volto degli Stati Uniti di America.

* * *

Riassumiamo.

Dal giorno della elezione di Mr Trump alla Presidenza degli Stati Uniti i liberal democratici avevano scatenato una campagna mediatica di portata mai vista, a partire dalle continue dimostrazioni studentesche del ‘not my president’. Simultaneamente, prese corpo una lunga serie di azioni giudiziarie nelle corti distrettuali e federali a controllo democratico volta a bloccare le ordinanze dell’Amministrazione Trump.

Il punto di svolta fu costituito quando Mr Trump riuscì a fare nominare le Loro Giustizia Mr Neil Gorsuch e Mr Brett Kavanaugh quali giudici della Supreme Court. La Supreme Court passò da un controllo di Giustizie nominate dai liberal democratici al controllo di Giustizie nominate dai repubblicani.

Ma alla fine tutte le sentenze, ancorché drastiche, emesse da tribunali inferiori approdano alla Supreme Court, che ha la parola definitiva. Chi controlla la Supreme Court controlla gli Stati Uniti d’America.

* * * * * * *

Il 23 aprile.

Due eventi epocali.

Primo Evento.

In tale data la Supreme Court iniziò l’esame del caso del Census.

«Conservative justices signaled during arguments in the closely watched case a willingness to overturn a lower court ruling that blocked the question and appeared untroubled by the administration’s stated justification for using the citizenship question in the decennial population count»

*

«Conservative justices indicated a citizenship question would be eminently reasonable, noting that other countries use such questions and that the United States has done so in the past in one form or another.»

*

Permettere al Census di porre la domanda sulla cittadinanza avrebbe fornito alla Amministrazione per la prima volta nella storia secolare degli Stati Uniti di identificare quante delle persone presenti negli States fossero anche cittadini americani. Va di conserva che la partecipazione al voto dovrebbe essere appannaggio dei soli cittadini. Ma questo è solo l’inizio. I dati del Census servono a calcolare i posti al Congresso che spettano agli stati della federazione, nonché la ripartizione dei fondi federali.

«Opponents have said the question would cause a sizeable undercount by frightening immigrant households and Latinos from filling out the census forms, fearful that the information would be shared with law enforcement. This would cost Democratic-leaning areas electoral representation in Congress and federal aid, benefiting Trump’s fellow Republicans and Republican-leaning parts of the country …. »

*

«The Census Bureau estimated that households corresponding to 6.5 million people would not respond to the census if the citizenship question is asked»

*

«The census is used to allot seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and distribute some $800 billion in federal funds.

Lower courts ruled that the administration violated federal law and the U.S. Constitution in seeking to include the question on the census form. A ruling by the Supreme Court is due by the end of June»

*

Una sentenza a favore dell’Amministrazione Trump costerebbe ai liberal democratici la perdita stimata di circa diciotto milioni di voti, il drastico ridimensionamento dei Congressisti eleggibili nei popolosi stati oggi a controllo democratico, nonché la perdita secca, almeno per il momento, di quasi 800 miliardi di dollari di trasferimenti federali a quegli stati. I liberal democratici ne uscirebbero annientati.

Questa è la posta in gioco immediata: sul medio – lungo termine il partito democratico sarebbe destinato a scomparire quale attore politico. Con tutte le conseguenze del caso.

Secondo evento.

Sempre il 23 aprile lo U.S. federal prosecutors hanno incriminato un giudice di una corte distrettuale che aveva cercato di bloccare le direttive dell’Amministrazione. Le accuse sono pesanti: ‘conspiracy and obstruction’. Quel giudice rischia adesso venticinque anni di carcere.

Massachusetts judge faces federal charges for blocking immigration arrest

«U.S. federal prosecutors on Thursday charged a Massachusetts judge and court officer with conspiracy and obstruction, saying they blocked an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer from arresting an illegal immigrant at a 2018 court proceeding. The move marks the latest skirmish over immigration between President Donald Trump’s administration and local governments who have resisted his crackdown. The state’s Democratic attorney general called the charges “politically motivated.”

