Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

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

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2022-01-17.

suprema-corte-013

Incapaci di trovare un dignitoso accordo politico, democratici e repubblicani hanno intentato una ridda di azioni legali nel tentativo di risolvere nelle corti di giustizia asperità che avrebbero dovuto essere mutuate in parlamento.

Orbene, tutte codeste azioni legali sono alla fine approdate alla Corte Suprema, che le ha iscritte alla discussione nei primi mesi dell’anno 2022.

Dovrebbe essere evidente come queste sentenze, a qualsiasi conclusione pervengano, muteranno in modo stabile per decenni il quadro politico americano, senza tener poi conto che a novembre si terranno le elezioni di midterm.

Ma una mutazione del quadro politico americano significa un cambiamento degli assetti politici internazionali.

Ne riportiamo per punti solo i tre temi di principale interesse.

«The rubber hits the road in legal fights over Biden vaccine mandates»

«Biden’s efforts to aid Congress’ January 6 investigation hit inflection point in court»

«Confronting a Supreme Court case with generational stakes for abortion rights»

* * * * * * *

«There is little the Biden administration could do to counteract»

L’Amministrazione Biden non può far nulla contro le decisioni della Suprema Corte.

Le nove Loro Giustizie della Corte Suprema sono gli arbitri della situazione politica attuale e di quella futura, segno evidente della disgregazione della politica americana.

Agiranno con giustizia secondo Costituzione.

* * * * * * *


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

Usa. Suprema Corte ammette il Mississippi sulle restrizioni all’aborto.

Usa. La Suprema Corte sentenzia a favore del pipeline della PennEast.

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, Suprema Corte. Come le sentenze sono intervenute in materia elettorale.

Usa. Procuratori Generali chiedono che la Suprema Corte discuta sul voto postale.

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

Battaglia finale. I temi sottoposti alla Suprema  Corte. Ecco le sentenze che cambieranno il mondo

From vaccine mandates to abortion to insurrection probes, key court fights could shape Biden’s legacy.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

US. Battaglia finale. I temi sottoposti alla Suprema  Corte. Ecco le sentenze che cambieranno il mondo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-12-06.

Suprema Corte

La Suprema Corte americana ha iniziato a valutare una lunga serie di cause, la risoluzione delle quali avrà un consistente impatto politico sulla stabilità della Harris-Biden Administration e sul partito democratico, che potrebbe anche sfasciarsi, proprio a ridosso delle elezioni di midterm.

«Cases concerning the January 6 investigation, abortion and Covid-19 vaccine mandates may have little in common in terms of subject matter»

I casi riguardano l’indagine del 6 gennaio, l’aborto ed i mandati sui vaccini anti-Covid-19.

* * * * * * *

«Coming off the Thanksgiving holiday, the Biden administration enters a legal crucible as several high-profile lawsuits that carry significant consequences for President Joe Biden’s legacy get key hearings in court»

«Cases concerning the January 6 investigation, abortion and Covid-19 vaccine mandates may have little in common in terms of subject matter»

«But together, they show how a conservative judiciary could hamstring Biden initiatives and create major messes for which the Biden administration will have few tools for cleaning up»

«Already, the Supreme Court has stifled Biden moves on immigration and coronavirus evictions policy»

«But even before major cases reach the Supreme Court, lower court judges appointed by former President Donald Trump and other Republicans are poised to throw the Biden Justice Department curveballs»

«On Tuesday, the Justice Department and the Democratic-controlled House will argue for the disclosure of certain Trump presidential records to congressional investigators probing the Capitol riot»

«On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban is constitutional, in a case that could bring the end of Roe v. Wade»

«And throughout the week, courts across the country will be considering various administration policies seeking to mandate vaccines as Covid-19 case numbers begin to rise again»

«Biden’s efforts to aid Congress’ January 6 investigation hit inflection point in court»

«The panel of DC Circuit judges who will hear arguments Tuesday in the National Archives case are all Democratic-appointees, though it is expected that at some point the Supreme Court will be asked to get involved»

«The long-brewing Supreme Court fight over Roe v. Wade comes to a head this week with the potential for consequences that echo for decades into the future»

«A decision that gutted Roe would leave the Biden administration few options for shoring up abortion access in the wake of a new wave of restrictions»

«However, all signs point to the court’s 6-3 conservative majority using the challenge to Mississippi’s 15-week ban undermine — if not outright reverse — Roe»

«There is little the Biden administration could do to counteract»

«Even If the court doesn’t reverse Roe outright, the justices could undermine its key holdings in a way that would usher in a flood of extreme restrictions and put the judiciary on a trajectory for reversing Roe in the not-so-distant future»

* * * * * * *

«There is little the Biden administration could do to counteract»

L’Amministrazione Biden non può far nulla contro le decisioni della Suprema Corte.

Le nove Loro Giustizie della Corte Suprema sono gli arbitri della situazione politica attuale e di quella futura.

Agiranno con giustizia secondo Costituzione.

* * * * * * *


From vaccine mandates to abortion to insurrection probes, key court fights could shape Biden’s legacy.

Coming off the Thanksgiving holiday, the Biden administration enters a legal crucible as several high-profile lawsuits that carry significant consequences for President Joe Biden’s legacy get key hearings in court.

Cases concerning the January 6 investigation, abortion and Covid-19 vaccine mandates may have little in common in terms of subject matter. But together, they show how a conservative judiciary could hamstring Biden initiatives and create major messes for which the Biden administration will have few tools for cleaning up.

Already, the Supreme Court has stifled Biden moves on immigration and coronavirus evictions policy. But even before major cases reach the Supreme Court, lower court judges appointed by former President Donald Trump and other Republicans are poised to throw the Biden Justice Department curveballs.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department and the Democratic-controlled House will argue for the disclosure of certain Trump presidential records to congressional investigators probing the Capitol riot. On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban is constitutional, in a case that could bring the end of Roe v. Wade, the nearly half-century old precedent protecting abortion rights nationwide.

And throughout the week, courts across the country will be considering various administration policies seeking to mandate vaccines as Covid-19 case numbers begin to rise again.

