Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Sua Giustizia Ginsburg cancella gli impegni di fine mese gennaio e febbraio.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-01-17.

2019-01-17__ginsburg__001

Vi sono notizie contrastanti sullo stato di salute di Sua Giustizia Ginsburg.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will return to work, no further medical treatment needed

«Ginsburg, 85, missed high court arguments for the first time in her 25 years in the Supreme Court this past week as she recuperates from cancer surgery.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will return to work and needs no further medical treatment, the court said Friday.»

*

Tuttavia, e questo è documento corroborabile, Sua Giustizia ha cancellato un pubblico impegno che aveva in agenda per il 29 gennaio.

Ginsburg Cancels Late-January Appearance As Skeptics Demand Proof-Of-Life

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has canceled a public appearance scheduled for January 29 after missing two weeks of oral arguments at the Supreme Court. 

Tuesday evening the Skirball Center announced the cancellation of “An Evening with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” part of an ongoing exhibit by the Cultural Center titled: “Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

While her exact condition is unknown, “top cancer surgeons” told CNBC they expect the 85-year-old Justice to be back on the bench in less than six weeks after fracturing three ribs and undergoing surgery to remove two cancerous nodules from her left lung over a two-month span. 

Ginsburg’s January 29 appearance was announced on December 20 – one day before her lung surgery. She was released from the hospital four days later. On January 7, Chief Justice John Roberts said Ginsburg was “unable to be present doay,” adding that she would still participate from home. A court spokesperson said earlier that day that Ginsburg would participate in cases “on the basis of briefs, filings and transcripts.” 

Weekend at Ruth’s?

Ginsburg’s absence from the bench – and now her late-January event cancellation, has stoked rumors over social media that the oldest Supreme Court Justice is actually dead, with doubters demanding proof-of-life under hashtags such as #WeekendAtRuths, a reference to the popular 1989 film Weekend At Bernie’s. 

This wasn’t enough to satisfy some critics who pointed to the fact that you can’t see her face in the video, as noted by the Daily Dot‘s Mike Rothschild. 

*

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Cancels Upcoming Speaking Engagements

«Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has pulled out of two upcoming speaking engagements as she recovers from cancer surgery in December, according to reports.

The 85-year-old Ginsburg was slated to appear January 29 at the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles. A February 6 event featuring Ginsburg and private equity titan and philanthropist David Rubenstein in New York City was also canceled.

“Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg regrets that she is unable to attend the talk with David Rubenstein at 92Y on February 6,” 92nd Street Y told CNN. “She is curtailing travel and focusing on her work while recuperating from recent surgery.”»

 

 

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

America. Tribunali. Il nono circuito fa ancora parlare di sé.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-01-16.

corti di appello e circuiti

Della Corte di Appello del 9th Circuito ci si è dovuti occupare in molte occasioni.

America. Corte di Appello del 9th Circuito. La Corte del disonore.

Trump. Correggere l’anomalia del Nono Circuito.

*

– Le Corti di Appello Federali sono composte da giudici nominati a vita dal Presidente degli Stati Uniti e confermati nella nomina dal Congresso.

– Le sentenze delle Corti di Appello Federali, ove esplicitamente dichiarato, hanno valore su tutti i territori della Federazione: possono essere appellate davanti la Suprema Corte di Giustizia, ma sotto la condizione che questa deliberi di esaminare quel caso specifico.

– I Giudici federali sono dichiaratamente schierati sia politicamente (repubblicani oppure democratici) sia secondo la scuola giurisprudenziale (una favorevole alla “interpretazione” di Costituzione e Leggi, l’altra invece fautrice dell’applicazione testuale del corpo giurisprudenziale).

^ ^ ^

Nessuno quindi si scandalizzi, né dovrebbe scandalizzarsi, che su molti argomenti le sentenze siano atti squisitamente politici, essendo i giudici dei politici nominati dalla politica: prima politici e solo secondariamente giudici.

Nei fatti, il controllo politico di almeno una Corte di Appello Federale consente ad un partito politico di bloccare, se non altro temporaneamente, le iniziative politiche sia del Presidente degli Stati Uniti, sia del Congresso, sia anche del Senato.

Se nella storia le Corti Federali hanno usualmente evidenziato una ragionevole serenità di giudizio, negli ultimi decenni la componente liberal democratica le ha fatte virare a veri e propri centri di potere politico, a mo’ di surroga del potere elettivo.

L’attuale guerra civile che intercorre tra liberal democratici e repubblicani non verte tanto sulla natura dei provvedimenti sottoposti a giudizio, quanto piuttosto sul controllo della composizione delle Corti.

Giudici onesti esercitano un simile potere in modo onesto, giudici schierati politicamente invece diventano l’opzione nucleare del partito di appartenenza. I giudici liberal democratici del Nono Circuito fanno sembrare i giudici dell’Unione Sovietica di Stalin dei galantuomini, retti e probi.

Orbene, i giudici federali del 9th circuito sono nella quasi totalità liberal democratici, e costituiscono il gruppo di fuoco di quel partito.

* * * * * * *

Con l’avvento di Mr Trump alla Presidenza i giudici del 9th circuito si sono attivati in massa per inficiare i provvedimenti da lui presi. Poi, con i debiti tempi tecnici, la quasi totalità di quelle sentenze è stata abrogata dal parere definitivo ed inappellabile della Suprema Corte: ma il problema non è giuridico, bensì politico.

Infatti, appena emesse quelle sentenze, tutti i media liberal inneggiano al fatto come se fosse un trionfo politico, salvo poi chiudersi in un dignitoso riserbo dopo la pronuncia avversa della Corte Suprema.

«A California judge has blocked new Trump administration regulations on birth control from applying in 13 states and Washington DC»

*

«The rules allow employers and insurers to decline to provide birth control if doing so violates their “religious beliefs” or “moral convictions”.»

*

«But the judge granted an injunction stopping it applying in jurisdictions which are challenging the policy. Plaintiffs in 13 states and the nation’s capital argued that the new regulation should not come into force while they moved forward with lawsuits against it»

*

«Mr Becerra and his counterparts in the other states had asked for a nationwide injunction but Judge Gilliam limited the ruling to only those states moving against the new rules»

*

«The mandate requiring birth control coverage had been a key feature of so-called Obamacare – President Obama’s efforts to overhaul the US healthcare system»

* * * * * * *

L’ideologia liberal socialista ha alcuni dogmi: la migrazione, l’aborto, la legalizzazione delle perversioni sessuali ed il ‘clima‘.

Sembrerebbe quasi che non riesca a concepire qualcosa di altro.

Con tutti i grandi problemi politici, sociali ed economici che gravano minacciosi sugli Stati Uniti, far di questi topic bandiera e non riuscire a parlar d’altro sembrerebbe essere cosa veramente troppo riduttiva.

Aspetteremo con pazienza che in materia si pronunci la Suprema Corte.


Bbc. 2019-01-14. Judge blocks Trump’s new birth control rules in 13 states and Washington

A California judge has blocked new Trump administration regulations on birth control from applying in 13 states and Washington DC.

The rules allow employers and insurers to decline to provide birth control if doing so violates their “religious beliefs” or “moral convictions”.

The rules were to come into effect nationwide from Monday.

But the judge granted an injunction stopping it applying in jurisdictions which are challenging the policy.

Plaintiffs in 13 states and the nation’s capital argued that the new regulation should not come into force while they moved forward with lawsuits against it.

While Judge Haywood Gilliam did not make a final decision, he said the rules could mean a “substantial number” of women would lose birth control coverage, a “massive policy shift” which could breach federal law.

Trump rolls back free birth control

The US state where women ‘could be fired’ for using contraception

Fifty-five million women benefited from the original Obama-era rule, which made companies provide free birth control.

Before taking office, President Donald Trump pledged to eliminate the requirement.

