Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Persona Umana, Stati Uniti

Florida e Mississippi. Prosegue la battaglia legale sull’aborto. Tanto alla fine c’è la Suprema Corte.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-07-30.

Sipreme Court Stemma 001

Ricordiamo come l’aborto sia tema politico tra i liberal democratici che lo sostengono ed i repubblicani che lo avversano.

Eppure, solo il 5% della popolazione ha a cuore codesto problema, ben più preoccupati di una inflazione a due cifre e degli interventi della Fed, prossima a rialzare nuovamente i tassi di interesse. Tanto, midterm si avvicina.

* * * * * * *

Il divieto di abortire oltre le 15 settimane di gravidanza in Florida è ora in vigore dopo che un’ordinanza del tribunale che ne bloccava l’applicazione è stata sospesa martedì, e un giudice del Mississippi ha rifiutato di impedire l’attuazione di un divieto quasi totale nel corso della settimana. I due sviluppi hanno segnato le ultime battute d’arresto per i sostenitori dei diritti all’aborto dopo che la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti, quasi due settimane fa, ha rovesciato la sentenza Roe contro Wade del 1973.

In Florida, poco dopo che il giudice John Cooper ha finalizzato l’atteso ordine di bloccare l’applicazione del divieto di 15 settimane, entrato in vigore venerdì, lo Stato a guida repubblicana ha prontamente presentato ricorso, facendo scattare il congelamento automatico dell’ingiunzione. Ore dopo, il giudice Debbra Halford di Jackson, Mississippi, ha negato la richiesta dell’unica clinica abortista dello Stato di impedire ai funzionari di applicare il divieto quasi totale di aborto che entrerà in vigore giovedì.

Il Mississippi è uno dei 13 Stati che hanno leggi grilletto progettate per vietare o limitare gli aborti una volta che la Corte Suprema avrà rovesciato la sentenza Roe v. Wade, come ha fatto il 24 giugno in un caso che ha confermato un’altra legge del Mississippi che vieta gli aborti dopo 15 settimane di gravidanza.

La decisione della Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti, a maggioranza conservatrice, ha dato agli Stati il permesso di vietare l’aborto e quasi due dozzine di Stati a guida repubblicana stanno cercando di farlo, o lo hanno già fatto.

La decisione ha scatenato un’ondata di cause legali da parte di cliniche in vari Stati, volte a preservare la capacità delle donne di ottenere l’aborto sulla base delle protezioni delle costituzioni statali piuttosto che di quelle federali, nonché proteste a livello nazionale.

Mentre i giudici di Kentucky, Louisiana e Utah hanno temporaneamente bloccato l’entrata in vigore dei divieti, l’alta corte statale del Texas venerdì ha permesso l’applicazione civile di un divieto precedente alla legge Roe e la corte suprema dell’Ohio ha rifiutato di bloccare un divieto di sei settimane.

* * * * * * *

«Florida’s ban on abortions past 15 weeks of pregnancy is now in effect after a court order blocking its enforcement was put on hold on Tuesday, and a Mississippi judge declined to prevent a near-total ban from being implemented later this week»

«The dual developments marked the latest legal setbacks for abortion rights supporters after the U.S. Supreme Court nearly two weeks ago overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade»

«In Florida, soon after Circuit Court Judge John Cooper finalized an expected order blocking enforcement of a 15-week ban that took effect on Friday, the Republican-led state promptly appealed, triggering an automatic freeze of his injunction»

«Hours later, Judge Debbra Halford in Jackson, Mississippi denied a request by the state’s only abortion clinic to prevent officials from carrying out a near-total ban on abortion that is set to take effect on Thursday»

«Mississippi is one of 13 states with “trigger” laws designed to ban or restrict abortions once the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, as it did June 24 in a case upholding a different Mississippi law barring abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy»

«The conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court’s decision gave states permission to ban abortion and nearly two dozen Republican-led states are now trying to do so, or have done so already»

«The decision has ignited a wave of litigation by clinics in various states aimed at preserving the ability of women to obtain abortions based on protections in state rather than federal constitutions, as well as nationwide protests»

«While judges in Kentucky, Louisiana and Utah have temporarily blocked bans from taking effect, the state high court in Texas on Friday allowed a pre-Roe ban to be civilly enforced and Ohio’s top court declined to block a six-week ban»

* * * * * * *


Abortion bans in Florida, Mississippi allowed to take effect

July 5 (Reuters) – Florida’s ban on abortions past 15 weeks of pregnancy is now in effect after a court order blocking its enforcement was put on hold on Tuesday, and a Mississippi judge declined to prevent a near-total ban from being implemented later this week.

The dual developments marked the latest legal setbacks for abortion rights supporters after the U.S. Supreme Court nearly two weeks ago overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that guaranteed women nationally the right to terminate pregnancies.

In Florida, soon after Circuit Court Judge John Cooper finalized an expected order blocking enforcement of a 15-week ban that took effect on Friday, the Republican-led state promptly appealed, triggering an automatic freeze of his injunction.

Hours later, Judge Debbra Halford in Jackson, Mississippi denied a request by the state’s only abortion clinic to prevent officials from carrying out a near-total ban on abortion that is set to take effect on Thursday.

The clinic, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in challenging the law and a separate six-week ban, cited a 1998 ruling by the Mississippi Supreme Court holding that the right to privacy under the state’s constitution included a right to abortion.

But Halford said it was “more than doubtful” the state’s high court would continue to uphold that decision as it rested on the U.S. Supreme Court’s own past rulings including Roe v. Wade.

Rob McDuff, a lawyer for the Mississippi clinic, called the ruling disappointing and said they were considering their options.

Mississippi is one of 13 states with “trigger” laws designed to ban or restrict abortions once the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, as it did June 24 in a case upholding a different Mississippi law barring abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Appeals in both cases are expected, with lawyers for the abortion providers in Florida at the ACLU and Center for Reproductive Rights already vowing to seek reinstatement of the injunction and to get the 15-week ban “blocked for good.”

Florida has long been a destination for women across the Southeast seeking to end pregnancies in their second trimester as neighboring states have strict abortion limits. Previously, Florida permitted abortion up to 24 weeks.

The conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court’s decision gave states permission to ban abortion and nearly two dozen Republican-led states are now trying to do so, or have done so already.

The decision has ignited a wave of litigation by clinics in various states aimed at preserving the ability of women to obtain abortions based on protections in state rather than federal constitutions, as well as nationwide protests.

While judges in Kentucky, Louisiana and Utah have temporarily blocked bans from taking effect, the state high court in Texas on Friday allowed a pre-Roe ban to be civilly enforced and Ohio’s top court declined to block a six-week ban.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Sua Giustizia Thomas afferma che si dovrà riconsiderare lgbt e matrimoni omosessuali.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-07-01.

Bosch-particolare-Ascesa-allEmpireo-Venezia

I media liberal americani proseguono imperterriti s scrivere:

«Roe v. Wade, which established abortion as a constitutional right»

Del tutto incuranti della sentenza della Corte Suprema.

Usa. Corte Suprema. Il diritto all’aborto non esiste perché la Costituzione non lo menziona.- Bbc.

Sono dei menzogneri patentati.

Certificano ed attestano come sia vero il perfetto contrario di quanto dicono.

