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

Trump. Prosegue la lotta per i giudici e per il 9th Circuit.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-11-03.

2016-11-09__Stati_Americani__001

«It is a fundamental belief of mine that all people are created in the image of God and they should all be treated with dignity and respect» [Mr Lawrence VanDyke]


Negli Stati Uniti le Corti Federali hanno poteri discrezionali immensi, tali da poter bloccare o, quanto meno, ostacolare severamente, anche i Presidenti democraticamente eletti dal popolo sovrano.

Eletti a vita su nomina presidenziale, che il senato deve ratificare, i 9 giudici della Corte Suprema ed i 179 giudici delle Corti Federali di Appello sono il vero centro decisionale americano.

Chi lo governa dispone a suo piacere dell’occidente.

Alla fine del 2016 vi erano due posti liberi nella Corte Suprema e diverse decine nelle dodici Corti di Appello Federali.

Chi avesse vinto le elezioni avrebbe potuto blindare quelle corti ed anche per molti decenni, nominando prevalentemente giudici di media età.

Quando Mr Trump trionfò su Mrs Hillary Clinton il mondo cadde addosso ai liberal democratici, che si sentirono defraudati dalla sorte di un bottino ritenuto essere sicuro.

In questi anni Mr Trump ha fatto un lavoro sommesso ma quanto mai efficiente.

Ad oggi, nelle 91 Corti Distrettuali lavorano 320 giudici democratici e 270 repubblicani, ma Mr Trump deve ancora nominarne 89.

Nelle Corti di Appello dei 13 Circuiti siedono al momento 93 giudici repubblicani ed 82 democratici, essendo ancora quattro posti vacanti. Si tenga presente come nel 2016 vi fossero solo 72 giudici repubblicani e 90 invece democratici, con 17 posizioni da occupare.

La Corte Suprema ha ora 5 Loro Giustizie di nomina repubblicana e 4 di nomina democratica.

Nel complesso, Mr Trump ha svolto un lavoro più che egregio, tenendo anche conto della litigiosità invelenita dei democratici.

*

Resta ancora da sanare l’anomalia del 9ty Circuit.

Quando Mr Trump entrò in carica i 29 giudici erano così ripartiti: 7 repubblicani, 18 democratici e 4 posti vacanti. Mr Trump ne fece nominare sette, ed una ottava nomina è in corso. Ad oggi vi sono 16 giudici democratici e 12 repubblicani: un ragionevole equilibrio è stato raggiunto.

Il 9th Circuit è stati da sempre una roccaforte liberal democratica: di lì sono partite tutte le sentenze che hanno bloccato l’Amministrazione Trump, anche se poi alla fine la Suprema Corte le ha cassate e, spesso, con sentenze di fuoco.

Suprema Corte cassa sentenza del 9th Circuit e da ragione a Trump.

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

Trump. Correggere l’anomalia del Nono Circuito.

Corte Suprema. Respinte le ‘stravaganti’ argomentazioni dei giudici del 9° Circuito

Suprema Corte castra la megalomania giuridica del 9° Circuito.

*

Al senato il giudice Lawrence VanDyke ha in corso la audizione per la ratifica. Una volta ratificata la nomina, i giudici repubblicani nel 9th Circuito salirebbero a 13.

I liberal democratici si sono scatenati come diavoli alla vista dell’acqua santa.

È gustoso leggersi come i liberal lo osteggino.


Trump pick for 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals accused of having anti-gay views

President Trump’s judicial nominee Lawrence VanDyke’s voice cracked and he shed tears at his confirmation hearing Wednesday when he was accused of being anti-gay.

The American Bar Association accused the federal appeals court pick of discriminating against LGBTQ people, as the president looks to remake the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where he already has placed seven judges since taking office in 2017.

Senators had to pause for Mr. VanDyke, who served as solicitor general for both the states of Montana and Nevada, to collect himself after being quizzed about his “not qualified” rating from the ABA.

His ABA report, though, was conducted by an evaluator who had actually donated to the nominee’s political rival in 2014 when he ran for the Montana Supreme Court — a point Republican senators were eager to make.

Mr. VanDyke did not win a seat on the state’s high court five years ago, but he’s now up for a vacancy on the 9th Circuit where he faced pushback from Democrats over his conservative ideals.