California attorney general Xavier Becerra said in a statement: “It’s 2019, yet the Trump administration is still trying to roll back women’s rights.

“The law couldn’t be clearer – employers have no business interfering in women’s healthcare decisions.”

But the US Department of Justice said in court documents that the new rules defended “a narrow class of sincere religious and moral objectors” and stopped them from conducting practices “that conflict with their beliefs”.

‘We took birth control for shorter jail term’

The strange truth about the pill

Mr Becerra and his counterparts in the other states had asked for a nationwide injunction but Judge Gilliam limited the ruling to only those states moving against the new rules.

Mr Trump’s rule change could force state governments to provide additional birth control coverage, Mr Becerra said, and pay health costs arising from unplanned pregnancies.

Aside from California and Washington DC, the new rules will not yet apply in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Virginia.

The mandate requiring birth control coverage had been a key feature of so-called Obamacare – President Obama’s efforts to overhaul the US healthcare system.

While the requirement included a provision letting religious institutions forgo birth control coverage for their employees, President Trump’s rule change widened the number of employers and insurers who could opt out, including on the grounds of “moral convictions”.

Conservative and religious groups welcomed the shift, while civil rights and health groups have criticised the change.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Ginsburg. Sua Giustizia non è presente alle discussioni del lunedì.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-01-07.

2018-12-21__Grinzburg__001

«Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t attending Monday’s arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court as she recovers from cancer surgery, marking the first time she has missed an argument session since she joined the court in 1993»

*

«Ginsburg, 85, will participate in the cases from home using the briefs and transcripts, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told reporters»

*

«Ginsburg, the leader of the court’s liberal wing, had surgery Dec. 21 to remove two cancerous growths from her left lung»

*

«Ginsburg’s well-being is of intense interest to liberals concerned that President Donald Trump might get the chance to nominate her successor»

*

«That could further entrench the court’s conservative majority.»

* * * * * * * *

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Supreme Court Arguments [New York Times]

«Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who underwent cancer surgery last month, was missing from the bench on Monday for the Supreme Court’s first arguments since the court returned from its four-week holiday break»

*

«Justice Ginsburg, 85, is the senior member of the court’s four-member liberal wing. President Trump has appointed two new members to the Supreme Court, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, moving it considerably to the right.»

*

«Should he name Justice Ginsburg’s replacement, Republican appointees would outnumber Democratic ones six to three.»

*

Ruth Bader Ginsburg not on bench for Supreme Court’s first day of arguments in 2019, court says [CNN]

«Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will not be at the Supreme Court Monday morning as it meets for its first day of oral arguments in the new year.

The court’s public information officer said Ginsburg, who is still recovering from surgery last month to remove two cancerous nodules from her lung, would still be able to vote on the cases by reviewing the transcripts of oral arguments»

*

«Ginsburg’s absence came midway through the term as the justices will consider petitions concerning some of President Donald Trump’s most controversial policies, including the phase-out of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and his ban on most transgender individuals from serving in the military.»

* * * * * * * *

Auguriamo a Sua Giustizia Ginsburg di ristabilirsi prontamente,

Notiamo come Bloomberg abbia ben altre preoccupazioni della sua salute:

«Should he name Justice Ginsburg’s replacement, Republican appointees would outnumber Democratic ones six to three.»

Notiamo anche come per Bloomberg fosse di grande importanza la causa della Merck & Co., mentre per la Cnn il punto focale sarebbe stato il programma di ricongiungimento dei minori ed il problema dei transgender nell’esercito.


Bloomberg. 2019-01-07. Ginsburg Missing Arguments for First Time on Supreme Court

– She’ll participate using briefs, transcripts, spokeswoman says

– Ginsburg, 85, still recuperating after Dec. 21 cancer surgery

*

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t attending Monday’s arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court as she recovers from cancer surgery, marking the first time she has missed an argument session since she joined the court in 1993.

Ginsburg, 85, will participate in the cases from home using the briefs and transcripts, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told reporters. The court is hearing two cases today, including a Merck & Co. appeal on patient lawsuits, plus three more cases later in the week.

Ginsburg, the leader of the court’s liberal wing, had surgery Dec. 21 to remove two cancerous growths from her left lung. She had twice before been treated for other types of cancer — colon and pancreatic — but didn’t miss an argument session during either treatment.

Chief Justice John Roberts said at the start of Monday’s session that Ginsburg “is unable to be present today” but will take part in the cases.

Ginsburg’s well-being is of intense interest to liberals concerned that President Donald Trump might get the chance to nominate her successor. That could further entrench the court’s conservative majority.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Suprema Corte. Sua Giustizia Ruth Bader Ginsburg operata per cancro polmonare.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-12-21.

2018-12-21__Grinzburg__001

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has malignant growths removed from lung, no signs of cancer remain

«Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had two cancerous growths removed from her lung Friday and will remain hospitalized for several days.

Ginsburg, the leader of the court’s liberal faction, underwent a pulmonary lobectomy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, according to a news release from the court.

The procedure to remove two nodules in the lower lobe of her left lung followed their discovery during tests performed last month to diagnose and treat rib fractures suffered in a fall on Nov. 7.

Both nodules removed during surgery were found to be malignant on initial pathology evaluation, according to thoracic surgeon Valerie Rusch, the court’s release said. Post-surgery, there was no evidence of any remaining disease in the lung or anywhere else in Ginsburg’s body, the court said.

“Currently, no further treatment is planned,” the court release said. “Justice Ginsburg is resting comfortably and is expected to remain in the hospital for a few days. Updates will be provided as they become available.”

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women in the United States, according to the National Cancer Institute. From 2009-13, it caused more deaths than breast, prostate, colorectal and liver cancers combined. The five-year survival rate is just 18%, but far better if the cancer is discovered at an early stage.

Ginsburg, a 25-year veteran of the nation’s highest court and a cultural icon among liberals and proponents of women’s rights, has been closely monitored by those on the left and right for her health. Conservatives have a 5-4 majority on the court, and future vacancies during President Donald Trump’s watch could increase that margin. Republicans will have a 53-47 majority in the Senate next year.»

* * * * * * *

Sua Giustizia Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 86 anni, è stata operata per rimuovere due noduli polmonari, per alcune altre fonti per una lobectomia, e «both nodules removed during surgery were found to be malignant on initial pathology evaluation».

Auguriamo a Sua Giustizia Ruth Bader Ginsburg di riprendersi rapidamente dall’intervento, e, nel contempo, auspichiamo un decorso clinico non tumultuoso.


Vox. 2018-12-21. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery for malignant lung growths

The 85-year-old Supreme Court justice is “resting comfortably” after the surgical procedure.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent surgery in New York City to remove two malignant nodules on her left lung.

A press release from the Supreme Court noted that the nodules were discovered during treatment for rib fractures caused by a fall last month.

Ginsburg’s surgeon said the operation was successful and that “Post-surgery, there was no evidence of any remaining disease.” She will remain at Memorial Sloan Kettering, a top cancer treatment center in New York, for the next few days.

Ginsburg, 85, is the oldest serving justice. She was appointed in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton and is one of four reliably liberal votes in a Supreme Court that now has a 5-4 conservative majority.

If she has to step down or dies suddenly, President Trump would be able to make a third appointment for an even stronger conservative majority. So her health is carefully scrutinized by people on both sides of the aisle.

Ginsburg has had her share of health scares. She has survived both colon and pancreatic cancer, the latter of which has a low survival rate.

Most recently, Ginsburg has been traveling to promote On the Basis of Sex, a movie starring Felicity Jones that dramatizes her early life as one of the few female law students at Harvard — and then as a rising star litigator taking on gender discrimination issues.