* * * * * * *


Il giudice della Corte Suprema Clarence Thomas ha detto venerdì che le sentenze storiche dell’Alta Corte che hanno stabilito i diritti degli omosessuali e i diritti alla contraccezione dovrebbero essere riconsiderate ora che il diritto federale all’aborto è stato revocato.

Thomas ha scritto che quelle sentenze erano decisioni palesemente errate.

La raccomandazione di Thomas di riconsiderare quel trio di decisioni non ha la forza di un precedente legale, né obbliga i suoi colleghi della Corte Suprema a intraprendere le azioni da lui suggerite.

Ma è un invito implicito ai legislatori conservatori dei singoli Stati ad approvare leggi che potrebbero essere in contrasto con le decisioni passate della Corte Suprema, con l’obiettivo di far sì che la Corte possa ribaltare tali sentenze.

La Corte spiega bene perché, in base ai nostri precedenti sul giusto processo sostanziale, il presunto diritto all’aborto non è una forma di ‘libertà’ protetta dalla clausola del giusto processo del Quattordicesimo Emendamento della Costituzione degli Stati Uniti.

In un furioso dissenso alla sentenza di venerdì, i tre giudici liberali della Corte Suprema hanno indicato l’opinione concorrente di Thomas come uno dei numerosi pericoli per i diritti individuali che derivano dalla decisione.

Quindi almeno un giudice ha intenzione di usare il contenuto della decisione di oggi ancora e ancora e ancora.

* * * * * * *


«Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday said landmark high court rulings that established gay rights and contraception rights should be reconsidered now that the federal right to abortion has been revoked»

«Thomas wrote that those rulings “were demonstrably erroneous decisions.”»

«Thomas’ recommendation to reconsider that trio of decisions does not have the force of legal precedent, nor does it compel his colleagues on the Supreme Court to take the action he suggested»

«But it is an implicit invitation to conservative lawmakers in individual states to pass legislation that might run afoul of the Supreme Court’s past decisions, with an eye toward having that court potentially reverse those rulings»

«The Court well explains why, under our substantive due process precedents, the purported right to abortion is not a form of ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment»

«In a furious dissent to Friday’s ruling, the Supreme Court’s three liberal justices pointed to Thomas’ concurring opinion as one of several dangers to individuals’ rights that flowed from the decision»

«So at least one Justice is planning to use the ticket of today’s decision again and again and again»

* * * * * * *



Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says gay rights, contraception rulings should be reconsidered after Roe is overturned

– Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said landmark high court rulings that established gay rights and contraception rights should be reconsidered now that the federal right to abortion has been revoked.

– Thomas wrote that those rulings “were demonstrably erroneous decisions.”

– The cases he cited are Griswold vs. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawerence v. Texas, which established the right to engage in private sexual acts; and Obergefell v. Hodges, which said there is a right to same-sex marriage.

– The Supreme Court tossed out Roe v. Wade, which established abortion as a constitutional right.

* * * * * * *


Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday said landmark high court rulings that established gay rights and contraception rights should be reconsidered now that the federal right to abortion has been revoked.

Thomas wrote that those rulings “were demonstrably erroneous decisions.”

The cases he mentioned are Griswold vs. Connecticut, the 1965 ruling in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawrence v. Texas, which in 2003 established the right to engage in private sexual acts; and the 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which said there is a right to same-sex marriage.

Thomas’ recommendation to reconsider that trio of decisions does not have the force of legal precedent, nor does it compel his colleagues on the Supreme Court to take the action he suggested.

But it is an implicit invitation to conservative lawmakers in individual states to pass legislation that might run afoul of the Supreme Court’s past decisions, with an eye toward having that court potentially reverse those rulings.

That is the tack conservative lawmakers took in multiple states, where for years they passed restrictive abortion laws in the hopes that a challenge to them would reach the Supreme Court and open the door for federal abortion rights to be overturned as a result.

That scenario played out on Friday when the Supreme Court, in upholding a Mississippi abortion law that imposed much stricter restrictions on the procedure than those allowed by its 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, overturned Roe altogether. Also overturned was another case dating to the1990s that made clear there was a constitutional right to abortion.

Thomas, in the concurring opinion that he wrote siding with other conservative justices in voting to overturn Roe, cited the rationale for tossing out that decision as he called for other old cases unrelated to abortion to be reconsidered.

“The Court well explains why, under our substantive due process precedents, the purported right to abortion is not a form of ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause,” of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, he wrote.

That clause guarantees that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

Thomas argued that the right to abortion under that clause “is neither ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ nor ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’ ”

Thomas noted that the three cases he now says should be reconsidered by the court “are not at issue” in Friday’s ruling overturning Roe.

But, he wrote, they all are based on interpretations of the Due Process Clause.

Specifically, he said, they are based on the idea of “substantive due process,” which in a prior case he called “an oxymoron that ‘lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.’ ”

Thomas said the idea that the constitutional clause that guarantees only “process” for depriving a person of life, liberty or property cannot be used “to define the substance of those rights.”

While Thomas said that he agreed that nothing in the Roe-related ruling Friday “should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion … in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’ … we have a duty to
’correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas added.

In a furious dissent to Friday’s ruling, the Supreme Court’s three liberal justices pointed to Thomas’ concurring opinion as one of several dangers to individuals’ rights that flowed from the decision.

“We cannot understand how anyone can be confident that today’s opinion will be the last of its kind,” wrote the liberals, justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor,

“The first problem with the majority’s account comes from Justice Thomas’s concurrence — which makes clear he is not with the program,” the dissent said.

“In saying that nothing in today’s opinion casts doubt on non-abortion precedents, Justice Thomas explains, he means only that they are not at issue in this very case,” the liberals continued.

“But he lets us know what he wants to do when they are. ’[I]n future cases,” he says, ‘we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.’ ” the dissent noted.

“And when we reconsider them? Then ‘we have a duty’ to “overrul[e] these demonstrably erroneous decisions.′ ”

“So at least one Justice is planning to use the ticket of today’s decision again and again and again,” the dissent said.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Usa. Corte Suprema. Il diritto all’aborto non esiste perché la Costituzione non lo menziona.- Bbc.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-06-25.

2022-06-25__ Aborto Sentenza 001

Qui si trova il testo della sentenza: Supreme Court

«We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion … and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives»

Il così detto ‘diritto costituzionale all’aborto’ non esiste perché la Costituzione non lo menziona.

Ogni stato potrà e dovrà legiferare in materia.

Si chiude in questa maniera in modo definitivo la pluridecennale diatriba politica  tra liberal democratici fautori del divorzio e repubblicani che invece lo avversano.

Un gran brutto colpo a Joe Biden.

* * * * * * *

Nota.

Oggi 24 giugno è la Festa del Sacro Cuore di Gesù, Festa della nascita di San Giovanni il Battista, unico santo del quale si celebra anche l’anniversario della nascita, ed infine è l’anniversario della prima apparizione della Beata Vergine Maria a Medjugorje.

La scelta della data di deposito della sentenza è tutto fuorché casuale.

* * * * * * *


Roe v Wade: US Supreme Court strikes down abortion rights

Millions of women in the US will lose the legal right to abortion, after the Supreme Court overturned a 50-year-old ruling that legalised it nationwide.

The court struck down the landmark Roe v Wade decision, weeks after an unprecedented leaked document suggested it favoured doing so.

The judgement will transform abortion rights in America, with individual states now able to ban the procedure.

Half of US states are expected to introduce new restrictions or bans.