“It is a fundamental belief of mine that all people are created in the image of God and they should all be treated with dignity and respect,” Mr. VanDyke said over his tears before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The attorney, who has roughly 14 years of experience, rejected the poor score from the ABA, which released a damaging review of the nominee the night before his hearing. The ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary said it interviewed 60

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Generati ad ottobre altri 128,000 posti di lavoro.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-11-01.

2019-11-01__Usa_Disoccupati 001

Il Bureau of Labor Statistics attesta che ad ottobre sono stati generati 128,000 nuovi posti di lavoro.

Si noti come il tasso di disoccupazione tra i negri e gli afroamericani sia scesa al 5.4%. A fine 2016, all’atto dell’insediamento di Mr Trump alla presidenza, tale percentuale era 7.9%.

*


Usa: a ottobre creati 128 mila posti

L’economia americana nel mese di ottobre ha creato 128 mila nuovi posti di lavoro, battendo nettamente le previsioni. Il tasso di disoccupazione resta al 3,6%. Il dato di ottobre supera nettamente le previsioni che parlavano di circa 75 mila posti, e questo nonostante l’impatto negativo del lungo sciopero che ha interessato il colosso dell’auto General Motors. La disoccupazione al 3,6% resta poi ai livelli piu’ bassi da 50 anni. Rivisti al rialzo anche i dati di agosto (da 168 mila posti a 219 mila) e di settembre (da 136 mila a 180 mila).

Pubblicato in: Banche Centrali, Stati Uniti

USA. Pil Q3 1.9. Dato migliore rispetto le previsioni.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-10-30.

2019-10-30__Stati Uniti PilQ3

Reuters. 2019-10-30. Usa, economia rallenta meno del previsto nel terzo trimestre

La crescita economica degli Stati Uniti è rallentata meno del previsto nel terzo trimestre con il calo degli investimenti che è stato compensato dalla ripresa dei consumi e delle esportazioni, uno dato che potrebbe attenuare i timori dei mercati per una recessione.

Il dato diffuso oggi dal dipartimento del commercio, però, difficilmente scoraggerà la Federal Reserve dal tagliare nuovamente i tassi di interesse in un contesto che vede la più lunga espansione economica di sempre minata in maniera persistente dall’estesa incertezza sul commercio internazionale, alla quale si somma il rallentamento della crescita globale e la Brexit.

La guerra commerciale contro la Cina, promossa dall’amministrazione Trump, ha intaccato la fiducia delle imprese, contribuendo alla seconda contrazione trimestrale consecutiva degli investimenti. Anche il venir meno dello stimolo derivante dal taglio delle tasse da 1.500 miliardi di dollari dell’anno scorso sta mettendo a repentaglio la fase di crescita, giunta ora al suo undicesimo anno.

Il dato sul Pil è stato pubblicato poche ore prima che i funzionari della Fed concludano un incontro di politica monetaria durato due giorni al termine del quale la banca centrale statunitense dovrebbe tagliare i tassi di interesse per la terza volta. La Fed ha tagliato i tassi a settembre dopo aver ridotto i costi dei prestiti a luglio per la prima volta dal 2008.

In prima lettura il prodotto interno lordo è aumentato a un tasso annualizzato dell’1,9% nel terzo trimestre dopo essere cresciuto del 2,0% nel periodo aprile-giugno.

Gli economisti stimano la velocità con cui l’economia può crescere a lungo senza innescare fenomeni di inflazione tra l’1,7% e il 2,0%. Gli economisti intervistati da Reuters avevano previsto un aumento del Pil a un tasso dell’1,6% nel trimestre luglio-settembre.

Nonostante la performance migliore del previsto dello scorso trimestre, quest’anno l’economia dovrebbe mancare ancora l’ambizioso obiettivo della Casa Bianca di una crescita annua del 3,0%. È cresciuta del 2,9% l’anno scorso.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Stati Uniti

California del nord senza corrente. Pali della luce fatiscenti.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-10-11

2019-10-10__California__001

«A power company is cutting electricity to around 800,000 homes, businesses and other locations in Northern California, in an attempt to prevent wildfires»

«Large swathes of the San Francisco Bay Area – though not the city itself – have lost power, angering residents»

«The conditions are ripe: dry fuel, high winds, warm event. Any spark can create a significant event»

«The National Weather Service has issued a red flag warning for the Santa Cruz Mountains, North and East Bay regions until Thursday, warning that conditions could result in “the strongest offshore wind event in the area since the October 2017 North Bay fires”.»