Read the full press release from the Supreme Court below.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent a pulmonary lobectomy today at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Two nodules in the lower lobe of her left lung were discovered incidentally during tests performed at George Washington University Hospital to diagnose and treat rib fractures sustained in a fall on November 7. According to the thoracic surgeon, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, FACS, both nodules removed during surgery were found to be malignant on initial pathology evaluation. Post-surgery, there was no evidence of any remaining disease. Scans performed before surgery indicated no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body. Currently, no further treatment is planned. Justice Ginsburg is resting comfortably and is expected to remain in the hospital for a few days. Updates will be provided as they become available.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Senza categoria, Stati Uniti

Obamacare. Sentenza induce ridimensionamento di Wall Street.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-12-21.

Gufo_019__

«Companies with big footprints in Obamacare’s expanded markets saw their shares drop Monday, the first trading day after a federal judge ruled the 2010 health care law as unconstitutional»

*

«They face a new era of uncertainty, with hospitals contemplating the loss of billions of dollars over the costs for uninsured patients and insurers trying to figure out what their customer base could look like should the ruling be upheld on appeal»

*

«The judge put his decision on hold pending the results of appeals»

*

«But investors were skittish Monday. Shares of Centene (-4.8 percent), Molina Healthcare (-8.9 percent) and HCA Healthcare (-2.8 percent), a for-profit hospital operator, fell amid an overall market sell-off in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 508 points or 2.1 percent»

*

«Key Democrats urged calm, hoping to prevent a loss of confidence in the Affordable Care Act, which is still conducting open enrollment in some states for the 2019 season»

* * * * * * *

Da un punto di vista tecnico, legale e legislativo, l’Obamacare è una delle operazioni legislative peggio condizionate della storia: tutto vi è stato complicato e difficilmente può essere gestito senza esercitare arbitrio. Er stato infatti progettato non tanto per dare assistenza sanitaria a chi ne fosse rimasto escluso, quanto piuttosto per procurare guadagni a tutte le realtà intermedie, burocratiche o meno, gestite dai liberal democratici.

Si abbia sempre alla mente che ogniqualvolta si legifera si pongono in essere le condizioni necessarie perché un corpo di burocrati sia chiamato a metterne in atto i dettami.

Qui si può trovare il razionale di quanto asserito.

Ponte Morandi ed il problema della burocrazia.

*

Questa sentenza evidenzia chiaramente quanto potere esecutivo sia stato delegato negli Stati Uniti a persone non elette, quali i giudici federali.

Scelte che avrebbero dovuto essere appannaggio del Congresso e del Senato possono essere risolte da un giudice con una sentenza: giudizio per di più insindacabile.

Ci si pensi sopra bene, ma molto bene.

Poi, non ci si lamenti delle conseguenze.


The Washington Times. 2018-12-18. Obamacare ruling triggers Wall Street sell-off, ushers in new era of uncertainty.

Companies with big footprints in Obamacare’s expanded markets saw their shares drop Monday, the first trading day after a federal judge ruled the 2010 health care law as unconstitutional.

They face a new era of uncertainty, with hospitals contemplating the loss of billions of dollars over the costs for uninsured patients and insurers trying to figure out what their customer base could look like should the ruling be upheld on appeal.

For now, that’s not a concern. The judge put his decision on hold pending the results of appeals.

Still, the American Hospital Association said it was “extremely disappointed” with the ruling but isn’t panicking just yet.

“I think it’s a blip,” said Melinda Hatton, general counsel for the hospital group. “Wall Street, like everybody else, will recover their senses.”

But investors were skittish Monday. Shares of Centene (-4.8 percent), Molina Healthcare (-8.9 percent) and HCA Healthcare (-2.8 percent), a for-profit hospital operator, fell amid an overall market sell-off in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 508 points or 2.1 percent.

Judge Reed O’Connor said Friday night that the tax overhaul Congress approved a year ago, which zeroed out the “individual mandate” tax penalty for shirking insurance, invalidated the rest of the sweeping health care law.

It was a broader ruling than many analysts expected, and it sent Congress into a frenzy trying to figure out its next steps.

Key Democrats urged calm, hoping to prevent a loss of confidence in the Affordable Care Act, which is still conducting open enrollment in some states for the 2019 season.

“This ruling is not impacting your health care right now,” said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., the New Jersey Democrat who will lead the House Energy and Commerce Committee next year. “I don’t want people to be confused and think that somehow they’re being denied their health insurance.”

Democratic state attorneys general, who stepped in to defend the law after the Trump administration begged off, have vowed to appeal Judge O’Connor’s decision. Legal analysts said it could well be overturned or narrowed as the case climbs the judicial ladder.

The top insurers lobby called the ruling “misguided and wrong,” and the American Psychiatric Association said it could lead to “an unconscionable result.” The American Medical Association said blowing up Obamacare would roll back federal policy to 2009.

“No one wants to go back to the days of 20 percent of the population uninsured and fewer patient protections, but this decision will move us in that direction,” said AMA President Barbara L. McAneny.

Roughly 10 million Americans get their insurance through the exchanges, and millions more signed up under expanded Medicaid eligibility. Under the law, young adults are able to stay on their parents’ plans until age 26.

Seniors who pay out of pocket in Medicare’s coverage gap, or “doughnut hole,” also could see rising costs. Analysts said other parts of the law — such as changes to the Indian Health Service and rules governing how plans under Medicare Advantage get paid — don’t get as much attention.

“If this decision doesn’t get stayed or overturned soon, you are going to have a humanitarian catastrophe on your hands virtually overnight,” said Sen. Christopher Murphy, Connecticut Democrat.

At least one insurer is making contingency plans. Centene said in the “unlikely event” the courts strike down Obamacare, the company will file to offer plans that maintain protections for sicker Americans.

“Current members will be able to enroll in this new product without health underwriting and irrespective of pre-existing conditions,” said Michael Frederic Neidorff, chairman and CEO.

Where some saw chaos, President Trump saw opportunity. He said the ruling, if upheld, would give both parties a chance to start over on health care after the Republican-led Congress failed to deliver him a replacement last year.

“We have a chance, working with the Democrats, to deliver great HealthCare! A confirming Supreme Court Decision will lead to GREAT HealthCare results for Americans!” he tweeted Monday.

Democrats, though, signaled that they are more intent on battling to save the law than working on a replacement.

Insurers vowed to maintain a steady hand through the appeals process, which runs through the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and could reach the Supreme Court.

“The ACA will remain in effect for 2019,” Molina Healthcare said. “And we are optimistic that it will remain in effect thereafter.”

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

Trump. Correggere l’anomalia del Nono Circuito.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-25.

Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg

Negli Stati Uniti ha un potere maggiore un giudice di una Corte di Appello Federale oppure della Corte Suprema dello stesso Presidente degli Stati Uniti. Il giudice ha infatti la possibilità di emettere una sentenza che blocchi od infici una disposizione presidenziale in via autoritativa ed inappellabile.

Chi controllasse la Magistratura americana avrebbe in mano il vero potere. Nessuno quindi si stupisca se la vera lotta tra liberal democratici e repubblicani si snoda sulla Magistratura.

Giudici onesti esercitano un simile potere in modo onesto, giudici schierati politicamente invece diventano l’opzione nucleare del partito di appartenenza. I giudici liberal democratici del Nono Circuito fanno sembrare i giudici dell’Unione Sovietica di Stalin dei galantuomini, retti e probi.

I giudici della Suprema Corte e quelli delle Corti di Appello federali sono nominati dal Presidente, ma tale nomina deve essere approvata dal Senato. Le nomine sono a vita, quindi la decisione del Presidente si estende per decine di anni dopo che abbia concluso i suoi mandati.

Ciò premesso, entriamo nel vivo del problema.

*

Il sistema giudiziario americano è complesso perché gli Stati Uniti di America sono una realtà complessa.