Thirteen have already passed so-called trigger laws that will automatically outlaw abortion following the Supreme Court’s ruling. A number of others are likely to pass new restrictions quickly.

In total, abortion access is expected to be cut off for about 36 million women of reproductive age, according to research from Planned Parenthood, a healthcare organisation that provides abortions.

The Supreme Court had been considering a case, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, that challenged Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks.

But the conservative-majority court ruled in favour of the state by a vote of six to three along ideological lines – effectively ending the constitutional right to an abortion.

“We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion… and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives,” the judgement read.

The landmark 1973 Roe v Wade case saw the Supreme Court rule by a vote of seven to two that a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy was protected by the US constitution.

The ruling gave American women an absolute right to an abortion in the first three months (trimester) of pregnancy, but allowed for restrictions in the second trimester and for prohibitions in the third.

But in the decades since, anti-abortion rulings have gradually pared back access in more than a dozen states.

Friday’s ruling amounts to a wholesale reversal of the Supreme Court’s own legal precedent – an extremely rare move – and is likely to set up political battles that divide the nation.

In states where opinions on abortion are closely split – such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin – the legality of the procedure could be determined on an election-by-election basis. In others, the ruling may set off a new round of legal battles, including over whether individuals can go out of state for abortions or order abortion drugs through mail services.

Democratic governors of several states including California, New Mexico and Michigan have already announced plans to enshrine abortion rights within their constitutions if Roe v Wade is overturned.

US Vice-President Kamala Harris also met the Democratic attorneys-general of seven states on Thursday to discuss how to defend abortion rights.

                         Joyous or heart-wrenching day?

Governor of Mississippi Tate Reeves quickly welcomed the ruling, saying his state had “led the nation to overcome one of the greatest injustices in the history of our country”.

“This decision will directly result in more hearts beating, more strollers pushed, more report cards given, more little league games played, and more live well lived. It is a joyous day!” he wrote.

Former Vice-President Mike Pence, a long-standing critic of Roe v Wade, said: “The judgement has “given the American people a new beginning.

“Having been given this second chance for life, we must not rest and must not relent until the sanctity of life is restored to the centre of American law in every state in the land,” he wrote.

On the other side of the divide, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that “the Republican-controlled Supreme Court” had achieved that party’s “dark and extreme goal”.

“American women today have less freedom than their mothers,” she wrote. “This cruel ruling is outrageous and heart-wrenching.”

Rights group the American Civil Liberties Union (Aclu) tweeted: “We won’t deny what a horrible moment this is.”

“No matter what the courts say, no one should be forced to carry a pregnancy against their will… abortion is our right. We’ll never stop fighting for it.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia

Ukraina. Duma licenzia Lyudmila Denisova. Le atrocità dei russi erano tutte fake news.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-06-03.

2022-06-03__ Lyudmila Denisova 001

«Ukrainian Rada dismisses Denisova as human rights commissioner»

«The Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada has dismissed Liudmyla Denisova as its human rights commissioner»

«The decision was supported by 234 parliamentarians at a session on Tuesday»

«the sufficient number of parliamentarians had voted for initiating a vote of no confidence in Denisova»

«Denisova virtually failed to perform her duties on arranging humanitarian corridors defending and exchanging captives and other human rights functions»

«Esagerava le notizie sugli stupri: la Rada di Kiev caccia Denisova, la super commissaria per i diritti»

«ha gonfiato le già drammatiche storie dei crimini di guerra facendo perdere credibilità all’Ucraina»

«A cadenza quasi quotidiana la 62 enne ex ministra del Lavoro nel governo Yatsenyuk (2014) ha fatto circolare report su crimini di guerra che oscillavano dall’inverosimile all’approssimativo»

«stupri di massa di adolescenti violenze sessuali su neonati cifre sparate un po’ a caso (’43 mila crimini di guerra’  ebbe a dire il 18 maggio) che non trovavano conferma nelle indagini della procura generale di Kiev»

«Qualche volta ha diffuso fatti che sono apparsi molto poco verosimili e informazioni di cui non conosciamo la fonte»

«Il partito di Zelensky è stato il più duro contestatore del lavoro di Denisova, nominata difensore civico nel 2018 quando al governo c’era Poroshenko»

* * * * * * *

In sintesi, Liudmyla Denisova , Commissario per i Diritti Umani si inventava di sana pianta quelli che poi riferiva essere crimini contro l’umanità compiuti dai soldati russi.

E si allargava al punto tale che è dovuto intervenire il parlamento ukraino per destituirla.

Le menzogne smisurate al limite del ridicolo alla fine erano controproducenti.

* * * * * * *


Ukrainian Rada dismisses Denisova as human rights commissioner

Moscow. May 31 (Interfax) – The Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada has dismissed Liudmyla Denisova as its human rights commissioner.

The decision was supported by 234 parliamentarians at a session on Tuesday, Yaroslav Zheleznyak of the Holos (Voice) faction said on Telegram.

“The Rada has dismissed Liudmyla Denisova as human rights ombudsman, with 234 deputies voting in favor. There was no appointment today,” he said.

Ukrainian media reported earlier that, while speaking at a press briefing on Monday, Denisova said that, following instructions from the presidential office, parliamentarians had started collecting votes in favor of passing a vote of no confidence in her at a Rada meeting on May 31.

Yulia Paliychuk of the Servant of the People faction said on Telegram earlier on Tuesday that the sufficient number of parliamentarians had voted for initiating a vote of no confidence in Denisova.

Another Servant of the People member Pavlo Frolov, deputy head of the parliamentary Committee on the Rules of Procedure, said on social media that Denisova’s activity had been discussed at a faction meeting led by David Arakhamia and attended by Verkhovna Rada Chairperson Ruslan Stefanchuk and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories Iryna Vereshchuk.

The faction members voted unanimously to initiate a vote of no confidence in Denisova resulting in her dismissal in line with Article 12 of the law on a martial law legal framework, he said.

Frolov said Denisova virtually failed to perform her duties on arranging humanitarian corridors defending and exchanging captives and other human rights functions, while Vereshchuk had to take on those duties instead.

The Verkhovna Rada had appointed Denisova human rights commissioner on March 15, 2018.

* * * * * * *


Esagerava le notizie sugli stupri: la Rada di Kiev caccia Denisova, la super commissaria per i diritti

L’accusa: ha gonfiato le già drammatiche storie dei crimini di guerra facendo perdere credibilità all’Ucraina. E nella capitale tornano i veleni della politica.

* * *

Druzkikva (Donetsk) – Da quando è cominciato il conflitto, la commissaria per i diritti umani Lyudmila Denisova è stata per i giornalisti una delle fonti ufficiali più citate e, a conti fatti, la meno affidabile. La sua defenestrazione decisa da 234 parlamentari su 450 della Verkhovna Rada, dunque, non deve sorprendere se non per il fatto che è l’ennesimo segnale del ritorno sulla scena pubblica ucraina della politica, con i suoi dibattiti e i suoi veleni.

A cadenza quasi quotidiana, la 62 enne ex ministra del Lavoro nel governo Yatsenyuk (2014) ha fatto circolare report su crimini di guerra che oscillavano dall’inverosimile all’approssimativo: stupri di massa di adolescenti, violenze sessuali su neonati, cifre sparate un po’ a caso (“43 mila crimini di guerra”, ebbe a dire il 18 maggio) che non trovavano conferma nelle indagini della procura generale di Kiev. Il 23 maggio sul suo canale Telegram scriveva: “Due ragazze di 12 e 15 anni sono state violentate da razzisti, una bambina di 6 mesi è stata violentata da un russo con un cucchiaino…” e via di questo passo, entrando in dettagli sempre più intimi e non verificabili.