In one such case, the Biden administration told the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals that there would be a “confluence of harms of the highest order” if the court did not reinstate an administration mandate blocked by another appeals court that requires vaccines or regular testing for employees of large companies.

“Simply put, delaying the Standard would likely cost many lives per day, in addition to large numbers of hospitalizations, other serious health effects, and tremendous expenses,” the administration wrote.

                         The rubber hits the road in legal fights over Biden vaccine mandates.

The 6th Circuit case is one of several examples of where the administration’s vaccine mandates are being tested in court. That case — a consolidation of several lawsuits — concerns the mandate coming out of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for companies of 100 employees or more. The 6th Circuit is also considering a request from the challengers to skip a procedural step in the case, with a maneuver that would put the mandate challengers on a more favorable playing field for keeping the policy on hold.

Other courts around the country are weighing lawsuits attacking a Department of Health and Human Services requirement that certain health care workers be vaccinated, as well as challenges to the vaccine mandate for federal contract workers.

After a federal court recently declined a request by Florida to block the HHS rule, the state has turned to the conservative 11th Circuit to block the policy. Other courts in separate cases are considering whether to halt the health care worker mandate, which covers certain providers that participate in Medicaid or Medicare. Several courts are also poised to rule on requests for preliminary orders halting the federal contractor mandate.

Biden has said that vaccinations are crucial to a return normalcy after the Covid-19 pandemic, as polling shows that Americans’ pessimism about the coronavirus is increasing.

“This is not about freedom or personal choice,” Biden said in a September speech touting his administrations moves to mandate the vaccine. “It’s about protecting yourself and those around you — the people you work with, the people you care about, the people you love.”

                         Biden’s efforts to aid Congress’ January 6 investigation hit inflection point in court.

The White House has also made clear that “unique and extraordinary” circumstances around the of January 6 Capitol riot warrant a notable amount of transparency, as congressional investigators examine the executive branch’s inner-workings under Trump.

A case that could determine the success that effort is being heard by the DC Circuit on Tuesday. It’s the lawsuit that Trump brought last month seeking to block the National Archives from releasing records of his sought by lawmakers in their investigations. A district court judge already approved the documents’ release — rejecting Trump’s arguments about executive privilege — but that order was put on hold by the appeals court while it considers Trump’s appeal. The questions the case raises about a former president’s ability to assert privilege have knock-on effects for the rest of the January 6 investigation, as potential witnesses have pointed to Trump’s assertion of privilege as a justification for not cooperating with Congress.

The panel of DC Circuit judges who will hear arguments Tuesday in the National Archives case are all Democratic-appointees, though it is expected that at some point the Supreme Court will be asked to get involved.

“President Biden’s well-reasoned conclusion that the interests of the Executive Branch and the Nation more broadly would be disserved by asserting executive privilege over Presidential records bearing on those events controls here,” the Justice Department wrote in a brief ahead of Tuesday’s arguments. “The former President’s effort to dismiss that decision as driven by politics ignores the magnitude of the events of January 6 and the overriding need for a national reckoning to ensure that nothing similar ever happens again.”

                         Confronting a Supreme Court case with generational stakes for abortion rights.

The long-brewing Supreme Court fight over Roe v. Wade comes to a head this week with the potential for consequences that echo for decades into the future. A decision that gutted Roe would leave the Biden administration few options for shoring up abortion access in the wake of a new wave of restrictions.

“Roe’s central holding remains clear and workable, and it has only been further reinforced by intervening legal and factual developments,” the Justice Department said in a brief. “And the passage of another three decades means that every American woman of reproductive age has grown up against the backdrop of the right secured by Roe and Casey, which has become even more deeply woven into the Nation’s social fabric.”

However, all signs point to the court’s 6-3 conservative majority using the challenge to Mississippi’s 15-week ban undermine — if not outright reverse — Roe. The court has dithered on requests from the Justice Department and clinics that it block a separate Texas law that uses a procedural side door to ban most abortions in the state.

The sweeping decision that is expected out of the Mississippi case would drastically shift not just the legal ground, but the political and political landscape around abortion. A dozen states have so-called trigger laws — where bans on abortion would be “triggered” by a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe — and several other states have other types of abortion bans on the books that could go into effect in such a scenario

There is little the Biden administration could do to counteract such a clampdown on access to the procedure, according to Mary Ziegler, a Florida State University College of Law professor and author of “Abortion and the Law in America: A Legal History, Roe v. Wade to the Present.”

Even If the court doesn’t reverse Roe outright, the justices could undermine its key holdings in a way that would usher in a flood of extreme restrictions and put the judiciary on a trajectory for reversing Roe in the not-so-distant future.

“It’ll just show that the legacy of conservative presidents and the courts — and the fact that progressives, even while they’ve done well winning the popular vote, have not done well in shaping the courts — that can put real obstacles in the way of what progressive presidents like Biden want to do,” Ziegler said.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Guerra Civile, Stati Uniti

US. Battaglia finale. Corte Suprema discute il ricorso del Mississippi sulla Roe. v. Wade.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-12-01.

Suprema Corte

«Supreme Court to hear Mississippi abortion case Wednesday»

«Mississippi law bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy»

«Ma’am, you are already a mother. Don’t let them kill your baby»

«It is a common scene at a clinic at the center of a major legal fight now before the U.S. Supreme Court that could shape the future of American abortion rights»

«Mississippi has asked the justices to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe. v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide»

«Mississippi is among 12 states with so-called trigger laws designed to ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned»

«Abortion opponents hope the court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, will narrow or overturn the Roe and Casey rulings in the Mississippi case»

«Even if the court does not explicitly overturn Roe, any ruling letting states ban abortion before the fetus is viable outside the womb would raise questions about how early states could ban the procedure»

* * * * * * *

Negli Stati Uniti è in corso una acerrima lotta tra repubblicani e gruppi religiosi: sono due Weltanschauung opposte ed incompatibili.

I liberal democratici hanno l’aborto come parte integrante della loro ideologia e ne hanno fatto bandiera da combattimento.

Ovunque sono al potere lo impongono, estendendo sempre più la interpretazione della sentenza Roe. v. Wade.