*

«Gli Stati Uniti sono una Repubblica federale di tipo presidenziale. Nell’esperienza statunitense, Federazione e Stati mantengono diverse sfere di competenze, i cui confini, tuttavia, non sono mai stati fissati in maniera rigida ed assoluta. La miglior sintesi della divisione dei poteri fra Stati e Federazione è probabilmente contenuta nel decimo emendamento alla Costituzione, in base al quale i poteri che non sono espressamente attribuiti al Governo federale e che non sono dalla stessa Costituzione sottratti alla competenza dei singoli Stati, sono riservati a questi ultimi.

In particolare, tra i poteri sottratti alla competenza degli Stati e attribuiti espressamente al Congresso, così come previsto all’articolo 1, sezione 8 della Costituzione, vale la pena menzionare, tra gli altri, quello di imporre e percepire le tasse, di regolare il commercio internazionale e tra i vari Stati della federazione, di legiferare in materia fallimentare, di gestire il sistema postale, di costituire tribunali di grado inferiore rispetto alla Corte Suprema e di legiferare in materia di proprietà intellettuale.

I singoli Stati, tuttavia, con il consenso espresso del Governo e nei limiti posti da quest’ultimo, godono di una autonoma potestà legislativa. In linea di principio, può dirsi, per concludere, che nel sistema federale statunitense gran parte del diritto privato è di competenza statale. La Costituzione degli Stati Uniti adottata nel 1789 ed emendata solo raramente da allora, è la legge suprema del Paese» [Fonte]

*

«Il potere giudiziario federale è un ramo completamente separato ed autonomo. Il potere giudiziario ha il compito di interpretare e stabilire la costituzionalità delle leggi federali e di risolvere le controversie riguardanti tali norme.

La Costituzione garantisce l’indipendenza del potere giudiziario stabilendo che:

– i giudici federali, nominati secondo l’art. III della Costituzione, possono restare in carica a vita e possono essere destituiti solo in seguito a “impeachment” e solo qualora il Congresso abbia accertato atti di tradimento, corruzione, o altri gravi reati a loro carico;

– la retribuzione dei giudici federali nominati secondo l’art. III della Costituzione non può essere ridotta durante la loro permanenza in carica: dunque, né il Presidente, né il Congresso hanno alcuna facoltà di ridurre lo stipendio dei giudici federali. Queste due salvaguardie consentono ad un organo giudiziario indipendente di deliberare senza vincoli imposti da influenze politiche o passioni popolari.

L’art. III della Costituzione stabilisce, altresì, che il potere giudiziario degli Stati Uniti è affidato ad una Corte Suprema ed a tanti tribunali di ordine inferiore quanti il Congresso stabilirà all’occorrenza.» [Fonte]

*

«The federal courts are composed of three levels of courts.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the court of last resort. It is generally an appellate court that operates under discretionary review, which means that the Court can choose which cases to hear, by granting writs of certiorari. There is therefore generally no basic right of appeal that extends automatically all the way to the Supreme Court. In a few situations (like lawsuits between state governments or some cases between the federal government and a state) it sits as a court of original jurisdiction.

The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate federal appellate courts. They operate under a system of mandatory review which means they must hear all appeals of right from the lower courts. In some cases, Congress has diverted appellate jurisdiction to specialized courts, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.

The United States district courts (one in each of the 94 federal judicial districts, as well three territorial courts) are general federal trial courts, although in many cases Congress has diverted original jurisdiction to specialized courts, such as the Court of International Trade, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, or to Article I or Article IV tribunals. The district courts usually have jurisdiction to hear appeals from such tribunals (unless, for example, appeals are to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.)» [Fonte]

*

«I distretti giudiziari sono organizzati in circuiti regionali, in ciascuno dei quali è presente una Corte d’Appello. Ognuna di esse giudica i ricorsi provenienti dai tribunali distrettuali appartenenti al proprio circuito e da alcuni enti amministrativi federali. Inoltre, la Corte d’Appello federale ha competenza su tutto il territorio nazionale in merito ad alcuni casi specifici, tra i quali quelli relativi alle leggi sui brevetti e quelli sui quali si sono pronunciati i Tribunali per il Commercio Internazionale e il Tribunale per i Ricorsi Federali.

Il diritto all’appello si applica a tutti i procedimenti sui quali si è pronunciato un tribunale distrettuale con una decisione definitiva. Le Corti d’Appello sono di regola composte da tre giudici.»  [Fonte]

*

«Federal judges, like Supreme Court Justices, are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate to serve until they resign, are impeached and convicted, retire, or die. » [Fonte]

* * * * * * *

Riassumendo solo gli aspetti discussi in questo articolo:

– Le Corti di Appello Federali sono composte da giudici nominati a vita dal Presidente degli Stati Uniti e confermati nella nomina dal Senato. Di qui la importanza strategica di codesto consesso.

– Le sentenze delle Corti di Appello Federali hanno valore su tutti i territori della Federazione: possono essere appellate davanti la Suprema Corte di Giustizia, sotto la condizione che questa deliberi di esaminare quel caso specifico.

– I Giudici federali sono dichiaratamente schierati sia politicamente (repubblicani oppure democratici) sia secondo la scuola giurisprudenziale (una favorevole alla “interpretazione” di Costituzione e Leggi, l’altra invece fautrice dell’applicazione testuale del corpo giurisprudenziale).

– Se usualmente i giudici esprimono sentenze ragionevoli, al momento opportuno emerge chiaramente chi sia il “giudice di Trump” oppure il “giudice di Obama”. Questo non dovrebbe accadere, ma nei fatti invece accade.

^ ^ ^

L’America è suddivisa in tredici Circuiti federali. Il nome deriva dal fatto che in altri tempi le Corti di Appello si movevano nell’ambito del loro territorio, toccando tutte le città di rilievo, per evitare ai ricorrenti lunghi e costosi viaggi.

* * * * * * *

2018-11-25__Nono_Circuito__001

Il Nono Circuito esercita la sua giurisdizione su 61,403,307 cittadini americani, ossia il 19.72% della popolazione. È dotato di ventinove giudici.

Di questi, nove sono stati nominati da Mr Clinton, cinque da Mr Bush, sette da Mr Obama, e due da Mr Trump.

Al momento attuale vi sono sedici giudici democratici e sette repubblicani.

Sei seggi sono al momento vacanti.

Avendo alle elezioni di midterm conservato il controllo del Senato, Mr Trump sarà in grado di procedere a breve termine alle sei nomine ancora rimanenti, portando cos’ il rapporto democratici / repubblicani 16 /13.

I democratici restano al controllo della Corte di Appello del Nono Circuito, ma con una maggioranza risicata. Si tenga inoltre presente come tale Corte si articoli in sottosezioni: al termine delle nomine i repubblicani potrebbero controllarne almeno quattro.

* * * * * * *

Con Mr Clinton prima, e Mr Obama dopo, i liberal democratici hanno nominato al Nono Circuito persone che prima erano membri fedeli del partito, poi erano giudici: costoro amministravano la giustizia nel nome dei liberal democratici.

Non è un caso che quasi tutte le sentenze volte ad impugnare e bloccare ancorché temporaneamente gli Ordini Esecutivi del Presidente Trump siano stati emesse in gran parte da Corti di Appello del Nono Circuito. Solo perdita di tempo, perché poi la Suprema Corte le annulla, ma sono ottimo alimento del fuoco mediatico.

Se infine si considerano tutte le altre nomine a giudice in Corti Federali  che il Presidente Trump si appresta a fare, emergerebbe molto chiaro il suo piano di bonificare la Magistratura federale dai partigiani liberal democratici, rendendo loro la figura propria di organi che amministrano la giustizia e non la faziosità politica.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Unione Europea

Germania. Il mondezzaio della Corte Costituzionale. – Handelsblatt.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-22.

2018-11-13__Germania_Suprema Corte 001

Avvicinandosi il Santo Natale tutti dovremmo essere più buoni, per cui useremo solo parole di miele.