Ha esagerato quel che già era drammatico e non aveva bisogno di arrotondamenti per eccesso. Di più. Alla fine di aprile ha rivelato sui social network la presenza di 58 orfani in una chiesa di Kherson e, per una volta fin troppo precisa nell’informazione, ne ha permesso il sequestro. “I russi sono stati in grado di trovare la chiesa e portare via quei bambini, di loro ora non sappiamo più niente”, racconta a Repubblica Olga Sovhyria, rappresentante del Parlamento presso la Corte Costituzionale ucraina ed eletta con Servitori del Popolo, il partito di Zelensky che ha votato compatto per il licenziamento di Denisova. “L’abbiamo rimossa perché ha fallito i suoi doveri di garante. Qualche volta ha diffuso fatti che sono apparsi molto poco verosimili e informazioni di cui non conosciamo la fonte”.

Più di qualche volta, per l’esattezza. “Il modo in cui presentava i dati riguardo ai crimini sessuali era del tutto inaccettabile, rivelava dettagli sulle vittime che devono rimanere riservati”. Attivisti e anche giornalisti ucraini hanno protestato molto per l’approccio comunicativo troppo disinvolto di Denisova, che in queste settimane è stata invitata di frequente dai governi europei per descrivere e raccontare la situazione. Robuste perplessità sul suo modo di lavorare le ha pure la direttrice di Ukrainska Pravda, Sergil Musaeva: “I difensori dei diritti umani non devono parlare di certi dettagli che umiliano e traumatizzano le vittime. Qualche volta ha diffuso fatti che sono apparsi molto poco verosimili e informazioni di cui non conosciamo la fonte. È un grave danno per l’Ucraina, perché quando diffondi notizie su crimini di guerra non verificate, poi diventa difficile approfondirle”.

Crimini da parte degli occupanti russi sono stati compiuti, Repubblica ne ha documentati alcuni tra i tanti. Così come abbiamo incontrato donne che, parlando in prima persona, hanno raccontato le terribili esperienze vissute quando alcuni militari russi sono piombati nei rifugi dove si nascondevano. “Proprio per questo – osserva Pavlo Frolovo, altro parlamentare di Servitori del Popolo – l’incomprensibile attenzione di Denisova sui dettagli di crimini sessuali innaturali e abusi sui bambini che non era in grado di circostanziare ha fatto male all’Ucraina distraendo i media da quelle che sono le necessità reali del nostro Paese”.

Il partito di Zelensky è stato il più duro contestatore del lavoro di Denisova, nominata difensore civico nel 2018 quando al governo c’era Poroshenko. Lo scontro tra Zelensky e Poroshenko, negli ultimi giorni, è tornato ai livelli aspri dei tempi di pace per un caso di corruzione e vendita di petrolio che coinvolge l’ex presidente. L’Sbu, il servizio segreto ucraino guidato da uno degli uomini più fidati di Zelensky, la scorsa settimana ha messo in rete la testimonianza dell’oligarca Medvechuck che accusa Poroshenko.

“La mia rimozione è incostituzionale e viola gli standard internazionali, farò ricorso in tribunale”, è l’unico commento di Denisova, al termine di una giornata per lei complicata.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

California. Quote rosa ed lgbt dichiarate incostituzionali. Corte Superiore della Contea di Los Angeles.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-05-27.

Gargoyle 002. Base Notre Dame Paris

Un giudice della Corte Superiore della Contea di Los Angeles ha dichiarato incostituzionale la legge sulle quote rosa entrata in vigore nel 2018. Negando anche una connessione con un miglioramento delle performance finanziarie.

                         – Nell’ottobre del 2018 l’ex governatore Jerry Brown aveva approvato una riforma che obbligava le aziende quotate con sede nel Golden State di includere almeno una donna nel proprio Consiglio di amministrazione entro il 2019

                         – Lo scorso aprile la Corte ha annullato anche una legge che richiederebbe alle aziende californiane di includere nel board un numero minimo di appartenenti a minoranze etniche o razziali o Lgbt

                         -La decima edizione del “Report on corporate governance of italian listed companies” della Consob rivela come a fine 2021 si contavano 131 società adeguatesi alla quota di genere dei due quinti introdotta dalla legge Golfo-Mosca.

Dietrofront in California sulle quote rosa. Il giudice Maureen Duffy-Lewis della Corte Superiore della Contea di Los Angeles, con una sentenza datata 13 maggio, ha dichiarato incostituzionale la legge che richiede alle aziende quotate di fare spazio alle donne nei board. Negando anche una connessione con un potenziale miglioramento delle performance finanziarie (contrariamente a quanto diversi studi dimostrerebbero). E mettendo in dubbio un’iniziativa di corporate governance che ha conosciuto un vero e proprio slancio negli ultimi anni non solo negli Stati Uniti ma anche in Europa.

La California era stata pioniera su questo fronte in America. Nell’ottobre del 2018 l’ex governatore Jerry Brown aveva approvato una riforma che obbligava le aziende quotate con sede nel Golden State di includere almeno una donna nel proprio Consiglio di amministrazione entro la fine dell’anno successivo. Dal 2021, invece, le aziende con sei o più amministratori avrebbero dovuto fare spazio ad almeno tre donne (prevedendo anche multe superiori ai 100mila dollari). Ma, stando a quanto risulta al Financial Times, il giudice Duffy-Lewis ha sostenuto che lo Stato non sia riuscito a dimostrare una connessione tra la presenza di donne nel board e il miglioramento delle prestazioni, sottolineando che la ricerca accademica sull’argomento fosse inconcludente.

La vicenda era stata guidata da Judicial Watch, un’organizzazione no-profit conservatrice, per conto di diversi contribuenti californiani. Come dichiarato dal presidente Tom Fitton, si tratterebbe della seconda decisione del tribunale della California sull’incostituzionalità delle quote di genere. “Gli attacchi senza precedenti della sinistra radicale alla legge anti-discriminazioni hanno subito un’altra sconfitta pungente”, ha aggiunto. Come ricordato inoltre dal Corriere della Sera, nel novembre 2019 furono presentate due denunce con l’obiettivo di bloccare la legge sulla diversità di genere nei board (una dalla Pacific Legal Foundation, non profit politicamente libertaria, e un’altra proprio da Judicial Watch). Lo scorso aprile, in aggiunta, la stessa Corte ha annullato una legge che richiederebbe alle aziende californiane di avere un numero minimo di persone appartenenti a minoranze etniche o razziali o Lgbt nel proprio Consiglio di amministrazione.

Eppure, sono diverse le iniziative su questo fronte (non solo negli Stati Uniti). Basti pensare al Nasdaq, che lo scorso anno ha introdotto una nuova politica per rafforzare la diversità di genere e la presenza di minoranze ai vertici delle società quotate, richiedendo l’inclusione di almeno una donna ma anche di almeno un membro che si auto-identifichi come Lgbtq+ nei Consigli di amministrazione. In Italia vige invece la legge Golfo-Mosca che nel 2011 imponeva la presenza del 30% del “sesso meno rappresentato” nei board delle società quotate, poi portato al 40% con la Legge n. 160/2019. Secondo una ricerca Sda Bocconi realizzata in partnership con Valore D, le consigliere sono passate da circa il 7% nel 2011 al 37% nel 2020. E la decima edizione del Report on corporate governance of italian listed companies della Consob rivela come a fine 2021 si contassero 131 società adeguatesi alla quota di genere dei due quinti

* * * * * * *


Judge: California’s women on boards law is unconstitutional

A Los Angeles judge has ruled that California’s landmark law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Los Angeles judge has ruled that California’s landmark law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional.

Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said the law that would have required boards have up to three female directors by this year violated the right to equal treatment. The ruling was dated Friday.

The conservative legal group Judicial Watch had challenged the law, claiming it was illegal to use taxpayer funds to enforce a law that violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution by mandating a gender-based quota.

David Levine, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, said he was not surprised by the verdict. Under state and federal law “mandating a quota like this was never going to fly,” Levine said.

State Senate leader Toni Atkins, a Democrat from San Diego, said the ruling was disappointing and a reminder “that sometimes our legalities don’t match our realities.”

“More women on corporate boards means better decisions and businesses that outperform the competition,” Atkins said in a statement. “We believe this law remains important, despite the disheartening ruling.”

The decision comes just over a month after another Los Angeles judge found that a California law mandating that corporations diversify their boards with members from certain racial, ethnic or LGBT groups was unconstitutional.

The corporate diversity legislation was a sequel to the law requiring women on corporate boards. The judge in the previous case ruled in favor of Judicial Watch and the same plaintiffs without holding a trial.

The law voided Friday was on shaky ground from the get-go, with a legislative analysis saying it could be difficult to defend. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed it despite the potential for it to be overturned because he wanted to send a message during the #MeToo era.

In the three years it has been on the books, it’s been credited with improving the standing of women in corporate boardrooms.

The state defended the law as constitutional saying it was necessary to reverse a culture of discrimination that favored men and was put in place only after other measures failed. The state also said the law didn’t create a quota because boards could add seats for female directors without stripping men of their positions.

Although the law carried potential hefty penalties for failing to file an annual report or comply with the law, a chief in the secretary of state’s office acknowledged during the trial that it was toothless.

No fines have ever been levied and there was no intention to do so, Betsy Bogart testified. Further, a letter that surfaced during trial from former Secretary of State Alex Padilla warned Brown weeks before he signed the law that it was probably unenforceable.

“Any attempt by the secretary of state to collect or enforce the fine would likely exceed its authority,” Padilla wrote.

The law required publicly held companies headquartered in California to have one member who identifies as a woman on their boards of directors by the end of 2019. By January 2022, boards with five directors were required to have two women and boards with six or more members were required to have three women.

The Women on Boards law, also known by its bill number, SB826, called for penalties ranging from $100,000 fines for failing to report board compositions to the California secretary of state’s office to $300,000 for multiple failures to have the required number of women board members.

The Secretary of State’s office said 26% of publicly traded companies headquartered in California reported meeting the quota of women board members last year, according to a March report.

Half of the 716 corporations that had been required to comply with the law didn’t file the disclosure statements.

Supporters of the law hailed it for achieving more gains for women. Other states followed California’s lead. Washington state passed a similar measure last year, and lawmakers in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Hawaii proposed similar bills. Illinois requires publicly traded companies to report the makeup of their boards.

Deputy Attorney General Ashante Norton said alternatives to a law mandating seats for women had been tried in California to no avail. In 2013, for example, the Legislature passed a resolution to get companies to add women to their boards, but few did.

Before California’s law took effect, women held 17% of the total seats on boards of California-based corporations on the Russell 3000 Index of the largest companies in the U.S., according to the advocacy group 50/50 Women on Boards. By the end of last year, the percentage of board seats held by women climbed to 32% in California, compared to nearly 27% nationally.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Corte Suprema. Aborto. Non ne esiste il dritto perché la Costituzione nemmeno lo menziona.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-05-04.

2022-05-04 Alito 001

«Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the draft opinion, which is dated Feb. 10, according to Politico, which posted a copy online»

«The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision»

La reazione di Joe Biden è stata immediata.

2022-05-04 Alito 002

Questo sarebbe un durissimo colpo a Joe Biden, proprio a ridosso di midterm.

* * * * * * *

Riportiamo alcuni stralci presi dal Certotiorari.

«Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman’s right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality. Still others in a third group think that abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.

Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g., its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (e.g., its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law). After cataloguing a wealth of other information having no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules much like those that might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature.

As Justice Byron White aptly put it in his dissent, the decision represented the “exercise of raw judicial power,” 410 U. S., at 222, and it sparked a national controversy that has embittered our political culture for a half-century.

We bold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely-the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”»

* * * * * * *

«Supreme Court’s potential move to overturn abortion rights sets Democrats scrambling»

«We can’t trust SCOTUS to protect the right to abortion, so we’ll do it ourselves»

«In the absence of federal action, states have passed a raft of abortion-related laws»

«Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in U.S. politics and has been for nearly a half century»

«”Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the draft opinion»

«The news broke a little more than six months before midterm elections that will determine if Democrats hold their razor-thin majorities in the U.S. Congress for the next two years of President Joe Biden’s term»

«The news of the draft opinion stunned abortion providers»

* * * * * * *


Supreme Court’s potential move to overturn abortion rights sets Democrats scrambling

Washington, May 3 (Reuters) – The bombshell draft U.S. Supreme Court decision suggesting the court may overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion sent Democrats scrambling on Tuesday, with lawmakers and activists looking for some way to head off the sweeping social change.

California Governor Gavin Newsom said, after Politico reported the draft decision, that his state will propose an amendment in the state’s constitution to “enshrine the right to choose”.

“We can’t trust SCOTUS to protect the right to abortion, so we’ll do it ourselves,” Newsom said on Twitter, referring to the Supreme Court.

Reuters was not immediately able to confirm the authenticity of the draft opinion. The Supreme Court and the White House declined to comment.

“Do something, Democrats,” abortion-rights protesters chanted as they rallied outside the court in the pre-dawn hours against the decision, which would be a triumph for Republicans who spent decades building the court’s current 6-3 conservative majority.

“If the report is accurate, the Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past fifty years – not just on women but on all Americans,” Congress’s top two Democrats — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer — said in a joint statement. “The Republican-appointed Justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v. Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.”

Washington, May 3 (Reuters) – The bombshell draft U.S. Supreme Court decision suggesting the court may overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion sent Democrats scrambling on Tuesday, with lawmakers and activists looking for some way to head off the sweeping social change.

California Governor Gavin Newsom said, after Politico reported the draft decision, that his state will propose an amendment in the state’s constitution to “enshrine the right to choose”.

“We can’t trust SCOTUS to protect the right to abortion, so we’ll do it ourselves,” Newsom said on Twitter, referring to the Supreme Court.

Twenty-one states have laws or constitutional amendments in place that show an inclination to ban abortion as quickly as possible if Roe v. Wade is overturned or significantly weakened by the Supreme Court.

Reuters was not immediately able to confirm the authenticity of the draft opinion. The Supreme Court and the White House declined to comment.

“Do something, Democrats,” abortion-rights protesters chanted as they rallied outside the court in the pre-dawn hours against the decision, which would be a triumph for Republicans who spent decades building the court’s current 6-3 conservative majority.