La Suprema Corte deciderà secondo giustizia, ma sarà una sentenza che potrebbe mutare il quadro politico americano e disgregare il partito democratico.

* * * * * * *


Lone Mississippi clinic on front line of U.S. Supreme Court abortion battle.

– Supreme Court to hear Mississippi abortion case Wednesday

– Mississippi law bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy

* * * * * * *

Jackson, Miss., Nov 29 (Reuters) – As a car drove into the parking lot of Jackson Women’s Health Organization clinic, the only abortion provider in the state of Mississippi, anti-abortion activist Beverly Anderson leaned in to speak to the woman in the passenger’s seat.

Two escorts wearing rainbow-colored vests blared rock music to drown out Anderson and other protesters as patients entered the fenced lot.

“Ma’am, you are already a mother. Don’t let them kill your baby,” Anderson, 61, told the woman.

The escorts turned up the volume on the Guns N’ Roses song “Nightrain” as the woman was led into the pink-colored building located next to a Homewood Suites hotel and across the street from a taqueria.

It is a common scene at a clinic at the center of a major legal fight now before the U.S. Supreme Court that could shape the future of American abortion rights. The nine justices on Wednesday are due to hear arguments in Mississippi’s bid to revive a Republican-backed 2018 law, blocked by lower courts, banning abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy. Mississippi has asked the justices to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe. v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

Mississippi is among 12 states with so-called trigger laws designed to ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Additional states also likely would move quickly to curtail abortion access with such a ruling.

Anti-abortion advocates like Anderson, who cite religious opposition to the procedure, believe they are closer than ever to overturning Roe, a longstanding goal for Christian conservatives and a driving force behind some recent Supreme Court appointments by Republican presidents.

Anderson said she would “praise God” if the Supreme Court rules the way she hopes.

                         EVERY WOMAN HAS A CHOICE.

The Jackson clinic sees between 60 and 80 patients a week, with most obtaining abortions by pill. It has two rooms where women can obtain surgical abortions performed between 11 and 16 weeks of pregnancy.

A 40-year-old woman from Jackson, who was six weeks pregnant and undergoing a medication abortion, said she was grateful for the clinic.

“Every woman has a choice on whether to have a child or not. I don’t think it’s the state’s decision,” she said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Roe v. Wade recognized that the right to personal privacy under the U.S. Constitution protects a woman’s ability to terminate her pregnancy. The Supreme Court in a 1992 ruling called Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey reaffirmed the right to abortion and prohibited laws imposing an “undue burden” on abortion access.

Abortion opponents hope the court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, will narrow or overturn the Roe and Casey rulings in the Mississippi case.

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, a Republican, in court papers called those two rulings “egregiously wrong” and based on obsolete science. State legislatures should have more leeway to restrict abortion, Fitch said.

The Roe and Casey decisions determined that states cannot ban abortion before a fetus is viable outside the womb, generally viewed by doctors as between 24 and 28 weeks.

Mississippi’s 15-week ban directly challenged that finding. Even if the court does not explicitly overturn Roe, any ruling letting states ban abortion before the fetus is viable outside the womb would raise questions about how early states could ban the procedure.

“Without that clear line that courts could apply, states would be able to ban abortion at virtually any point of pregnancy,” said lawyer Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which challenged Mississippi’s law on behalf of the Jackson clinic.

Mississippi’s law and other similar ones passed by various Republican-led states represent direct challenges to Roe v. Wade.

After the clinic sued to block the measure, a federal judge in 2018 ruled against Mississippi. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019 reached the same conclusion, prompting Mississippi to turn to the Supreme Court

Sitting behind her desk in her cluttered office, one eye on a screen showing security camera footage of the anti-abortion protesters outside, clinic director Shannon Brewer vowed to do whatever she can to help women access abortion if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Mississippi.

“That would be a huge step backwards. It would be a slap in a woman’s face to say after all these years you still don’t have control over your body,” Rikelman said.

Her organization could assist with travel and accommodation costs and refer women to out-of-state doctors for abortions, Brewer said.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, more women would have to travel out of conservative states like Mississippi for abortions, an option that those with scarce financial resources may be unable to accomplish, according to a doctor at the clinic who flies in from Massachusetts.

“It makes me want to cry,” said the doctor, also speaking on condition of anonymity. “It makes me feel defeated and horrified that people in this country hate women so much they don’t want them to be able to access a full range of pregnancy care.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Usa. Corte Suprema rifiuta di bloccare la legge del Texas che limita l’aborto.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-09-03.

2021-09-03__ Supreme Court 001

La Corte Suprema rifiuta di bloccare la legge del Texas sull’aborto.

«Under Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and nearly fifty years of unbroken precedent, a patient has a constitutionally protected right to end a pregnancy before viability»

* * * * * * *

«The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Wednesday to block a Texas ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, dealing a major blow to abortion rights by leaving in place a state law that prohibits the vast majority of abortions»

«The decision is a major milestone in the fight over abortion, as opponents have sought for decades to roll back access to the procedure»

«By a 5-4 vote, the justices denied an emergency request by abortion and women’s health providers for an injunction on enforcement of the ban»

«One of the court’s six conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined its three liberals in dissent»

«Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand» [Sonia Sotomayor]

«The court’s action over the Texas ban could foreshadow its approach in another case over a 15-week ban by Mississippi in which the state has asked the justices to overturn Roe v. Wade»

* * * * * * *

Torniamo a malincuore sul problema dell’aborto, che adesso è materia di acerrima lotta politica.

Esso infatti è parte integrante dell’ideologia liberal, ed i democratici ne fanno bandiera di combattimento.

Precisiamo subito un aspetto lessicologico, su cui i democratici giocano ambiguamente.

La famosa sentenza Roe v, Wand sentenzia che in quella particolare situazione l’aborto non trova contrasto nella Costituzione.

Travisandone i termini, mentendo, i liberal democratici sostengono invece che l’aborto sia un diritto costituzionale.