«As of Wednesday morning, PG&E said around 500,000 customers were without power. Another 200,000 were scheduled to lose power by noon, local time»

«The huge “Camp Fire” in the town of Paradise last year burned 150,000 acres and left 86 people dead»

* * * * * * *

A quanto sarebbe dato di sapere, le linee elettriche gestite dalla PG&E sarebbero fatiscenti, e senza manutenzione da tempo. Sarebbe anche in corso un contenzioso legale.

In ogni caso, corti circuiti a seguito di crolli dei pali della luce sarebbero stati causa di molti incendi.

Si resta sconcertati che ciò avvenga nella California tecnologicamente avanzata.

Ma preoccupazioni ancora maggiori nascono esaminando il problema da un punto di vista militare. Sarebbero sufficienti due o tre cariche di plastico oppure altrettanti cruise sulle linee elettriche e tutta la California resterebbe al buio.

*


Bbc. 2019-10-09. Northern California dealt mega power cuts over wildfire fears

A power company is cutting electricity to around 800,000 homes, businesses and other locations in Northern California, in an attempt to prevent wildfires.

Large swathes of the San Francisco Bay Area – though not the city itself – have lost power, angering residents.

The region’s utility company, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), has warned the shutdown could last several days.

The company’s transmission lines started the deadliest wildfire in California’s history last year.

With weather forecasts predicting high winds, the move is intended to prevent the risk of fallen power lines igniting more wildfires.

“The conditions are ripe: dry fuel, high winds, warm event. Any spark can create a significant event,” said Ray Riordan, director of the Office of Emergency Management in San Jose, during a press conference on Tuesday.

The National Weather Service has issued a red flag warning for the Santa Cruz Mountains, North and East Bay regions until Thursday, warning that conditions could result in “the strongest offshore wind event in the area since the October 2017 North Bay fires”.

As of Wednesday morning, PG&E said around 500,000 customers were without power. Another 200,000 were scheduled to lose power by noon, local time.

The huge “Camp Fire” in the town of Paradise last year burned 150,000 acres and left 86 people dead. An investigation determined that poorly maintained PG&E equipment was to blame for starting the historic blaze.

The firm was also blamed for deadly fires in 2017. Subsequent lawsuits led the publicly traded company to declare bankruptcy in 2019, a process that is still ongoing. PG&E is the sole provider of gas and electricity for much of Northern California, and so the vast majority of consumers in the region do not have an alternative source of power.

“We have experienced an unprecedented fire season the past two years,” said Tamar Sarkissian, a PG&E spokeswoman, speaking to BBC partner CBS News.

“And what we learned from that is that we need to be taking further steps to ensure the safety of our customers and the communities that we serve. Public safety power shut off is one of the many steps that we’re taking.”

PG&E has carried out several planned outages over the course of the past year, though none at the scale of what is scheduled this week.

“None of us are happy about it,” said California governor, Gavin Newsom. “But this is part of something that we knew was likely to occur several months ago, when PG&E finally woke up to their responsibility to keep people safe.”

The outages are expected to affect more than half of the state’s counties.

The warnings stretch north of the San Francisco Bay Area, in areas such as Napa and Sonoma, famed for wine-making. Further south, many cities synonymous with Silicon Valley giants could be affected, such as Cupertino, home to Apple.

Local shops reported an influx of customers buying up supplies for a black out that could, if the weather remains adverse, last for several days.

“The idea of five days without electricity is devastating,” said Libby Schaaf, mayor of Oakland, but added: “We fully expect that to be a worst-case scenario. This is our first time going through this.”

But websites providing information about the cuts have buckled under heavy traffic loads. Many residents have taken to PG&E’s social media channels to express their frustration.

“This is ridiculous!” wrote Veronica Key.

“You wasted the money you should have been using on safety precautions to give dividends to your stockholders. Now you have to shut down our power like some sort of third world country.