I giudici della Corte Suprema tedesca sono liberal socialisti imprestati a quel Tribunale con il compito specifico di redigere a sentenza le veline loro passate dai rispettivi partiti politici. In questo nulla hanno da invidiare ai giudici in carica nel periodo dal 1933 al 1945, né alla Suprema Corte dell’Unione Sovietica dei tempi di Stalin.

Ma adesso i problemi iniziano a venire al pettine.

È un problema ingarbugliato, ma vedremo di semplificarlo così da renderlo comprendibile anche ai non addetti ai lavori.

*

Handelsblatt, il giornale della confindustria tedesca, affronta il tema dell’Alta Corte Federale di Karlsruhe senza peli sulla lingua, segno di quanto siano mutati i tempi. La voce di Frau Merkel è flebile e quella della spd inconsistente.

«Compared to how Germany’s constitutional judges are elected, the election of the pope is a paragon of transparency and democracy»

*

«As party politics seeps into decisions about who sits on the top courts of the US and Poland, Germany defends its reputation for judicial independence»

*

«But even here, the lines are more blurred that it might seem»

* * * * * * *

«Technically, Germany, unlike the US, doesn’t have one supreme court but six federal courts, each with a specific jurisdiction. The highest court handling civil and criminal cases is the Federal Court of Justice, or BGH. The Federal Constitutional Court’s role is to decide only whether laws comply with the constitution or not. This is a limited scope, but an extremely important one. Like the BGH, the top constitutional court is located in Karlsruhe, well away from the center of political power.»

*

«Sixteen justices sit on Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court. They’re divided into two chambers — called senates — of eight justices each. An adequate candidate must be a federal judge of at least 40 years of age, among other criteria. While US Supreme Court justices have lifetime tenures, the 16 judges on Germany’s top court are appointed for a 12-year term. They cannot be reelected, “to ensure their independence,” the court’s website says. And they must retire upon reaching the age of 68»

*

«Germany is a shining example of a judiciary branch free from political interference is a stretch. In fact, politicians exert considerable influence on how the country’s top judges are appointed. Indeed, the Polish government never misses an opportunity to stress that Warsaw’s controversial judiciary reform is partly modeled on how Berlin selects its most senior judges.»

*

«“Poland wants to once again place its judiciary under democratic controls,” said Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki earlier this year. “In Germany, for example, the justices of the highest courts are appointed by a committee for the election of judges,” he told the German press.»

*

«Germany’s nomination process to the Federal Constitutional Court is not only highly politicized but also opaque. A set of written and unwritten rules governs which party gets to pick a nominee; the selection process involves a great deal of political horse-trading, not to mention an ad hoc parliamentary committee whose work is shrouded in secrecy»

2018-11-13__Germania_Suprema Corte 002

Saputo a quale giudice la causa è stata assegnata, la sentenza può essere scritta con mesi di anticipo. Divisione dei poteri? Ma se lo credano i gonzi!


*

«“Compared to how Germany’s constitutional judges are elected, the election of the pope is a paragon of transparency and democracy,”»

*

«Half the justices are chosen by the Bundestag — the lower chamber of parliament …. To be elected, a judge must obtain at least two-thirds of votes cast …. The other half of Germany’s constitutional court justices are chosen by the Bundesrat, the upper chamber consisting of the 16 federal states, also by a two-thirds majority»

*

«In practice, the supermajority requirement has enabled the two parties that have dominated political life for most of Germany’s postwar history — the CDU and the center-left Social Democrats — to evenly share the rights to pick a judge»

*

«The problem is that the mainstream parties need to reach a consensus on judiciary appointments to ensure a nominee gets a supermajority. This means that a lot of haggling takes place, most of it away from the public eye»

*

«The CDU/CSU bloc and the SPD have each selected seven of the 16 judges currently serving on the Federal Constitutional Court. The remaining two justices were picked by two smaller parties, the pro-business Free Democrats and the Green Party, because they have been in coalitions with the big-tent parties, either at the federal level or in state legislatures. They were only allowed to pick a nominee because the two bigger parties “let” them do so.»

*

«But as the combined dominance of the CDU and the SPD dwindles, the system is showing strain.»

*

«Thanks to the Green Party’s increasing strength in the Bundesrat in recent years, it recently obtained the right to hand-pick every fifth justice elected by the upper chamber.»

* * * * * * * *

In politica tutto è possibile, anche le cose che sarebbero sembrate essere state impossibili. Poi, più son sordide, più sono facili da attuarsi.

Il crollo della Union, Cdu ed Csu, e della spd toglie loro il ruolo egemone nella nomina dei giudici costituzionali.

Ma con i numeri attuali, i due terzi sarebbero raggiungibili solo riunendo le forze della Unione, del’spd, della Fdp e dei Grüne. Metterli tutti di accordo sarà impresa degna della Pace di Vestfalia.

Questo è uno degli argomenti attorno ai quali si sta discutendo dopo la dipartita di Frau Merkel.

*

C’è voluta la faccia di Frau Merkel per criticare le riforme giudiziarie fatte dai polacchi e dagli ungheresi. Sempre in omaggio al periodo natalizio, diremo solo che è stata fraudolenta.

Nota.

Nessuno si stupisca leggendo i trattati di storia su come sia diventata possibile la rivoluzione francese.

In molte istanze storiche la ghigliottina è l’unico modo per sciogliere il nodo di Gordio.


Handelsblatt. 2018-11-10. Why even Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has a politics problem

As party politics seeps into decisions about who sits on the top courts of the US and Poland, Germany defends its reputation for judicial independence. But even here, the lines are more blurred that it might seem.

*

“Germany should send a clear signal for the independence of the courts,” Renate Künast, a senior lawmaker in Germany’s Green Party, recently told German media. She was referring to the heavily politicized appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States, which appalled many Germans. She also had in mind the judiciary crisis in neighboring Poland, where the right-wing government is accused of stacking the top courts with sympathetic judges. In this context, Künast said rather smugly, Germany must be a “beacon” of judiciary rectitude.

But her contention that Germany is a shining example of a judiciary branch free from political interference is a stretch. In fact, politicians exert considerable influence on how the country’s top judges are appointed. Indeed, the Polish government never misses an opportunity to stress that Warsaw’s controversial judiciary reform is partly modeled on how Berlin selects its most senior judges.

“Poland wants to once again place its judiciary under democratic controls,” said Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki earlier this year. “In Germany, for example, the justices of the highest courts are appointed by a committee for the election of judges,” he told the German press.

A papal election in Karlsruhe

He has a point. Germany’s nomination process to the Federal Constitutional Court is not only highly politicized but also opaque. A set of written and unwritten rules governs which party gets to pick a nominee; the selection process involves a great deal of political horse-trading, not to mention an ad hoc parliamentary committee whose work is shrouded in secrecy. “Compared to how Germany’s constitutional judges are elected, the election of the pope is a paragon of transparency and democracy,” Helmut Kerscher, a German court reporter, once lamented.

Technically, Germany, unlike the US, doesn’t have one supreme court but six federal courts, each with a specific jurisdiction. The highest court handling civil and criminal cases is the Federal Court of Justice, or BGH. The Federal Constitutional Court’s role is to decide only whether laws comply with the constitution or not. This is a limited scope, but an extremely important one. Like the BGH, the top constitutional court is located in Karlsruhe, well away from the center of political power.

When the court breaks the law

Sixteen justices sit on Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court. They’re divided into two chambers — called senates — of eight justices each. An adequate candidate must be a federal judge of at least 40 years of age, among other criteria. While US Supreme Court justices have lifetime tenures, the 16 judges on Germany’s top court are appointed for a 12-year term. They cannot be reelected, “to ensure their independence,” the court’s website says. And they must retire upon reaching the age of 68.

Unless they don’t.