«constitutional rights»

* * *

«Joe Biden released a statement criticizing the Texas abortion law that went into effect today and affirming the White House’s support of Roe v Wade. Senior Democrats in Congress slammed the US supreme court for not taking up an appeal to consider the Texas abortion ban, letting the law go into effect though it virtually bans all abortions after six weeks of pregnancy» [Fonte]

Joe Biden invoca la sacralità del ‘rule of laws’ e delle sentenze, ma solo se queste siano in accoro alla sua ideologia.

È una figura che avremmo voluto non vedere mai.

I liberal si stanno rodendo il fegato dalla rabbia impotente.

*


U.S. Supreme Court declines to block Texas abortion ban

Washington, Sept 2 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Wednesday to block a Texas ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, dealing a major blow to abortion rights by leaving in place a state law that prohibits the vast majority of abortions.

The decision is a major milestone in the fight over abortion, as opponents have sought for decades to roll back access to the procedure.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices denied an emergency request by abortion and women’s health providers for an injunction on enforcement of the ban, which took effect early on Wednesday, while litigation continues.

One of the court’s six conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined its three liberals in dissent.

“The court’s order is stunning,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion.

“Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”

In an unsigned explanation, the court’s majority said the decision was “not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law” and allowed legal challenges to proceed.

The decision illustrates the impact of former Republican President Donald Trump’s three conservative appointees, who have tilted the court further right. All were in the majority.

The law would amount to a near-total ban on the procedure in Texas, as 85% to 90% of abortions are obtained after six weeks of pregnancy, and would probably force many clinics to close, abortion rights groups said.

Such a ban has never been permitted in any state since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, in 1973.

Texas is among a dozen mostly Republican-led states to ban the procedure once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, often at six weeks and sometimes before a woman realizes she is pregnant.

Courts have blocked such bans, citing Roe v. Wade.

The court’s action over the Texas ban could foreshadow its approach in another case over a 15-week ban by Mississippi in which the state has asked the justices to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The court will hear arguments in the term beginning in October, with a ruling due by the end of June 2022.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Texas. Corte di Appello federale approva la nuova legge sull’aborto.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-08-20.

2021-08-19__ Texas Supreme Court 001

La 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ha sentenziato la legalità della legge SB8 del Senato del Texas in materia di aborto, rovesciando la sentenza emessa da un giudice distrettuale.

* * * * * * *

«We must decide whether the district court erred in permanently enjoining Texas’s Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which prohibits a particular type of dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortion method. SB8 refers to the prohibited method as “live dismemberment” because doctors use forceps to separate, terminate, and remove the fetus. SB8 requires doctors to use alternative fetal-death methods.

The district court declared SB8 facially unconstitutional. It held that SB8 imposes an undue burden on a large fraction of women, primarily because it determined that SB8 amounted to a ban on all D&E abortions. But viewing SB8 through a binary framework—that either D&Es can be done only by live dismemberment or else women cannot receive abortions in the second trimester—is to accept a false dichotomy. Instead, the record shows that doctors can safely perform D&Es and comply with SB8 using methods that are already in widespread use. In permanently enjoining SB8, the district court committed numerous, reversible legal and factual errors: applying the wrong test to assess SB8, disregarding and misreading the Supreme Court’s precedents in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey and Gonzales v. Carhart, and bungling the large-fraction analysis. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s permanent injunction.

Moreover, remanding to the district court would be futile here because the record permits only one conclusion. The plaintiffs have failed to carry their heavy burden of proving that SB8 would impose an undue burden on a large fraction of women. We REVERSE and RENDER.»

«The plurality claims that the district court erred by treating the State’s interest in preserving fetal life as “only [a] marginal consideration” that has “its primary application once the fetus is capable of living outside the womb.”»

«The lower court “committed numerous, reversible legal and factual errors»

* * * * * * *

Negli Stati Uniti si fa un gran vociare sull’aborto perché è parte integrante dell’ideologia liberal.

Ogni atto pubblico, legge o sentenza, che ne limiti la portata è percepito dai democratici come un attacco.

Senza questa politicizzazione estrema, questo argomento non comparirebbe nemmeno nelle cronache.

Si deve invece notare come i giudici dipartimentali di credo liberal boccino sistematicamente ogni legge che disciplini l’aborto, salvo poi essere smentiti dalle Corti Superiori, anche con parole avvilenti.

«The lower court “committed numerous, reversible legal and factual errors»

Pubblicato in: Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Texas. Suprema Corte. I deputati democratici assenteisti possono essere arrestati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-08-19.

2021-08-19__ Texas Supreme Court 001

Negli stati ove si stesse per votare una legge che regolamentasse le procedure elettorali i deputati democratici avevano preso il vezzo di assentarsi per far mancare il numero legale.

La faccenda è finita dapprima davanti ad un tribunale distrettuale, che aveva sentenziato a favore dei lib dem, ma compiendo svariati abusi. Uno per tutti

«the lower court’s order was issued without involving the defendants or their attorneys»

I processi senza ammettere la difesa sono la massima espressione dei liberal democratici

La faccenda è finita rapidamente alla Suprema Corte del Texas.

«to physically compel the attendance of absent members»

* * * * * * *

«The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the state House may compel the attendance of its members by civil arrest, overturning a lower court order from earlier this month»

«The Texas House has yet to reach a quorum during the second called special session because the majority of House Democrats have been absent from the floor since July 12, when they initially fled the state to break quorum during the first special session as a way to block restrictive voting legislation»

«The state House speaker last week signed 52 civil arrest warrants for Democrats who are absent without excuse»

«The question now before this Court is not whether it is a good idea for the Texas House of Representatives to arrest absent members to compel a quorum»

«Nor is the question whether the proposed voting legislation giving rise to this dispute is desirable»

«Those are political questions far outside the scope of the judicial function»

«→→ The legal question before this Court concerns only whether the Texas Constitution gives the House of Representatives the authority to physically compel the attendance of absent members ←←»

«We conclude that it does, and we therefore direct the district court to withdraw” the temporary restraining order»

«The district court very clearly abused its discretion by issuing the TRO. The defendants have no adequate appellate remedy»

«As predicted, the law is on our side»

«House Democrats were elected to do a job – and it is time for them to come home and do just that, regardless if the outcome doesn’t lean in their favor. Childish antics will not be tolerated»

* * * * * * *

«Buffonate infantili».