“When you do shut down the power you can’t even get your notification website to work properly! Get it together PG&E! No more rate increases to pay for your incompetence.”

PG&E has opened 28 Community Resource Centers in the region to provide “restrooms, bottled water and electronic-device charging” during daylight hours.

Many schools in the area have told students to stay at home on Wednesday and await further information for the remainder of the week.

Despite widespread frustration, local meteorologist Mike Pechner told CBS the move was warranted.

“It’s not an overreaction at all. As the wind comes in, the wires, of course, oscillate back and forth. If they touch, they start a fire.

“[Cutting power] is taking downed wires and high winds out of the fire equation.”

Pubblicato in: Stati Uniti, Trump

USA. Reddito familiare mediano salito a 61,937 Usd.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-10-06.

2019-10-06__Usa median

«The median household income has increased by 0.8 percent in the United States, moving to $61,937 in 2019»

«this is the highest U.S. household income that the American Community Survey has ever recorded in absolute terms»

«Half of the American families the Census Bureau surveyed made more than $61,937 while the other half of households made less than that»

«West Virginia and Mississippi were the two states with the lowest medians, falling under $45,000, while twenty-seven other states and Puerto Rico reported U.S. income that is below the U.S. median»

* * * * * * *

Ricordiamo come il valore mediano sia quello al di sopra ed al di sotto del quale giace la metà dei dati.

West Virginia e Mississippi sono gli stati con i minimi valori mediani: 45,000 Usd.

Le differenze etniche evidenziano grandi differenze nei valori mediani di reddito.

Gli asiatici raggiungono un reddito mediano di 81,331$, i caucasici 68,145$, gli ispanici 50,486$ ed i negri 40,258$.

2019-10-06__Usa median 002

* * * * * * *

Middle Class Household Income Gets a Boost

The median household income has increased by 0.8 percent in the United States, moving to $61,937 in 2019. While this is the highest U.S. household income that the American Community Survey has ever recorded in absolute terms, the rate of growth has slowed compared to last year’s two percent uptick in median household income.

Half of the American families the Census Bureau surveyed made more than $61,937 while the other half of households made less than that. West Virginia and Mississippi were the two states with the lowest medians, falling under $45,000, while twenty-seven other states and Puerto Rico reported U.S. income that is below the U.S. median.

Despite a household income moving up, this rising tide is not necessarily lifting all boats. The Gini index, a ratio that measures income inequality, rose significantly year-over-year, a sign that the gap between rich and poor in the U.S. is widening. Specifically, income inequality increased in nine states including Alabama, Arkansas, California, Kansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Texas, and Virginia.

*

Median household income in the United States in 2017, by race or ethnic group (in U.S. dollars)

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

USA. Tasso disoccupazione sceso al 3.5%.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-10-05.

2019-10-05. USA Disoccupati 000

The Bureau of Labor Statistics ha rilasciato il dato sulla disoccupazione negli Stati Uniti e stato per stato.

L’economia americana a settembre ha generato 136,000 nuovi posti di lavoro, un po’ al di sotto delle attese che erano di circa 145,000. Ma il tasso di disoccupazione scende al 3.5%, il livello più basso dal 1969.

Esulta il presidente Donald Trump: “Il tasso di disoccupazione al 3.5% – twitta – ai minimi da 50 anni. Wow America, lascia che il tuo presidente venga messo in stato di accusa (anche se non ha fatto nulla di sbagliato!)”.
Il tasso di disoccupazione, dunque, non era così basso dal dicembre di 50 anni fa. Rivisti al rialzo anche i dati sull’occupazione dei due mesi precedenti: a luglio i nuovi posti sono passati da 159,000 a 166,000, ad agosto da 130,000 a 168,000.

2019-10-05. USA Disoccupati 001

Si noti anche come ben 28 stati abbiano un tasso di disoccupazione sotto il 3.5%. Ciò significa che risultano essere senza lavoro solo quanti immessi negli ultimi mesi nel mercato del lavoro, tipicamente le persone uscite dal sistema scolastico.

Ciò significa che nel prosieguo sarà quasi impossibile ridurre ulteriormente il tasso di disoccupazione.

Il The New York Times pubblica la notizia di spalla in ottava. Con riluttanza.

Pubblicato in: Amministrazione, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Impeachment. Molti ne parlano senza sapere cosa sia.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-27.