The charges target Massachusetts District Court Judge Shelley Joseph, 51, and Massachusetts Trial Court Officer Wesley MacGregor, 56.

They focus on an April 2018 hearing in Newton District Court, outside Boston, where an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer intended to arrest an unidentified suspected illegal immigrant from the Dominican Republic facing a drug charge. ….»

*

«The indictment of the judge, Shelley M. Richmond Joseph, 51, and the officer, Wesley MacGregor, 56, was a dramatic turn in the long-running clash between the Trump administration and state governments that have resisted its hard-line approach to immigration»

*

«If convicted, the judge could face up to 25 years in prison and Mr. MacGregor could face up to 30 years»

*

La Procura Federale incrimina un giudice liberal per ‘conspiracy and obstruction’.

*

L’incriminazione di un giudice distrettuale è un altro punto di svolta storico.

I giudici liberal democratici ora sanno che dovranno rispondere delle proprie azioni nei Tribunali, e dovrebbero anche essere consci che qualora un tribunale inferiore i prosciogliesse, la procura federaòe proporrebbe ricorso alla Supreme Court, che li condannerebbe alla fine a farsi un buon quarto di secolo in galera.

Nello stagno delle rane è sceso un serpente affamato: la festa goliardica è finita.

* * * * * * *

Le Conseguenze.

A partire dal 23 aprile i media liberal democratici si sono imposti un silenzio assoluto, e quando parlassero di argomenti similari, usano un linguaggio diplomatico e forbito. Gli attacchi all’Amministrazione sono cessati.

Il mondo e gli Stati Uniti sono ammutoliti in attesa degli eventi.

Un esempio paramount lo da la Cnn, implacabile accusatrice senza prove del Presidente Trump.

Da anni gestiva una rubrica intitolata

«The latest on the Supreme Court»

Vi pubblicava mediamente tre ponderosi articoli ogni giorno. Eccone alcuni pregevoli esempi.

Sotomayor takes liberal lead in challenging admin on census

Supreme Court will take up LGBT employee discrimination cases next term

Supreme Court denies request to block Planned Parenthood lawsuit over video

Supreme Court rules against death row inmate with rare disease

Anticipation builds as Supreme Court sits on major abortion access case

Supreme Court conservatives question challenges of partisan gerrymandering

Supreme Court will take up immigration-related case next term

Supreme Court ruling means more information on mystery Mueller grand jury case may become public

Killer Mike, Chance the Rapper, Meek Mill to Supreme Court: Pittsburgh rapper’s lyrics are not ‘a true threat of violence’

Supreme Court justices still skeptical of TV cameras

LGBT workers should be protected from discrimination. Let’s hope the Supreme Court agrees

Orbene. L’ultimo articolo pubblicato è del 22 aprile.

Poi, più nulla.

*

Infatti, da un punto di vista giurisprudenziale, se la procura federale può incriminare un giudice distrettuale, a maggior ragione potrebbe farlo con un giornalista, e, nel caso, questi correrebbe il rischio di passare trenta anni in una cella.

* * * * * * *

Ma le conseguenze strabordano dagli Stati Uniti a tutto il mondo: la devoluzione dei liberal democratici trascina anche i liberal socialisti europei.

Elezioni Europee. I liberal hanno pubblicato il loro testamento politico.

*

I tempi sono mutati.

Certamente al momento attuale i liberal democratici, così come i liberal socialisti in Europa, hanno ancora molto potere e l’opinione pubblica non ha ancora ricevuto quel forte scossone che faccia comprendere i fatti.

Ma lo storia ha oramai preso il cammino della devoluzione dell’ideologia liberal.


Reuters. 2019-04-23. Supreme Court poised to give Trump victory on census citizenship question

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Tuesday appeared poised to hand President Donald Trump a victory on his administration’s plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, a move opponents call a Republican effort to deter immigrants from taking part.