E così la Harris-Biden Administration deve incassare una altra dura sentenza, che la bacchetta severamente.

Il diavolo fa le pentole, ma non i coperchi, recita un proverbio, ma quei due non riescono a fare nemmeno le pentole.

*


Texas Supreme Court rules state House Democrats can be arrested to force attendance at Capitol

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the state House may compel the attendance of its members by civil arrest, overturning a lower court order from earlier this month.

The Texas House has yet to reach a quorum during the second called special session because the majority of House Democrats have been absent from the floor since July 12, when they initially fled the state to break quorum during the first special session as a way to block restrictive voting legislation.

The state House speaker last week signed 52 civil arrest warrants for Democrats who are absent without excuse. The sergeant-at-arms last week sent the warrants to those Democrats, deputized law enforcement to find them and even dropped paperwork off at some members’ homes, though no arrests have been made.

“The question now before this Court is not whether it is a good idea for the Texas House of Representatives to arrest absent members to compel a quorum. Nor is the question whether the proposed voting legislation giving rise to this dispute is desirable,” wrote Justice Jimmy Blacklock in Tuesday’s opinion. “Those are political questions far outside the scope of the judicial function. The legal question before this Court concerns only whether the Texas Constitution gives the House of Representatives the authority to physically compel the attendance of absent members. We conclude that it does, and we therefore direct the district court to withdraw” the temporary restraining order.

The ruling stems from a petition that 19 Texas House Democrats filed in Travis County, where a state district judge issued a temporary restraining order. The all-Republican Texas Supreme Court quickly issued a temporary stay on the Democratic judge’s order, pending further review.

“The district court very clearly abused its discretion by issuing the TRO. The defendants have no adequate appellate remedy,” Blacklock wrote, noting the lower court’s order was issued without involving the defendants or their attorneys.

“I’m very disappointed in the Supreme Court’s opinion. We will continue to consult with our legal team to pursue a federal remedy that isn’t closely tied to Governor Abbott,” state Rep. Ron Reynolds, one of the 19 Democrats who filed the original petition, told CNN in a text message Tuesday night.

CNN has reached out to the offices of Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan and Gov. Greg Abbott for comment.

“As predicted, the law is on our side. House Democrats were elected to do a job – and it is time for them to come home and do just that, regardless if the outcome doesn’t lean in their favor. Childish antics will not be tolerated,” the Texas Attorney General’s Office tweeted shortly after the ruling was issued.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Usa. Suprema Corte ammette il Mississippi sulle restrizioni all’aborto.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-08-03.

Sipreme Court Stemma 001

«Mississippi asks U.S. Supreme Court to overturn abortion rights landmark»

«The state of Mississippi on Thursday urged the U.S. Supreme Court in a major case set to be argued in its next term to overturn the landmark 1973 ruling that recognized that women have a constitutional right to obtain an abortion»

«Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, a Republican, said in papers filed with the court that the Roe v. Wade ruling and a subsequent 1992 decision that affirmed it were both “egregiously wrong” and that state legislatures should have more leeway to restrict abortion. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority»

«The filing marked the first time that Mississippi, in seeking to revive a restrictive state abortion law blocked by lower courts, made overturning Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide and ended an era in which some states had banned the procedure, a central part of its argument»

«Mississippi is one of numerous Republican-governed states in recent years to have passed ever-more-restrictive abortion laws»

«→→ The court in May agreed to take up the Mississippi case and will hear it in its term that begins in October. The justices are likely to hear oral arguments in November, with a ruling due by the end of June 2022  ←←»

«→→ If Roe falls, half the states in the country are poised to ban abortion entirely ←←»

«Mississippi’s Republican-backed 2018 law bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Lower courts ruled against the law, which legislators enacted with full knowledge that it was a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade»

«Roe v. Wade said that states could not ban abortion before the viability of the fetus outside the womb, which is generally viewed by doctors as between 24 and 28 weeks. The Mississippi law would ban abortion much earlier than that»

«a federal judge in 2018 ruled against the state. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019 reached the same conclusion»

* * * * * * *

Il problema non esisterebbe se non fosse che il tema dell’aborto sia parte integrante dell’ideologia liberal, che i democratici intendono imporre ovunque possano. Le reazioni sono quindi facilmente capibili.

Ciò premesso, questa tema, che sarebbe di mera competenza etica e morale, diventa terreno di scontro tra due Weltanschauung opposte ed incompatibili.

Sono oramai numerose le istanze fatte pervenire alla Suprema Corte, chiamata alla fine a dirimere questo conflitto. Alcune sentenze giocano un importante ruolo su altre con diversi oggetti.

Usa. La sentenza della Suprema Corte 19-1258 sull’Arizona condizionerà il Doj versus Georgia.

SCOTUS decision on Arizona voter rules could mean trouble for DOJ suit against Georgia

Usa. Suprema Corte. Prima causa Lgbt versus Chiesa Cattolica.

* * * * * * *


Mississippi asks U.S. Supreme Court to overturn abortion rights landmark

Washington, July 22 (Reuters) – The state of Mississippi on Thursday urged the U.S. Supreme Court in a major case set to be argued in its next term to overturn the landmark 1973 ruling that recognized that women have a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, a Republican, said in papers filed with the court that the Roe v. Wade ruling and a subsequent 1992 decision that affirmed it were both “egregiously wrong” and that state legislatures should have more leeway to restrict abortion. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

The filing marked the first time that Mississippi, in seeking to revive a restrictive state abortion law blocked by lower courts, made overturning Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide and ended an era in which some states had banned the procedure, a central part of its argument.

“It is time for the court to set this right and return this political debate to the political branches of government,” Fitch added in a statement.

Mississippi is one of numerous Republican-governed states in recent years to have passed ever-more-restrictive abortion laws.

The court in May agreed to take up the Mississippi case and will hear it in its term that begins in October. The justices are likely to hear oral arguments in November, with a ruling due by the end of June 2022.

“If Roe falls, half the states in the country are poised to ban abortion entirely. Women of child-bearing age in the U.S. have never known a world in which they don’t have this basic right, and we will keep fighting to make sure they never will,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is among those challenging Mississippi’s law.