Invidia 001

Di questi tempi di fa un gran parlare di un possibile impeachment nei confronti del Presidente Trump.

«La messa in stato di accusa o impeachment (dall’inglese «imputazione») è un istituto giuridico col quale si prevede il rinvio a giudizio di titolari di cariche pubbliche qualora si ritenga che abbiano commesso determinati illeciti nell’esercizio delle loro funzioni.

L’impeachment è un antico istituto del common law, sviluppatosi dapprima in Inghilterra in un arco di tempo che va dal 1376, anno in cui il Parlamento inglese mise in stato d’accusa alcuni ministri di Edoardo III e la sua amante Alice Perrers per corruzione e incapacità, al XVIII secolo, quando è evoluto nella responsabilità ministeriale del gabinetto del Re. Nella versione di memento “ai cittadini che il loro presidente è umano e può sbagliare come ogni altro cittadino” è stato poi previsto e disciplinato dai padri costituenti degli Stati Uniti d’America nella Costituzione di Filadelfia del 1787.

Al vertice dei problemi di giustizia politica, il diritto comparato degli Stati democratici sul punto “può, infine, essere sintetizzato in tre congegni di garanzia della giusta tranquillità (ma fino ad un certo punto!) di chi è investito di potere: autorizzazione a procedere, per i governanti spagnoli da parte degli organi parlamentari con possibilità di ricorso al Tribunale costituzionale; organismo istruttorio formato da altissimi magistrati per i governanti francesi prima del deferimento all’Alta Corte; impeachment per il Presidente degli Stati Uniti e, con qualche adattamento, in Francia a seguito della revisione costituzionale del 2007.

Nell’ordinamento giuridico statunitense, soggetti passivi dell’impeachment (sottoposti al procedimento) sono i componenti del potere esecutivo, dal presidente al vicepresidente fino ai funzionari delle amministrazioni statali, e i giudici intesi come membri delle giurisdizioni federali.

Negli Stati Uniti d’America, soggetti attivi dell’impeachment (promotori del procedimento) sono la Camera dei Rappresentanti, investita della funzione di discutere i presupposti dell’accusa ed eventualmente elevarla (con voto a maggioranza semplice dei presenti), e il Senato investito del ruolo di giudice (con voto a maggioranza dei due terzi dei presenti). Se a esservi sottoposto è il presidente degli Stati Uniti presiederà il senato il Presidente della Corte suprema.» [Fonte]

* * * * * * *

L’impeachment è quindi un atto di sfiducia politica, scollegato da una eventuale azione giudiziaria.

Ufficialmente dovrebbe essere corroborato da prove probanti, inequivocabili: ma l’interpretazione della loro pertinenza e gravità è un giudizio meramente politico.

Riassumiamo.

– Soggetto attivo dell’impeachment (promotori del procedimento) è la Camera dei Rappresentanti, investita della funzione di discutere i presupposti dell’accusa ed eventualmente elevarla (con voto a maggioranza semplice dei presenti).

– Una volta formalizzata l’accusa, suffragata da prove probanti, interviene il Senato, investito del ruolo di giudice (con voto a maggioranza dei due terzi dei presenti).

– Se a esservi sottoposto è il presidente degli Stati Uniti presiederà il senato il Presidente della Corte suprema.

*

Nel breve termine, la procedura di impeachment è virtualmente impossibile da concretizzarsi. I repubblicani hanno infatti una maggioranza risicata ma efficiente in Senato, ed al momento almeno sembrerebbe essere impossibile che i liberal democratici possano raggiungere i due terzi. La Corte Suprema poi è ora a maggioranza repubblicana ed il suo presidente è pure repubblicano: difficilmente un impeachment potrebbe essere votato.

Di certo, l’apertura di una procedura di impeachment consentirebbe di mettere in moto quella macchina  del fango in cui i democratici sono maestri consumati.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Iowa. Inizia la selezione del candidato democratico alla presidenza. Warrren.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-24.

Brüghel il Vecchio. La parabola dei ciechi.

Tradizione bicentenaria consolidata indica che il candidato democratico che conquista lo Iowa si garantisce la nomination.