Conservative justices signaled during arguments in the closely watched case a willingness to overturn a lower court ruling that blocked the question and appeared untroubled by the administration’s stated justification for using the citizenship question in the decennial population count. Their liberal counterparts expressed hostility toward allowing the question.

The court has a 5-4 conservative majority and has backed Trump in other high-profile cases. Conservative justices indicated a citizenship question would be eminently reasonable, noting that other countries use such questions and that the United States has done so in the past in one form or another.

Among the conservative justices indicating support for the administration’s stance were Trump’s two appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, and Chief Justice John Roberts, considered the court’s pivotal vote.

Opponents have said the question would cause a sizeable undercount by frightening immigrant households and Latinos from filling out the census forms, fearful that the information would be shared with law enforcement. This would cost Democratic-leaning areas electoral representation in Congress and federal aid, benefiting Trump’s fellow Republicans and Republican-leaning parts of the country, they said.

The census is used to allot seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and distribute some $800 billion in federal funds.

Lower courts ruled that the administration violated federal law and the U.S. Constitution in seeking to include the question on the census form. A ruling by the Supreme Court is due by the end of June.

During about 80 minutes of arguments, Roberts and other conservative justices appeared to accept the administration’s argument that the question would yield better data to enforce the Voting Rights Act, which protects eligible voters from discrimination.

Roberts told New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, whose state sued to block the question, that citizenship data is critical for enforcing the Voting Rights Act and said it was “quite common” for the census to capture demographic details.

Kavanaugh said it is a “very common question” internationally, and that federal law gives Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, whose department includes the Census Bureau, “huge discretion” in how the survey is conducted.

The Supreme Court already has handed Trump some major victories, including upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries in June 2018. The court in January let Trump’s policy barring many transgender people from the U.S. military to go into effect.

The census case comes in a pair of lawsuits by a group of states and localities led by New York state, and a coalition of immigrant rights groups challenging the legality of the question. The census forms are due to be printed in the coming months.

‘A CONTRIVED ONE’

Liberal justices noted evidence presented by the Census Bureau’s own experts that showed the citizenship question would lead to a population undercount, and, contrary to the administration’s stated goal, less accurate citizenship data.

They also voiced skepticism about the administration’s Voting Rights Act justification.

“You can’t read the record without sensing that this need is a contrived one,” liberal Justice Elena Kagan said.

“This is a solution in search of a problem,” added liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s only Hispanic justice.

Sotomayor, who tangled with Trump administration’s lawyer Noel Francisco during the argument, said there was “no doubt” the question would drive down the census response rate.

But Gorsuch and fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito challenged evidence that inquiring about citizenship could lower response rates. Gorsuch noted that “it’s not like this question is improper to ask.”

Francisco argued that Ross acted properly within his discretion in deciding to add the question, adding, “It really does boil down to whether the secretary’s judgment here is a reasonable one.”

Citizenship has not been asked of all households since the 1950 census. It has featured since then on questionnaires sent to a smaller subset of the population. While only U.S. citizens can vote, non-citizens comprise an estimated 7 percent of the population.

Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman on Jan. 15 ruled that the Commerce Department’s decision to add the question violated a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. Federal judges in Maryland and California also prohibited the question’s inclusion in subsequent rulings, saying it would violate the Constitution’s mandate to enumerate the population every 10 years.

The Census Bureau estimated that households corresponding to 6.5 million people would not respond to the census if the citizenship question is asked.

Immigrant advocacy groups rallied outside the court after the argument, with demonstrators carrying signs reading “no census without us” and “fair and accurate count for all.” 

U.S. Representative Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat who represents part of New York City, said, “I hope the justices feel strongly that the Constitution should be upheld, that the science should be upheld, and that the experts should be listened to.”

Annunci

2 pensieri riguardo “Trump vs Liberal. Ultima battaglia per la vita o la morte nel generale silenzio.

I commenti sono chiusi.