Mississippi’s Republican-backed 2018 law bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Lower courts ruled against the law, which legislators enacted with full knowledge that it was a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

It has been a longstanding aim of religious conservatives to overturn Roe v. Wade, which recognized that a constitutional right to personal privacy protects a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion. The court in its 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, reaffirmed the ruling and prohibited laws that place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.

Roe v. Wade said that states could not ban abortion before the viability of the fetus outside the womb, which is generally viewed by doctors as between 24 and 28 weeks. The Mississippi law would ban abortion much earlier than that. Other states have backed laws that would ban the procedure even earlier.

Abortion opponents are hopeful the Supreme Court will narrow or overturn Roe v. Wade. The court’s conservative majority includes the addition last year of Republican former President Donald Trump’s third appointee, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She replaced liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an abortion rights champion who died in September.

After the only abortion clinic in Mississippi, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, sued to block the 15-week ban, a federal judge in 2018 ruled against the state. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019 reached the same conclusion.

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 June 2020 ruling struck down a Louisiana law that imposed restrictions on doctors who perform abortions. Ginsburg was still on the court at the time and conservative Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the court’s liberal wing in the ruling. Roberts, however, made it clear that he voted that way because he felt bound by the court’s 2016 ruling striking down a similar Texas law.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Texas. Prime elezioni con la legge che regolarizza le procedure. Sorprese quasi epocali.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-07-28.

2021-07-28__ Texas 001

Texas’ 6th Congressional District To Be Decided Today In A Special Election Runoff

«Voters will hit the polls today to choose a replacement for U.S. Rep. Ron Wright, who died in February after contracting COVID-19. KERA News will be bringing you live results throughout the evening.

Longtime Republican activist Susan Wright is trying to succeed her late husband. Jake Ellzey, a state legislator and former political foe of Ron Wright, is challenging her.

The 6th Congressional District includes a chunk of southeast Tarrant County and stretches down through Ellis and Navarro counties.

It’s unusual to have two Republicans in the final pairing for a Congressional seat. That’s because this is a special election, and more than 20 candidates from both parties competed in the May 1 preliminary round. No one got close to half the vote, which triggered a runoff between the top two.

Polls are open from 7a.m. to 7 p.m. Since this election is only for the 6th Congressional District, only voters living in that district may vote. The district includes parts of Tarrant, Ellis and Navarro counties.

One of seven forms of ID will get you into a voting booth:

    Texas driver’s license

    Texas election identification certificate (EIC) issued by the Department of Public Safety (DPS)

    Texas personal ID card issued by DPS

    Texas handgun license issued by DPS

    U.S. citizenship certificate containing your photograph

    U.S. military ID card containing your photograph

    U.S. passport, book or card»

* * * * * * *

A seguito della morte di Mr Ron Wright, deputato repubblicano, il 1° maggio si sono tenute le elezioni primarie, nelle quali i due candidati meglio votati erano ambedue repubblicani.

Un risultato del tutto inusuale: il ballottaggio avviene tra loro due, assenti candidati democratici.

Questi è il risultato della nuova legislazione del Texas che regolarizza le procedure elettorali.

Il fatto più rilevante verte l’introduzione della esibizione di un documento di identità con fotografia, oltre a tempi e modi certi per il voto per corrispondenza.

Tra un anno si terranno le votazioni di midterm, che si presentano scabrose per i liberal democratici.

* * * * * * *


Trump-backed candidate on ballot in U.S. House runoff in Texas

Voters in Texas will provide another measure of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s influence over Republicans when they choose whether to replace a congressman who died of COVID-19 with his Trump-backed widow or a former fighter pilot.

The runoff election on Tuesday between two Republicans in the state’s 6th Congressional District outside Dallas will reduce Democrats’ narrow 220-211 majority in the U.S. House of Representatives by one seat as Congress prepares to try to pass Democratic President Joe Biden’s sweeping $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill. Two Republicans emerged from 23 candidates in the first round of voting May 1.

Trump moved quickly to endorse Susan Wright, a 58-year-old Republican activist, to succeed her husband, U.S. Representative Ron Wright, who died of the coronavirus on Feb. 7. Trump’s political action committee, which raises funds to wield political influence, made a last-minute $100,000 television ad buy for her over the weekend, campaign finance records show.

Her rival is fellow conservative state Senator Jake Ellzey, 51, a former Navy fighter pilot who flew combat missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. He has far exceeded her in fundraising, taking in $1.7 million through July 7, $1 million more than Wright, according to Federal Election Commission data.

Trump won the district by three percentage points in the 2020 presidential election, a nine-point slide from four years earlier.

“Trump’s endorsement took a relatively equal playing field … and tipped it decidedly toward Wright,” said Mark Jones, a Rice University political science professor. If the election had been happening concurrently with other, local elections, some Democrats voting in local races might have voted for Ellzey to express dislike for Trump, he said.

“As things stand, I doubt very many Democrats will turn out to vote for a conservative Republican like Ellzey simply because Trump endorsed his opponent,” Jones said.

Democrats have made gains in the region in recent years. But they narrowly missed getting a candidate into the runoff, losing what may have been their best shot at adding to their thin House majority.

The Trump-allied fundraising arm of the conservative Club for Growth based in Washington, D.C., says it has spent over $1 million in television ads and mailers for Wright. They proclaim Trump’s endorsement of Wright and sharply attack Ellzey, charging that Democrats are trying to get him elected.

“I don’t think most Dems are voting” in Tuesday’s election, said Jana Lynne Sanchez, the Democrat who was edged out of the runoff by 354 votes back in May, when there were 23 candidates on the ballot. “They are both very far right.”

Ellzey has countered by touting his endorsement by former Texas Governor Rick Perry, a Republican who was a member of Trump’s Cabinet, and Representative Dan Crenshaw, a Republican congressman from Houston.

Perry on Facebook denounced the Club for Growth “for tearing down a real American hero.”

Pubblicato in: Giustizia, Trump

Usa. NY Supreme Court sentenzia vittoria di Mr Trump contro Hawaii et Al.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-07-21.