«A surging Sen. Elizabeth Warren is challenging Joe Biden’s dominance in the race for the Democratic nomination, standing at 22% to the former vice president’s 20% in a new CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll of likely Iowa caucusgoers»

«Although neither candidate holds a clear lead at this point, the new poll finds Warren and Biden well ahead of other contenders for the Democratic nomination»

«Sen. Bernie Sanders’ support has dipped to 11% in this poll, with South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 9% and Sen. Kamala Harris at 6%. Sens. Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar each land at 3%, while Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, investor Tom Steyer and businessman Andrew Yang each have the backing of 2% of likely caucusgoers. The poll marks Gabbard’s third qualifying poll for inclusion in October’s Democratic debates. The rest of the field each notched 1% or less»

«Warren’s improved standing overall in the Iowa poll comes on the heels of a stronger showing in recent national polls and is bolstered by an increasing positive favorability rating (75% have a favorable view»

«Biden’s favorable numbers dipped 6 points to 66% while his unfavorable rating rose 5 to 29%»

«Though views on the candidates have shifted, those likely to attend Iowa’s Democratic caucuses remain more apt to prioritize nominating a candidate with a strong chance of beating Trump (63%) over one who shares their positions on major issues (31%)»

* * * * * * *

Mrs Jennifer Agiesta, direttrice della sezione elettorale della Cnn, riporta due frasi degne della massima attenzione, e che contraddicono le regole seguite dai democratici nelle elezioni presidenziali del 2016.

Prima frase.

«Democratic caucuses remain more apt to prioritize nominating a candidate with a strong chance of beating Trump (63%)».

Una cosa è nominare un candidato liberal integralista, per esempio Mrs Kamala Harris, nomina che sarebbe una pacchia per Mr Trump, ed una totalmente differente è nominare un candidato con serie possibilità di riuscita. Il corpo degli Elettori differisce fortemente da quello dagli attivisti di partito. Nel primo caso si soddisfarebbero gli iscritti, nel secondo gli Elettori. Questo fu uno dei più grossolani errori fatti nella campagna elettorale del 2016. Mrs Clinton era popolare soltanto tra i giornalisti che scrivevano sulle testate liberal socialiste: ed infatti fu trombata alla grande.

Per meglio spiegarsi, rileggiamo il titolo de La Repubblica pochi giorni prima delle elezione di Mr Trump.

Elezioni Usa, sondaggi: Clinton ha più delegati

Ma alla fine Mr Trump ebbe 304 delegati contro i 227 di Mrs Clinton.

Chi ragiona in modo ideologico è presto smentito in modo cocente dai fatti.

Seconda frase.

«over one who shares their positions on major issues (31%)»

Questa frase è la logica conseguenza della prima. Solo il 31% degli Elettori democratici desidera un candidato che condivida la propria Weltanschauung: gli Elettori americani mai infatti eleggerebbero un presidente troppo ideologizzato.

* * * * * * *

Elizabeth Ann Warren, nata Herring, ha settanta anni tondi, è laureata a Houston nel 1970 in patologia del linguaggio e audiologia.

Ha insegnato legge in diverse università prima di entrare nell’Università di Harvard nel 1992, dove ha insegnato diritto commerciale.

Fino al 1996 ha militato nel partito repubblicano, quindi è transitata al partito democratico.

Durante le elezioni presidenziali del 2016 ha sostenuto nelle primarie democratiche il senatore Bernie Sanders.

*


Cnn. 2019-09-22. Elizabeth Warren surges and Joe Biden fades in close Iowa race, new poll shows

A surging Sen. Elizabeth Warren is challenging Joe Biden’s dominance in the race for the Democratic nomination, standing at 22% to the former vice president’s 20% in a new CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll of likely Iowa caucusgoers.

Although neither candidate holds a clear lead at this point, the new poll finds Warren and Biden well ahead of other contenders for the Democratic nomination. Sen. Bernie Sanders‘ support has dipped to 11% in this poll, with South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 9% and Sen. Kamala Harris at 6%. Sens. Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar each land at 3%, while Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, investor Tom Steyer and businessman Andrew Yang each have the backing of 2% of likely caucusgoers. The poll marks Gabbard’s third qualifying poll for inclusion in October’s Democratic debates. The rest of the field each notched 1% or less.