“If the report is accurate, the Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past fifty years – not just on women but on all Americans,” Congress’s top two Democrats — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer — said in a joint statement. “The Republican-appointed Justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v. Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.”

A bill that would have protected the right to abortion nationally died in Congress early this year as Democrats’ razor-thin majority was not enough to overcome Senate rules requiring a supermajority to agree on most legislation.  

In the absence of federal action, states have passed a raft of abortion-related laws. Republican-led states have moved swiftly, with new restrictions passed this year in six states. Three Democratic-led states this year have passed measures intended to protect abortion rights.  

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in U.S. politics and has been for nearly a half century.

A 2021 poll by the Pew Research Center found that 59% of U.S. adults believed it should be legal in all or most cases, while 39% thought it should be illegal in most or all cases.

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the draft opinion, which is dated Feb. 10, according to Politico, which posted a copy online.

Based on Alito’s opinion, the court would find that the Roe v. Wade decision that allowed abortions performed before a fetus would be viable outside the womb – between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy – was wrongly decided because the U.S. Constitution makes no specific mention of abortion rights.

“Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” Alito said, according to the leaked document.

The sweeping nature of the decision raised questions among legal experts and court observers about what other rights established by the court could be overturned.

The ruling would be the court’s most sweeping since former President Donald Trump succeeded in naming three justices to the court.

The news broke a little more than six months before midterm elections that will determine if Democrats hold their razor-thin majorities in the U.S. Congress for the next two years of President Joe Biden’s term.

“Congress must pass legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in this country NOW,” said Independent Senator Bernie Sanders.

The decision appeared based on an oral argument in December on Mississippi’s bid to revive its ban on abortion starting at 15 weeks of pregnancy, a law blocked by lower courts.  

The Politico report said a court majority was inclined to uphold Mississippi’s abortion ban and that there could be five votes to overturn Roe. An official ruling is expected before the end of June

Four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices, it added.

After an initial vote among the justices following an oral argument, one is assigned the majority opinion and writes a draft. It is then circulated among the justices.

At times, in between the initial vote and the ruling being released, the vote alignment can change. A ruling is only final when it is published by the court.

The news of the draft opinion stunned abortion providers.

Andrea Gallegos, executive administrator at Tulsa Women’s Clinic in Oklahoma, had just finished calling some 25 patients to tell them their Tuesday abortion appointments would need to be canceled because of a soon to be enacted Oklahoma law modeled on a highly restrictive Texas abortion ban.

“I can’t say that I’m surprised,” she said.

“Now all these other conservative states like Oklahoma are passing the exact same legislation that Texas did, I have to say I became less optimistic and way more scared for what the future of Roe looks like.”

The Roe v. Wade decision recognized the right to personal privacy under the U.S. Constitution protects a woman’s ability to terminate her pregnancy.

Christian conservatives and many Republican officeholders have long sought to overturn it.

If Roe is overturned, abortion is likely to remain legal in liberal states. More than a dozen states have laws protecting abortion rights. Numerous Republican-led states have passed various abortion restrictions in defiance of the Roe precedent in recent years.

The anti-abortion group the Susan B. Anthony List welcomed the news.

“If Roe is indeed overturned, our job will be to build consensus for the strongest protections possible for unborn children and women in every legislature,” its president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said in a statement.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Usa. La Corte Suprema valuterà la legge del Colorando sulla discriminazione religiosa.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-03-10.

suprema-corte-013

US Supreme Court. L’ululato impotente dei liberal socialisti. Sentenze non appellabili.

US Supreme Court. Negato il ‘mandamus’ agli abortisti del Texas. Sconfitta per Biden.

US Supreme Court. Si annunciano tempi difficili per le Corti Distrettuali.

Corte Suprema. Lascia in essere i distretti dell’Alabama e rimanda la sentenza al 2023.

US Corte Suprema. Nel 2022 cambierà la situazione politica americana e mondiale.

Usa. Suprema Corte. Sentenzia a favore dell’Arizona sulle restrizioni al voto.

Usa. Suprema Corte. I migranti entrati illegalmente non possono chiedere la ‘green cards’. – Nbc.

Usa. Corte Suprema. Rivaluterà la sentenza Roe v. Wade sull’aborto.

* * * * * * *

«The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a Christian website designer’s appeal challenging a Colorado law that bars businesses from refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation»

«The court said in a list of orders that it will hear arguments about whether “a law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”»

«The graphic artist, Lorie Smith, says she wants to expand her business into creating wedding websites “promoting her understanding of marriage” and post a statement explaining why she will refuse to “promote messages contrary to her faith, such as messages that condone violence or promote sexual immorality, abortion, or same-sex marriage.”»

«Respondents say the statute, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, is constitutional»

«The law had been upheld by two lower courts. The justices are set to hear oral arguments and issue a ruling on the case in the court’s next term, which begins in October»

«In 2018, the court ruled 7-2 in favor of a Colorado bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, which had declined to design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple»

* * * * * * *

In questo anno la Corte Suprema pubblicherà numerose sentenze che dovrebbero alla fine portare chiarezza sul problema dell’aborto e sulla concezione liberal dello Lgbt.

È arrivato all’epilogo lo scontro tra due opposte ed incompatibili Weltanschauung politiche.

* * * * * * *

Supreme Court takes up clash over Colorado law’s protection for same-sex weddings

– The Supreme Court agreed to hear a Christian website designer’s appeal challenging a Colorado law that bars businesses from refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation.

– The court will hear briefing and argument about whether “a law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”

* * * * * * *

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a Christian website designer’s appeal challenging a Colorado law that bars businesses from refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation.

The court said in a list of orders that it will hear arguments about whether “a law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”

The graphic artist, Lorie Smith, says she wants to expand her business into creating wedding websites “promoting her understanding of marriage” and post a statement explaining why she will refuse to “promote messages contrary to her faith, such as messages that condone violence or promote sexual immorality, abortion, or same-sex marriage.”

But Smith cannot do so because the state law “considers it illegal,” according to her request for the Supreme Court to take up the case. Respondents say the statute, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, is constitutional.

Smith’s company, 303 Creative, “filed its complaint despite failing to identify any investigation into the Company’s conduct or any complaint filed against the Company,” the respondents said.

The law had been upheld by two lower courts. The justices are set to hear oral arguments and issue a ruling on the case in the court’s next term, which begins in October.

The high court’s decision to hear the case comes more than seven years after the landmark ruling Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage.

In 2018, the court ruled 7-2 in favor of a Colorado bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, which had declined to design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The court said at the time that Colorado’s civil rights division showed “clear and impermissible hostility” toward the religious beliefs underpinning the baker’s decision.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia

Tribunale di Pisa. I Dpcm sullo stato di emergenza erano e sono illegittimi.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-02-21.

2022-02-20__ Pisa 001

2022-02-20__ Pisa 002


2022-02-20__ Pisa 003


I Dpcm sullo stato di emergenza erano e sono illegittimi.

Non è rinvenibile alcuna fonte avente forza di legge, ordinaria o costituzionale, che attribuisca al Consiglio dei Ministri il potere di dichiarare lo stato di emergenza per rischio sanitario.

Il DPCM come provvedimento amministrativo monocratico del Presidente del Consiglio non può incidere su diritti costituzionalmente protetti.

* * * * * * *


Covid, tribunale Pisa: i Dpcm di Conte erano illegittimi.