Tellingly, the current vice-president of the Federal Constitutional Court, Justice Ferdinand Kirchhof, turned 68 this summer and should have gone into retirement on June 30. But he’s still in office, causing Germany’s top court to flout the law. Let that sink in. The reason is politics: The Christian Democratic Union — Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right party — can’t come up with a suitable successor. A myriad of political considerations, not to mention rivalries between various factions within the party, are hampering the search. Meanwhile, Justice Kirchhof has no idea when he’ll be able to retire.

Half the justices are chosen by the Bundestag — the lower chamber of parliament. After a special-purpose committee of 12 lawmakers from the various parliamentary groups puts forward a nominee, a secret-ballot vote takes place without prior debate. To be elected, a judge must obtain at least two-thirds of votes cast. This supermajority rule makes it unlikely that a single party prevails despite widespread opposition. In effect, it prevents the recent American situation in which Judge Kavanaugh was elected 50-48 by Senate Republicans.

The other half of Germany’s constitutional court justices are chosen by the Bundesrat, the upper chamber consisting of the 16 federal states, also by a two-thirds majority. The only difference here is that there is no electoral committee picking a nominee first: The party in charge selects a judge — voilà.

A delicate balance

In practice, the supermajority requirement has enabled the two parties that have dominated political life for most of Germany’s postwar history — the CDU and the center-left Social Democrats — to evenly share the rights to pick a judge. This ensured that the Federal Constitutional Court remained politically balanced, unlike its pre-war predecessor, the arch-conservative Court of Justice of the Reich. Packed with elderly, reactionary judges nostalgic for the Kaiser, that court neglected the political foundations of the Weimar Republic before giving the Nazi regime a veneer of judicial respectability.

The problem is that the mainstream parties need to reach a consensus on judiciary appointments to ensure a nominee gets a supermajority. This means that a lot of haggling takes place, most of it away from the public eye.

The CDU/CSU bloc and the SPD have each selected seven of the 16 judges currently serving on the Federal Constitutional Court. The remaining two justices were picked by two smaller parties, the pro-business Free Democrats and the Green Party, because they have been in coalitions with the big-tent parties, either at the federal level or in state legislatures. They were only allowed to pick a nominee because the two bigger parties “let” them do so. But then, it was understood that the FDP would choose a conservative-leaning judge while the Greens would select a left-leaning one. (Their pick, Susanne Baer, is the first openly homosexual woman to serve in the Federal Constitutional Court.)

For all its obvious faults, this system worked smoothly for decades. The delicately-maintained balance of conservative and liberal-minded justices has given the Federal Constitutional Court a reputation for impartiality and earned it more respect than most other German institutions among the wider public.

The judges are getting nervous

But as the combined dominance of the CDU and the SPD dwindles, the system is showing strain. Thanks to the Green Party’s increasing strength in the Bundesrat in recent years, it recently obtained the right to hand-pick every fifth justice elected by the upper chamber. But the two bigger parties later reneged on the agreement. Instead, it was the CDU that selected the latest supreme court nominee, arguing that to do otherwise would have tipped the court majority in favor of left-leaning justices. The Greens weren’t pleased but eventually caved in. They’ll get to pick another judge later.

All this is leading to more criticism of the process. None other than the current president of the Federal Constitutional Court, Andreas Vosskuhle, said that the way a closed-door panel picks a nominee with little accountability “can quite rightly be described as unconstitutional.”

Among Germany’s top court judges, the unease is palpable. When Justice Michael Eichberger stepped down earlier this year at the end of his 12-year term, he warned his successor, Henning Radtke, of creeping “politicization” of the court. He singled out the increasing amount of horse-trading as one of the problems. And he called on politicians to find a new vice-president at last. “Overcome the impasse; change your priorities,” he urged, stressing that public confidence in the institution was at stake. In times of rising populism, when confidence in the political class and the media is receding, the last thing Germany needs is for the public to lose trust in its courts.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

America. Corte Suprema. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Empl Opp Com.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-15.

Tribunale 010

«Aimee Stephens was fired after she announced to her colleagues that she would begin living as a woman»

*

«Now the Supreme Court may decide whether her dismissal violated a law against sex discrimination»

*

«Two weeks after receiving the letter, though, the home’s owner, Thomas Rost, fired Ms. Stephens»

*

«Asked for the “specific reason that you terminated Stephens,” Mr. Rost said: “Well, because he was no longer going to represent himself as a man. He wanted to dress as a woman.”»

*

«The case went to court, and Ms. Stephens won in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. Discrimination against transgender people, the court ruled, was barred by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination on the basis of sex»

*

«On Nov. 30, the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear the case»

*

«It is true that the appeals courts are more deeply divided on the question of whether Title VII covers discrimination against gay men and lesbians, with recent decisions from the Second Circuit, in New York, and the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, ruling that it does»

*

«A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country»

*

«Treating a person whose sex is male as a man is no more stereotyping than is classifying someone born in Canada as Canadian»

* * * * * * * *

Presso la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti giacciono in attesa di udienza fascicoli degni di tale alto consesso.

Una buona quota tuttavia è rappresentata da casi analoghi a questo, giunto agli onori della cronaca per l’oggetto, anche se il problema giuridico è ben più sottile.

Un tribunale dovrebbe infatti in primo luogo appurare i fatti realmente accaduti, ricostruendoli con la massima cura ed imparzialità.

Quindi dovrebbe accertare cosa disponga la legge in proposito, traendone infine le conseguenze nella sentenza.

Il fatto che Corti differenti possano giungere a sentenze differenti non dovrebbe stupire: se così non fosse, le leggi sarebbero applicate in via amministrativa. Il convenire in giudizio serve proprio per poter esaminare il caso e stabilire quanto e come applicare la legge. In linea generale, ogni caso è a sé state.

Ciò che invece lascia stupiti e perplessi è quando ad avere pareri discordi siano differenti Corti di Appello federali, essendo esse formate da giudici di comprovata dottrina.

In ogni caso conveniamo con questo statement:

«Treating a person whose sex is male as a man is no more stereotyping than is classifying someone born in Canada as Canadian»

Più che giuridico, il problema sembrerebbe essere semplicemente logico.

*

Questa il titolo di copertina:

The Supreme Court may take cases on whether a federal law against sex discrimination covers gay and transgender people.

*


The New York Times. 2018-11-12. Can a Fired Transgender Worker Sue for Job Discrimination?

Aimee Stephens was fired after she announced to her colleagues that she would begin living as a woman. Now the Supreme Court may decide whether her dismissal violated a law against sex discrimination.

*

WASHINGTON — In 2013, a funeral director who had been known as Anthony Stephens wrote to colleagues at a Michigan funeral home, asking for patience and support.

“What I must tell you is very difficult for me and is taking all the courage I can muster,” the letter said. “I have felt imprisoned in a body that does not match my mind, and this has caused me great despair and loneliness.”

“I will return to work as my true self, Aimee Australia Stephens, in appropriate business attire,” she wrote. “I hope we can continue my work at R. G. and G. R. Harris Funeral Homes doing what I always have, which is my best!”

Ms. Stephens had worked there for six years. Her colleagues testified that she was able and compassionate.

“He was a very good embalmer,” one said. “He was very, very thorough. Had obviously had a lot of practice prior to coming to the Harris Funeral Home. Families seemed very pleased with his work. He did a good job.”

Two weeks after receiving the letter, though, the home’s owner, Thomas Rost, fired Ms. Stephens. Asked for the “specific reason that you terminated Stephens,” Mr. Rost said: “Well, because he was no longer going to represent himself as a man. He wanted to dress as a woman.”

Mr. Rost also said he did not want to address Ms. Stephens as Aimee. “I’m uncomfortable with the name,” Mr. Rost said, “because he’s a man.”

The case went to court, and Ms. Stephens won in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. Discrimination against transgender people, the court ruled, was barred by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination on the basis of sex.