Osprey 001

Grande vittoria legale di Mr Trump alla Corte Suprema di New York per un riferito “racist baby” video.

Ci son voluti quattro anni di battaglie legali intentate dai giudici liberal per stabilire alla fine che la satira è satira, e che quindi non è perseguibile.

Ma se all’epoca i media liberal avevano inscenato una colossale macchina del fango, adesso che il fatto che la Suprema Corte abbia sentenziato che quanto addotto non costituisce reato, lo stanno semplicemente ignorando.

Non ci si stupisca quindi di quanto stia accadendo in Arizona.

Usa. Maricopa. Arizona Audit. Si evidenziano severe ‘discrepanze’ nello scrutinio del 2020.

* * * * * * *

Supreme Court. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Hawaii, et al. (Case Number 17-17168).

Questa causa era stata iniziata il 22 dicembre 2017.

*


New York Supreme Court dismisses ‘racist baby’ lawsuit against Trump, conservative meme maker

«The judge declared the video a work of satire, rendering the case “not actionable.”

A lawsuit filed by the parents of two toddlers featured in a manipulated “racist baby” video was dismissed by the New York Supreme Court on Friday. 

The video at the center of the lawsuit showed a doctored clip of the plaintiffs’ children with a fake CNN chyron that read, “Terrified todler [sic] runs from racist baby.” Then, the chyron changed to say: “Racist baby probably a Trump voter.” The video changes to show the original and ends with the words: “America is not the problem. Fake news is.” It was created by pro-Trump meme maker Logan Cook, better known as Carpe Donktum online, and shared by the former president on Twitter last June.» 

* * * * * * *


WIN: New York Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Trump Over Meme

President Trump last week received a First Amendment victory when New York Supreme Court Judge David Benjamin Cohen dismissed a privacy lawsuit against Trump and Logan Cook, also known as “CarpeDonktum” on social media, over a meme Cook created.

According to court documents, in September 2019, the plaintiffs recorded a video of their two-year-old toddlers, one black and the other white, “hugging each other on a New York City sidewalk,” which went viral as “a symbol of racial unity.”

Cook allegedly “shared the video with Trump, who was then President of the United States, as well as Trump’s campaign, TFP, and misappropriated the video by altering it and intentionally using it out of context to create ‘an extremely distorted and false message.’”

The Hollywood Reporter described the alleged “altering” Cook did to the video in question.

Cook found a video of a white toddler running after a black toddler and stuck a chyron reading “breaking news” over it. The captions read, “Terrified Todler [sic] Runs From Racist Baby” and “Racist Baby Probably A Trump Voter.”

The video then fades to black, and reads, “What actually happened.” The toddlers run at each other and embrace. A new caption: “AMERICA IS NOT THE PROBLEM…FAKE NEWS IS. IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING. ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT FAKE NEWS DUMPSTER FIRES.”

The court document also states that on June 18, 2020, Trump tweeted Cook’s video on his personal account, which gained over 20 million views. The next day Facebook and Twitter removed the video from Trump’s account due to several reasons including: violation of copyright laws, lack of approval from the plaintiffs, and what Twitter says is “likely to cause harm” to the plaintiffs. Cook was reportedly permanently banned from Twitter, but still shared the video on his Instagram account.

The plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit against Trump and Cook over the claim that the video violated “New York privacy and publicity rights law (N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§50 and 51) and was both an intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.

On June 9, Judge Cohen decided to dismiss the case because the video was “newsworthy” and clearly satire.

“Initially, as defendants assert, the video was newsworthy,” Cohen stated. “To promote freedom of expression, the meaning of ‘newsworthiness’ has been broadly construed and includes ‘not only descriptions of actual events … but also articles concerning political happenings, social trends, or any subject of public interest.’”

“It is common knowledge that one of the principal tactics of Trump’s presidential campaigns, as well as his presidency, was to incessantly attack the mainstream media as purveyors of ‘fake news,’ including his claim that the media exaggerates the extent of racial division in this country. Thus, the video’s references to ‘fake news’ and its depiction of race relations, however distorted, are clearly newsworthy,” Cohen said in his decision. “Since the video is therefore a satire, albeit one which some may consider to be rather distasteful, this Court is constrained to find that it is not actionable.”

Although the judge ruled in favor of Trump and Cook, he denied Trump’s SLAPP claim to cover his legal fees.

“Although this Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument, it finds that they set forth a good faith basis for the extension of existing law and, thus, plaintiffs should not be penalized by the draconian language set forth in CRL §§ 70-a and 76-a,” Cohen’s decision clarifies.

After securing this win, President Trump set out to challenge Facebook, Google, and Twitter over censorship in a major class-action lawsuit, RSBN previously reported.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Guerra Civile, Stati Uniti

Biden ha tenuto un discorso ‘emotivo’ a Philadelphia. Tutto da gustarsi.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-07-17.

Biden 001

Per Joe Biden sono ‘inconcepibili’ le leggi degli stati, le quali sono state sentenziate dalla Suprema Corte essere perfettamente costituzionali. Quindi, secondo lui, anche la sentenza della Suprema Corte sarebbe ‘inconcepibile’.

Lo stesso Bloomberg, fedele scudiero, ha dovuto ammettere che è stato un “emotional  speech”, affermazione che è tutto tranne che un complimento.