“La delibera dichiarativa dello stato di emergenza adottata dal Consiglio dei ministri il 31.1.2020 è illegittima per essere stata emanata in assenza dei presupposti legislativi, in quanto non è rinvenibile alcuna fonte avente forza di legge, ordinaria o costituzionale, che attribuisca al Consiglio dei Ministri il potere di dichiarare lo stato di emergenza per rischio sanitario”.

E’ quanto si legge in uno stralcio di una illuminata e fondamentale sentenza del Tribunale penale di Pisa, in composizione monocratica (n. 1842 dell’ 8.11.2021).

                         Dpcm di Conte erano illegittimi.

La tesi relativa all’illegittimità dei decreti Covid, attraverso i quali il governo Conte ha gravemente compromesso alcuni diritti fondamentali dei cittadini, era stata ampiamente anticipata sulle pagine di Lab Parlamento  analizzando in maniera tecnica e giuridica i fondamenti (inesistenti) sui quali si reggevano tali atti fortemente limitativi delle libertà fondamentali, limitazioni per giunta perpetrate nei mesi, nel silenzio assordante della politica ma anche dell’opinione pubblica.

Il DPCM come provvedimento amministrativo monocratico del Presidente del Consiglio non può incidere su diritti costituzionalmente protetti, spettando soltanto alla legge o ad un atto ad essa equiparato (decreto-legge o legislativo) la possibilità di limitare, ad esempio, il diritto di mobilità.

I due decreti-legge che hanno consentito a Giuseppe Conte, Presidente del Consiglio dell’epoca, di emanare DPCM sono stati il 6/2020 e il 19/2020. Il secondo ha sostituito il primo perché lo stesso Governo si è reso conto che il decreto-legge 6/2020 costituiva una completa “delega in bianco” ad un provvedimento amministrativo di “fare ciò che voleva delle libertà e dei diritti degli individui”.

Dopo tanto silenzio finalmente i giudici stanno battendo un colpo riguardo alle costanti e clamorose violazioni giuridiche a cui abbiano assistito in questo ultimo biennio.

Prima del provvedimento giudiziario in esame del Tribunale penale di Pisa, una vera e propria sentenza che ci si augura passi in giudicato, hanno detto la propria, seppur per ora solo in sede cautelare, anche i giudici amministrativi: l’ordinanza del Tar Lombardia n. 192 del 14.2.2022 di reintegro in servizio di alcuni operatori sanitari (ordinanza che ha anche rimesso alla Consulta la questione di legittimità costituzionale dell’obbligo vaccinale per costoro); il decreto cautelare n. 919 del 14 febbraio 2022 del Tar Lazio di reintegro in servizio dei ricorrenti militari sospesi perché inottemperanti all’obbligo vaccinale; i decreti cautelari nn. 721, 724 e 726 del 2 febbraio 2022, sempre del Tar Lazio, che hanno ripristinato le retribuzioni dei ricorrenti agenti di polizia penitenziaria non vaccinati nonostante l’obbligo di legge.

Pubblicato in: Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Corte Suprema. Lascia in essere i distretti dell’Alabama e rimanda la sentenza al 2023.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-02-12.

2022-02-09__ Supreme Court 001


La Suprema Corte ha deciso sul caso Merrill v. Milligan.

«La domanda di sospensione o di provvedimento ingiuntivo presentata al GIUDICE THOMAS e da lui rinviata alla Corte nel n. 21A375 è trattata come una dichiarazione di giurisdizione, e la probabile giurisdizione è annotata. La domanda di sospensione o di provvedimento ingiuntivo presentata al GIUDICE THOMAS e da lui deferita alla Corte nel n. 21A376 è trattata come una petizione per un atto di certiorari prima del giudizio. I convenuti nel n. 21A376 non si oppongono a trattare la domanda come una petizione per un writ of certiorari prima del giudizio e non propongono di accogliere la petizione (sebbene si oppongano alla concessione di una sospensione). Tenendo conto di questo fatto, la petizione è concessa. Le ingiunzioni preliminari del tribunale distrettuale del 24 gennaio 2022 in No. 2:21-cv-1530 e No. 2:21-cv-1536 sono sospese in attesa di ulteriori ordini della Corte.

Il GIUDICE KAVANAUGH, con il quale si unisce il GIUDICE ALITO, concorda nella concessione delle richieste di sospensione. ….»

* * * * * * *

Il governo dell’Alabama aveva disposto il rifacimento dei confini di sette distretti elettorali. I liberal democratici vi si sono opposti, ricorrendo ai due gradi di giudizio, e la diatriba ha approdato alla Corte Suprema.

Questa ha sentenziato di lasciare in essere le decisioni dell’Alabama. rimandando la decisione finale al 2023, ossia dopo le elezioni di midterm.

* * * * * * *


«The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let Alabama use a Republican-backed map of the state’s U.S. congressional districts that a lower court found likely discriminates against Black voters, handing an important victory to Republicans as they seek to regain control of Congress in the Nov. 8 elections»

«In a 5-4 decision, the court granted an emergency request by Alabama’s Republican Secretary of State John Merrill and two Republican legislators to put on hold the lower court’s injunctions ordering the state’s Republican-led legislature to redraw the map»

«The state legislature previously approved the map delineating the borders of Alabama’s seven U.S. House of Representatives districts»

«A panel of three federal judges on Jan. 24 ruled that the map unlawfully deprived Black voters of an additional House district in which they could be a majority or close to it, likely violating the Voting Rights Act»

«Democrats control the House by a slim margin, making every seat vital in the Republican attempt to win back a majority»

«The Alabama dispute reflects an ongoing issue of contention between Democrats and Republicans in a broader fight over voting rights»

«Democrats have accused Republicans in various states of exploiting their majorities in state legislatures to craft electoral maps that diminish the clout of Black and other racial minority voters while maximizing the power of White voters»

«In a written opinion, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the lower court blocked Alabama’s map too close to the 2022 election, contravening Supreme Court precedent»

«The case is among dozens of legal challenges nationwide over the composition of electoral districts, which are redrawn each decade to reflect population changes as measured by a national census, last taken in 2020»

«arguments expected in the fall and a decision due by June 2023»

* * * * * * *

Questa è una débâcle di Joe Biden, la quale si aggiunge a tutte le altre.


* * * * * * *

U.S. Supreme Court lets Alabama use electoral map faulted for racial bias

– Action reflects conservative majority’s assertiveness

– Liberal justice says decision dilutes Black voter clout

* * * * * * *

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let Alabama use a Republican-backed map of the state’s U.S. congressional districts that a lower court found likely discriminates against Black voters, handing an important victory to Republicans as they seek to regain control of Congress in the Nov. 8 elections.

In a 5-4 decision, the court granted an emergency request by Alabama’s Republican Secretary of State John Merrill and two Republican legislators to put on hold the lower court’s injunctions ordering the state’s Republican-led legislature to redraw the map.

Five of the six conservative justices were in the majority, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court’s three liberal justices in dissent. The court also said it would take up and decide the Alabama dispute on the merits, with arguments expected in the fall and a decision due by June 2023.

The state legislature previously approved the map delineating the borders of Alabama’s seven U.S. House of Representatives districts.

A panel of three federal judges on Jan. 24 ruled that the map unlawfully deprived Black voters of an additional House district in which they could be a majority or close to it, likely violating the Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 federal law that prohibited racial discrimination in voting.

Democrats control the House by a slim margin, making every seat vital in the Republican attempt to win back a majority.