“It is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex,” the court said. “Discrimination ‘because of sex’ inherently includes discrimination against employees because of a change in their sex.”

On Nov. 30, the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear the case. On the same day, the justices will consider whether to hear two related cases, on whether Title VII bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. If the court agrees to hear any of the three cases, a relatively sleepy term will have gained its first blockbuster case.

The Trump administration filed a curious brief in Ms. Stephens’s case, one that said two seemingly contradictory things. The appeals court had gotten things badly wrong on legal issues that were “recurring and important,” Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco told the justices. The ruling, he added, was “inconsistent with decisions of other circuits.”

Those are precisely the things you say when you want to persuade the Supreme Court to hear a case. But Mr. Francisco went on to urge the court to deny review in the funeral home’s appeal and instead hear one of the cases on whether Title VII bars discrimination based on what he called “another non-biological-sex attribute — an individual’s sexual orientation.”

It is true that the appeals courts are more deeply divided on the question of whether Title VII covers discrimination against gay men and lesbians, with recent decisions from the Second Circuit, in New York, and the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, ruling that it does. It could make sense to decide that question first, and to defer a decision in Ms. Stephens’s case in the meantime.

But Mr. Francisco went further, urging the Supreme Court to turn down the funeral home’s appeal even if the court declined to hear the two sexual-orientation cases. That has court watchers puzzled.

Mr. Francisco’s brief was nominally on behalf of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which had charged the funeral home with employment discrimination and had prevailed in the lower courts. But his legal arguments were at odds with the views the commission had taken in the case.

Mr. Francisco’s brief abandoned the position that had been pressed by the commission in the Sixth Circuit and instead lent support to the funeral home. But in urging the Supreme Court to deny review, the commission remained formally aligned with Ms. Stephens, and the case is still known as R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 18-107.

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

The funeral home, for its part, said both issues were important. “The sexual-orientation cases seek to expand what is included in the term ‘sex,’” its brief said, “whereas this case attempts to transform what ‘sex’ means by replacing it with ‘gender identity.’”

There is another issue in Ms. Stephens’s case, one that could allow her to win however the Supreme Court might rule on whether Title VII applies to discrimination against transgender people. In 1989, the Supreme Court said discrimination against workers because they did not conform to gender stereotypes was a form of sex discrimination.

The Sixth Circuit ruled for Ms. Stephens on that ground, too, saying she had been fired “for wishing to appear or behave in a manner that contradicts the funeral home’s perception of how she should behave or appear based on her sex.”

Ms. Stephens, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, said that separate issue was reason enough to deny review in her case. However the Supreme Court ruled on transgender rights, her brief said, she would still win her case.

The funeral home responded that it should be allowed to enforce its dress code, which requires male employees to wear suits and ties and female ones to wear skirts and business jackets.

“Treating a person whose sex is male as a man is no more stereotyping than is classifying someone born in Canada as Canadian,” the funeral home said in a brief filed last week.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Ideologia liberal, Stati Uniti, Trump

Usa. Corti Federali ed il caso del Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-11.

Tribunale 010

Uno dei punti cardini dell’ideologia illuminista recepita in quella liberal è la così detta divisione dei poteri.

Formalmente potrebbe anche essere un buon enunciato, ma è cosa utopica: potere politico e potere giudiziario sono commisti, se non altro perché qualcuno alla fine deve pur nominare i giudici.

Non solo.

Spesso si proclama anche una mezza verità, forse più pericolosa di una menzogna.

Si reclama che la politica non interferisca con l’operato dei giudici, cosa di per sé financo ragionevole, ma solo ed unicamente se la magistratura si astenesse dal fare politica. Dovrebbero essere due aspetti di una stessa medaglia.

*

Il caso del Keystone XL oil pipeline è da manuale.

«A federal judge halted construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline on Thursday, in a blow to the Trump administration and a win for environmental groups»

*

«US District Judge Brian Morris found that the US government’s use of a 2014 environmental review to justify issuing a presidential permit for construction of the cross-border pipeline violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, according to the court order issued Thursday»

*

«The Court enjoins Federal Defendants and TransCanada from engaging in any activity in furtherance of the construction or operation of Keystone and associated facilities, …. until the Department has completed a supplement to the 2014 SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) that complies with the requirements of NEPA and the APA»

*

«In March 2017, President Donald Trump’s administration issued a permit approving construction of the pipeline, reversing the Obama administration’s decision to block the controversial project»

* * * * * * *

Se il problema è evidente dal punto di vista politico – i liberal democratici stanno facendo il loro possibile per ostacolare l’Amministrazione Trump – dal punto di vista giuridico si pone invece quello dell’autorità con cui una Corte, sia pur essa federale, possa bloccare un provvedimento governativo.

Il nodo giuridico consiste nel fatto che un organo nominato, ossia composto da funzionari, esprima pareri su fatti non giuridici, bensì di scelta politica.

In secondo luogo, ma non per questo di minore importanza, il blocco, sia pur temporaneo, dovrebbe essere di competenza del Senato.

*

Sono temi poi nemmeno tanto sottili, che coinvolgono severamente il sistema democratico. L’America attuale è dilaniata da due forze contendenti ed opposte, inconciliabili tra di esse, che dispongono di forze quasi equivalenti. Sarà il controllo della Magistrarua a far pendere i piatti della bilancia.

Avverso alla decisione del giudice federale l’Amministrazione presenterà ricorso alla Suprema Corte, come già fatto in altre occasioni, e ci si stupirebbe se questa, a maggioranza repubblicana, smentisse l’operato del Presidente.

* * * * * * *

Il clima sociale e politico americano sta corrompendosi giorno dopo giorno.

I liberal democratici sembrerebbero non riuscire a darsi pace di aver perso le elezioni presidenziali prima, e due posti nella Suprema Corte, dopo.

«Occorre saper perdere», aveva chiosato Mr Putin.

Ci si rende anche conto come il non essere riusciti a conquistare il Senato alle elezioni di midterm sia stato per i liberal democratici uno smacco oltremodo severo: Mr Trump potrà infatti procedere alle nomine dei posti vacanti di 239 giudici federali, nomine che il Senato è tenuto a convalidare.

A fine ciclo, la magistratura americana sarà in gran parte transitata in campo repubblicano, inattivando alla radice questo ultimo centro di potere democratico.

Resterà però il veleno sparso: sono queste ferite che stentano a rimarginarsi.


Cnn. 2018-11-09. Federal judge halts Keystone XL pipeline construction

A federal judge halted construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline on Thursday, in a blow to the Trump administration and a win for environmental groups.

US District Judge Brian Morris found that the US government’s use of a 2014 environmental review to justify issuing a presidential permit for construction of the cross-border pipeline violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, according to the court order issued Thursday.

“The Court enjoins Federal Defendants and TransCanada from engaging in any activity in furtherance of the construction or operation of Keystone and associated facilities,” the court document reads, “until the Department has completed a supplement to the 2014 SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) that complies with the requirements of NEPA and the APA.”

In March 2017, President Donald Trump’s administration issued a permit approving construction of the pipeline, reversing the Obama administration’s decision to block the controversial project.

The permit approval followed years of intense debate over the pipeline amid steadfast opposition from environmental groups.

They argued that the pipeline would support the extraction of crude oil from oil sands, a process that pumps more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than standard crude oil extraction. They also opposed the pipeline because it would run across one of the world’s largest underground deposits of fresh water.

Native American groups argued the pipeline would cut across their sovereign lands.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia

Raggi assolta. Il fatto non costituisce reato.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-10.

++ Raggi, al lavoro con maggiore determinazione ++

La sentenza Raggi è lapidaria: “il falso del quale Raggi era accusata non costituisce reato“. 

Questa sentenza dovrebbe dare molti spunti di riflessione.