* * * ** * *

«Biden calls voting Rights Bills ‘imperative’ to fight GOP curbs»

«President delivers emotional speech on voting in Philadelphia»

«President Joe Biden delivered an emotional and combative speech in defense of broadening the right to vote, declaring it a “national imperative” for Congress to pass legislation that would counter new Republican laws in several states that curb ballot access»

«To me this is simple. This is election subversion»

«If their preferred candidate loses, they’re trying not only targeting people of color, they’re targeting voters of all races and backgrounds»

«Republicans say that the voting restrictions are necessary to protect election integrity. The wave of legislation, though, is inspired by former President Donald Trump’s false claims that he lost the November election because of rampant fraud»

«Biden called the state laws “an assault on democracy, an assault on liberty, and an assault on who we are” and said “bullies and merchants of fears and peddlers of lies are threatening the very foundation” of the country»

«He didn’t mention the Senate filibuster»

* * *

«Activists have been frustrated at Biden’s reluctance to endorse eliminating the filibuster»

«So far, he has only been able to address voting rights through executive actions that lack the teeth or sweep to respond to the state laws»

«Legislation is one tool, but not the only tool. It’s not the only measure of our obligation to defend democracy»

«The focus will be on dismantling racially discriminatory laws, like the recent challenge to Georgia’s vicious anti-voting law»

* * * * * * *

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (19-1257)

«Arizona’s challenged voting regulations governing precinct-based election-day voting (rejecting ballots cast in the wrong precinct) and early mail-in voting (making it a crime for anyone other than an authorized proxy to possess the early ballot of another voter) do not violate §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; Arizona House Bill 2023 (enacting the early mail-in voting regulations) was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose.»

*

Usa. Corte Suprema. Biden intona le geremiadi. Mai un presidente disse cose più sconce.

Usa. La Harris-Biden Administration potrebbe dichiarare default a breve termine.

Harris-Biden Administration. Stanno iniziando a litigarsi. Kamala-Harris.

Harris-Biden Administration. Potrebbe non sopravvivere al midterm.

Usa. Dopo quello di Milwaukee anche un giudice della Florida blocca una legge di Biden.

Usa. L’incubo della inflazione. Alita sul collo della Harris-Biden Administration.

Harris-Biden Administration. Brucia sulla graticola degli eventi che non sa dominare.

* * * * * * *

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

Con la sentenza Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (19-1257) la Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti ha dichiarato che le leggi dell’Arizona che regolamentano le procedure elettorali sono costituzionalmente corrette.

Di conseguenza, chiunque le critichi ovvero le avversi, critica ed avversa nel contempo sia l’operato della Suprema Corte sia un provvedimento costituzionale.

«President delivers emotional speech on voting in Philadelphia»

Con questo discorso ‘emozionale’ Biden avversa la Suprema Corte e la Costituzione americana.

«To me this is simple. This is election subversion …. “an assault on democracy, an assault on liberty, and an assault on who we are”»

Sono frasi che si commentano da sole.

Che una sentenza della Suprema Corte sia un assalto alla democrazia sembrerebbe essere frase molto fuori da ranghi.

L’articolista segnala anche che

«He didn’t mention the Senate filibuster».

La filibustering è una comprovata tecnica dei gestione del senato, che consente alla opposizione di fare innalzare la soglia del voto valido da 50% più uno al 60%.

Ben difficilmente la Harris-Biden Administration sarà in grado di far approvare al senato una legge che contrasti la sentenza della Corte Suprema.

Quasi sicuramente scateneranno la piazza, ma tanto indietro non si torna.

Sembrerebbe essere tramontato il tempo della baldoria elettorale, ove si dice che taluni abbiano votato più volte e che i morti abbiano adempiuto al dovere de voto.

*


Biden Calls Voting Rights Bills ‘Imperative’ to Fight GOP Curbs

– President delivers emotional speech on voting in Philadelphia

– He calls GOP state laws curbing ballot access ‘unconscionable’

*

President Joe Biden delivered an emotional and combative speech in defense of broadening the right to vote, declaring it a “national imperative” for Congress to pass legislation that would counter new Republican laws in several states that curb ballot access.

“To me this is simple. This is election subversion,” Biden said Tuesday in Philadelphia, referring to the GOP state laws.

Republicans “want the ability to reject the final count and ignore the will of the people,” he said, noting that some of the laws would enable state legislatures to strip control of elections from local officials. “If their preferred candidate loses, they’re trying not only targeting people of color, they’re targeting voters of all races and backgrounds.”

“It’s unconscionable,” he said.

Republicans say that the voting restrictions are necessary to protect election integrity. The wave of legislation, though, is inspired by former President Donald Trump’s false claims that he lost the November election because of rampant fraud, primarily in cities with large Black and Hispanic populations. Black voters turned out overwhelmingly for Biden during the Democratic primaries and the general election.

Biden called the state laws “an assault on democracy, an assault on liberty, and an assault on who we are” and said “bullies and merchants of fears and peddlers of lies are threatening the very foundation” of the country.

He didn’t mention the Senate filibuster.

Last week, Biden met with the leaders of civil rights organizations at the White House to discuss voting rights legislation and police reform. They told Biden that there would be nonviolent protests during the remainder of the summer to call attention to voting rights.

Activists have been frustrated at Biden’s reluctance to endorse eliminating the filibuster. So far, he has only been able to address voting rights through executive actions that lack the teeth or sweep to respond to the state laws.

“We also have to be clear-eyed about the obstruction we face. Legislation is one tool, but not the only tool. It’s not the only measure of our obligation to defend democracy,” Biden said.

He cited Attorney General Merrick Garland’s June announcement to double staff working on voting rights issues and to challenge the restrictive state laws in court.

“The focus will be on dismantling racially discriminatory laws, like the recent challenge to Georgia’s vicious anti-voting law. The Department of Justice will do so with a voting rights division, that at my request, is doubling its size in enforcement staff,” Biden said.

Still civil rights groups have indicated that they will continue to pressure Biden and Congress to support a modification of the filibuster to get the bills passed. Al Sharpton, in comments to reporters in Philadelphia after Biden’s speech, said he reiterated to Biden that he wanted him to change his position on the procedure. He said the president “didn’t commit” on supporting a modification.

“He said we’re still working through our position on that, so he’s noncommittal,” Sharpton said. “You’ve got to do a workaround or change the filibuster, otherwise all of what he said and we’ve been saying is at risk here. And that’s why I wanted to be here. I thought it was monumental that he did this.”

Sharpton, leader of the National Action Network, was among civil rights leaders that met with Biden at the White House last week. Wade Henderson, interim president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, also applauded Biden’s speech, though he called on the White House and Congress to do more to pass the bills. Henderson also participated in the meeting last week.

Biden and Harris “must do everything possible” to ensure the voting rights legislation passes, Henderson said in a statement. “Even if that means supporting the change of archaic Senate rules to protect our freedom to vote.”