The Alabama dispute reflects an ongoing issue of contention between Democrats and Republicans in a broader fight over voting rights. Democrats have accused Republicans in various states of exploiting their majorities in state legislatures to craft electoral maps that diminish the clout of Black and other racial minority voters while maximizing the power of White voters.

Alabama’s legislature adopted the latest map of the state’s seven House districts last November. Several lawsuits were filed challenging the map, including by a group of Black voters and another group of voters who sued alongside the Alabama NAACP civil rights group.

                         ‘JUDICIAL TINKERING’.

In a written opinion, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the lower court blocked Alabama’s map too close to the 2022 election, contravening Supreme Court precedent.

“Late judicial tinkering with election laws can lead to disruption and to unanticipated and unfair consequences for candidates, political parties and voters, among others,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan called the decision “badly wrong” and, referring to the Voting Rights Act, said the high court’s action “forces Black Alabamians to suffer what under that law is clear vote dilution.” Her dissent was joined by fellow liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

“Alabama is not entitled to keep violating Black Alabamians’ voting rights just because the court’s order came down in the first month of an election year,” Kagan added.

In his dissent, Roberts wrote that the lower court “properly applied existing law in an extensive opinion with no apparent errors for our correction.”

The action in the case reflects an increasingly assertive Supreme Court since the 2020 addition of former President Donald Trump’s third appointee, Amy Coney Barrett, gave it a 6-3 conservative majority. Her appointment changed the court’s dynamics by marginalizing Roberts, considered an incrementalist conservative.

The case is among dozens of legal challenges nationwide over the composition of electoral districts, which are redrawn each decade to reflect population changes as measured by a national census, last taken in 2020.

In most states, such redistricting is done by the party in power, which can lead to map manipulation for partisan gain. In a major 2019 ruling, the Supreme Court barred federal judges from curbing the practice, known as partisan gerrymandering. That ruling did preclude court scrutiny of racially discriminatory gerrymandering.

The challengers in Alabama accused the legislature of strategically designing the new map to dilute the electoral clout of Black voters by confining their power to a single district even though Alabama’s population is 27% Black, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bars voting practices that result in racial discrimination.

Section 2 has been the main tool used to show that voting policies discriminate against minorities since the Supreme Court in 2013 struck down the part of the law that determined which states with a history of racial discrimination needed federal approval to change voting laws.

In a ruling last July in favor of Republican-backed voting restrictions in Arizona, the Supreme Court made it harder to prove violations under Section 2.

The three-judge lower court panel, which included two appointed by Republican former President Donald Trump and one by Democratic former President Bill Clinton, unanimously blocked the map, saying that voting in Alabama is “polarized along racial lines” and that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to defeat Black voters’ preferred candidates.

Pubblicato in: Demografia, Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Persona Umana, Stati Uniti

Aborto. Questione sia giuridica sia politica tra liberal e repubblicani. Prima causa di morte nel 2021.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-02-06.

Aborto 001

Abortion Leading Global Cause of Death in 2021 with 43 Million Killed

«Abortion was the leading cause of death globally in 2021, with nearly 43 million unborn babies killed in the womb, according to data provided by Worldometer.

As of noon on December 31, 2021, there were 42.6 million abortions performed in the course of the year, Worldometer revealed, while 8.2 million people died from cancer, 5 million from smoking, 1.7 million of HIV/AIDS, 1.3 million from traffic fatalities, and 1 million from suicide.»

* * *

Biden calls on U.S. Supreme Court to protect abortion rights

«President Joe Biden’s administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday not to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide in an upcoming case concerning a restrictive Mississippi law»

* * * * * * *

«With Roe v. Wade facing its strongest threat in decades, a new poll finds Democrats increasingly view protecting abortion rights as a high priority for the government.»

«Thirteen percent of Democrats mentioned abortion or reproductive rights as one of the issues they want the federal government to address in 2022»

«But the exponential rise in the percentage citing reproductive rights as a key concern suggests the issue is resonating with Democrats as the Supreme Court considers cases that could lead to dramatic restrictions on abortion access»

«With a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, Republicans see this as their best chance in years to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion throughout the United States»

«That decision will be made public in June»

«conventional wisdom holds that abortion is a motivating issue for Republicans and not for Democrats»

«opponents of abortion had greater strength of attitudes and considered the issue important to them personally more than pro-choice people»

«That may be changing»

«But I still actually think that huge swaths of this population still don’t quite believe that the access to abortion and the 50-year precedent that is Roe v. Wade is really hanging in the balance»

* * * * * * *

A giugno la Suprema Corte emetterà sentenza sulla questione della Roe v. Wade.

Le Loro Giustizie giudicheranno secondo scienza e coscienza applicando i dettami costituzionali.

Ma il problema ha sostanziali aspetti politici.

L’aborto è parte integrante dell’ideologia liberal socialista, e tutta la loro leadership lo sostiene come bandiera di battaglia, come ha fatto anche Joe Biden. Ovunque vadano al potere lo impongono, così come condizionano ad esso gli aiuti economici.

Tuttavia, solo il 13% degli Elettori democratici considera l’aborto elemento non contrattabile. E questo è un dato che da da pensare.

In altri termini, la base e la dirigenza liberal americana hanno su questo argomento due visioni opposte e contrastanti, fatto questo che complica non poco le scelte politiche dei democratici.

In ogni caso, però, la sentenza della Corte Suprema metterà un punto fermo sulla questione, essendo tra l’altro un giudizio inappellabile.

* * * * * * *


Abortion grows as priority issue for Democrats: AP-NORC poll.

Washington (AP) — With Roe v. Wade facing its strongest threat in decades, a new poll finds Democrats increasingly view protecting abortion rights as a high priority for the government.

Thirteen percent of Democrats mentioned abortion or reproductive rights as one of the issues they want the federal government to address in 2022, according to a December poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. That’s up from less than 1% of Democrats who named it as a priority for 2021 and 3% who listed it in 2020.

Some other issues like the economy, COVID-19, health care and gun control ranked as higher priorities for Democrats in the poll, which allowed respondents to name up to five top issues. But the exponential rise in the percentage citing reproductive rights as a key concern suggests the issue is resonating with Democrats as the Supreme Court considers cases that could lead to dramatic restrictions on abortion access.

“The public have lots of things that they want to see government addressing,” said Jennifer Benz, deputy director of The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. “You ask this kind of question in a time of economic turmoil and in the time of a pandemic and all of these other things going on, we might not expect abortion to rise to the top.”

With a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, Republicans see this as their best chance in years to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion throughout the United States. In December, the Supreme Court left in place a Texas law that bans most abortions in the state and signaled during arguments that they would uphold a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. That decision will be made public in June.

Calling the abortion polling numbers “stark,” Benz noted that conventional wisdom holds that abortion is a motivating issue for Republicans and not for Democrats. Research from the 1980s and 1990s, Benz said, “regularly found that opponents of abortion had greater strength of attitudes and considered the issue important to them personally more than pro-choice people.”

That may be changing. Sam Lau, senior director for advocacy media at the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, believes more Americans are recognizing this moment as a crisis for abortion access.

“I think what we have seen is absolutely an increase in awareness, an increase in urgency, an increase in the need to fight back,” he said. “But I still actually think that huge swaths of this population still don’t quite believe that the access to abortion and the 50-year precedent that is Roe v. Wade is really hanging in the balance.”