A nostro sommesso parere, l’on Salvini sembrerebbe aver fatto il commento più proprio:

«È giusto che i cittadini giudichino una amministrazione non in base alle indagini che finiscono in nulla come in questo caso ma in base alla qualità della vita. Quindi i romani giudicheranno l’amministrazione dei 5 Stelle in base a come è messa Roma. È giusto che non siano le sentenze e i magistrati a decidere chi governa e chi va a casa»

Vorremmo valorizzare l’ultimo enunciato:

«È giusto che non siano le sentenze e i magistrati

a decidere chi governa e chi va a casa».

Molti i commenti possibili, ma alcuni sembrerebbero essere più pregnanti.

– Se è vero che la politica non dovrebbe interferire con il decorso dei processi, dovrebbe essere altrettanto vero che la Magistratura si astenesse dal fare politica.

– Sono molti gli ordinamenti giudiziari nei quali si prevede l’azione giudiziaria nei confronti di un personaggio politico che detenga una carica elettiva solo ed esclusivamente per reati maggiori, e sotto la condizione che un organo elettivo superiore ne abbia rilasciato autorizzazione. Il concetto di immunità per le cariche pubbliche elettive non è stato concepito a tutela dei politici, bensì del buon ordinamento della cosa pubblica.

– Se le nostro istituzioni prevedono immunità per l’operato dei giudici, che sono solo funzionari nominati, a maggior ragione dovrebbe prevederla per i politici in carica, che sono stati eletti dal popolo sovrano.

– Da decenni in Italia si nota in modo sempre più evidente, specie poi nei processi politici, una discrepanza sempre più profonda tra le opinioni giuridiche dei magistrati inquirenti e quelli giudicanti. La constatazione che il fatto del quale Raggi era accusata non costituisse reato avrebbe dovuto essere chiaro ai Magistrati inquirenti così come è risultato esserlo ai Magistrati togati. Orbene, qualche fine differenza di giudizio è cosa del tutto ragionevole, ma visioni opposte sono del tutto inaccettabili.

Le possibilità sono solo due: o vi è una colpevole incompetenza oppure vi è una consistente malafede.

– L’abolizione del segreto istruttorio è stato un severo errore, anche se più che errore si dovrebbe dire fatto voluto e scientemente ricercato. Nel nome di una utopica trasparenza operazionale la mancanza del segreto istruttorio consente ad una stampa faziosamente di parte di perseguire un linciaggio morale dell’indagato prima, dell’imputato dopo, degno del regime comunista dell’Unione Sovietica sotto il periodo di Stalin. Una vera e propria macchina del fango, artatamente orchestrata, al fine di spargere calunnie e diffamazioni.

– Gli ultimi decenni hanno insegnato come una parte politica, ora in via di estinzione, non riuscendo a conquistarsi consenso elettorale lo abbia cercato attraverso l’azione di Magistrati fiancheggiatori conniventi.

* * * * * * *

Chi ripaga adesso la sig.ra Raggi di due anni di persecuzione giudiziaria e mediatica?

Chi ripaga i Cittadini Romani di due anni di Amministrazione azzoppata?

Ci siamo forse dimenticati come nel 1945 i nostri padri bonificarono la magistratura da tutti gli elementi pervertiti?


 → Ansa. 2018-11-10. Raggi assolta per inchiesta nomine

La Procura aveva chiesto 10 mesi. La sindaca è scoppiata in un pianto liberatorio: ‘Spazzati via due anni di fango’. Di Maio: “Forza Virginia! Contento di averti sempre difesa”.

*                      

E’ scoppiata in un pianto liberatorio e ha abbracciato tra gli applausi i suoi avvocati. Cosi la sindaca di Roma Virginia Raggi ha accolto la sentenza di assoluzione nel processo sulla nomina di Renato Marra con l’accusa di falso. 

Il giudice Roberto Ranazzi, durante la lettura della sentenza di assoluzione, ha detto che ‘il falso del quale Raggi era accusata non costituisce reato“. 

Dopo l’emozione per essere stata assolta, la sindaca ha stretto la mano al giudice Roberto Ranazzi e al pm Francesco dall’Olio. “Questa sentenza – le prime parole di Raggi – spazza via due anni di fango. Andiamo avanti a testa alta per Roma, la mia amata città, e per tutti i cittadini”.  “Per i miei cittadini sono andata avanti testa alta. Ho fatto tutto con correttezza e trasparenza nell’interesse di Roma. Umanamente è stata un a prova durissima ma non ho mai mollato. Credo in quel che faccio, nel lavoro, nell’impegno costante, nel progetto che nel 2016 mi ha portata alla guida della città che amo. Un progetto che può andare con maggiore determinazione”. Così in un post su Facebook la sindaca Virginia Raggi dopo la sua assoluzione.

Raggi: contro me violenza inaudita – “Assolta. Con questa parola il Tribunale di Roma, che ringrazio e rispetto per il lavoro svolto, ha messo fine a due anni in cui sono stata mediaticamente e politicamente colpita con una violenza inaudita e con una ferocia ingiustificata. Due anni durante i quali, però, non ho mai smesso di lavorare a testa alta per i miei cittadini. Li ringrazio per il sostegno e l’affetto che mi hanno dimostrato”. Così la sindaca di Roma Virginia Raggi nell’esordio del suo post su Fb. “Vorrei liberarmi in un solo momento del fango che hanno prodotto per screditarmi, delle accuse ingiuriose, dei sorrisetti falsi che mi hanno rivolto, delle allusioni, delle volgarità, degli attacchi personali che hanno colpito anche la mia famiglia. Vorrei, soprattutto, che questo fosse un riscatto per tutti i romani, di qualsiasi appartenenza politica, perché il loro sindaco ce la sta mettendo tutta per far risorgere la nostra città”. Così la sindaca di Roma Virginia Raggi su Fb.

Di Maio: forza Virginia, sempre con te – “Forza Virginia! Contento di averti sempre difesa e di aver sempre creduto in te”. Così il vicepremier Luigi Di Maio, Capo Politico del Movimento 5 Stelle, commenta a caldo l’assoluzione di Virginia raggi su Fb. “La vera piaga di questo Paese è la stragrande maggioranza dei media corrotti intellettualmente e moralmente. Gli stessi che ci stanno facendo la guerra al Governo provando a farlo cadere con un metodo ben preciso: esaltare la Lega e massacrare il Movimento sempre e comunque. Presto faremo una legge sugli editori puri, per ora buon Malox a tutti!”. Lo afferma in un post su facebook il vicepremier Luigi Di Maio commentando l’assoluzione della sindaca di Virginia Raggi. “Oggi la verità giudiziaria ha dimostrato solo una cosa: che le uniche puttane qui sono proprio loro, questi pennivendoli che non si prostituiscono neppure per necessità, ma solo per viltà. Ma i colpevoli ci sono e vanno temuti. I colpevoli sono quei pennivendoli che da più di due anni le hanno lanciato addosso tonnellate di fango con una violenza inaudita. Sono pennivendoli, soltanto pennivendoli, i giornalisti sono altra cosa”. Lo afferma in un post su facebook Alessandro Di Battista commentando l’assoluzione di Virginia Raggi.

Salvini, bene Raggi assolta, ora giudichino cittadini – L’assoluzione del sindaco di Roma Virginia Raggi “è buona notizia”. Lo ha detto il ministro dell’Interno e e vicepremier Matteo Salvini arrivando a Eicma, il salone della ruote che si tiene a Milano. “È giusto che i cittadini giudichino una amministrazione non in base alle indagini che finiscono in nulla come in questo caso ma in base alla qualità della vita. Quindi i romani giudicheranno l’amministrazione dei 5 Stelle in base a come è messa Roma. È giusto che non siano le sentenze e i magistrati a decidere chi governa e chi va a casa”.