Warren’s improved standing overall in the Iowa poll comes on the heels of a stronger showing in recent national polls and is bolstered by an increasing positive favorability rating (75% have a favorable view, the best in the field, and she is one of only four candidates who have improved their net favorability since the June CNN/DMR poll), as well as a growing percentage of likely caucusgoers who say she is either their first choice, second choice or someone they are actively considering. All told, 71% are at least considering Warren’s candidacy, ahead of the next best candidate on that score by 11 points (Biden at 60%). Her supporters are also more enthusiastic than those behind Biden (32% of her backers are extremely enthusiastic vs. 22% for the former vice president).

The Massachusetts senator appears to be gaining ground primarily at the expense of Sanders. She holds the support of 32% of those who say they caucused for Sanders in 2016 (Sanders himself stands at 25% among that group), stands at 48% among those who consider themselves “very liberal,” and for the first time in CNN/DMR polling on the race, has edged ahead of Sanders among those under age 35 (27% back Warren, 22% Sanders).

Biden’s core backers remain behind him in largely the same way they were in the previous poll. Among seniors, he is the first choice of 35%, about the same as earlier this year. And he remains above 30% support with moderate and conservative likely caucusgoers.

And Warren’s supporters are a bit less apt to be locked in than are those backing Biden (12% of Warren supporters say their mind is made up vs. 26% of Biden’s supporters). Overall, though, just 20% of likely caucusgoers say their mind is made up now, suggesting there is plenty of room for these preferences to shift before February.

Shifts in favorability

For many in the field, a summer spent campaigning in Iowa has done little to improve their chances there. Aside from Warren, no candidate has made meaningful gains in overall support compared with their backing among likely caucus attendees in June, and 10 candidates saw their unfavorable ratings rise by double-digits without an equivalent rise on the positive side of things, including a whopping 30-point increase in negative views of author Marianne Williamson, a 23-point jump for former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro and increases in the teens for former Maryland Rep. John Delaney, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock and Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan.

Sanders and Biden each saw an increase in unfavorable views alongside a drop in favorable ratings (Sanders shifted from 70% favorable and 25% unfavorable to a 58% favorable to 36% unfavorable rating; Biden’s favorable numbers dipped 6 points to 66% while his unfavorable rating rose 5 to 29%).

Yang also saw his unfavorable numbers grow, but the rise was matched by the increase in his favorability rating.

Beyond Warren’s gains, Buttigieg boosted his favorable rating 8 points to 69% without an appreciable rise in unfavorable views, Klobuchar saw favorable views gain 6 points to top 50% for the first time, while her unfavorable numbers rose 4 points, and Booker’s favorability climbed 5 points to 60% as the unfavorable side gained just 3 points.

Prioritizing electability

Though views on the candidates have shifted, those likely to attend Iowa’s Democratic caucuses remain more apt to prioritize nominating a candidate with a strong chance of beating Trump (63%) over one who shares their positions on major issues (31%). And most think that after Trump, American government could return to the way it was before his election (59%).

The poll sought to gain insight into what it is likely caucusgoers think an electable candidate would be. Nearly three-quarters said a candidate who can excite new voters (74%) is closer to their vision of electability than one who would excite the base (16%). And most preferred a candidate who would represent a new generation of leadership (57%) over one with a long history in government (28%), as well as one who would take the high road against Trump (54%) vs. getting in the mud as needed to take on the President (35%).

Roughly two-thirds felt the more electable candidate is one who seeks common ground with Republicans (63%) rather than moving the country to the left (28%). But in assessing six positions that have become signatures of the more liberal candidates in the Democratic field, the poll finds wide variation in likely caucusgoers’ level of comfort with them.

Support for policy positions

Clear majorities say that they are personally comfortable with policies that would raise taxes on the wealthy (74%) and restore the ban on assault-style weapons (69%) and they feel candidates ought to run on those positions. Fewer felt the same about the Green New Deal (48%), “Medicare for All” (41%), free tuition for public colleges (36%) and moving the country in a socialist direction (20%).

Views on Medicare for All in particular are starkly divided between those backing Warren or Sanders — the strongest proponents of such a plan among the Democratic candidates — and those who favor other candidates. Among supporters of Warren or Sanders, 63% say they’re comfortable with Medicare for All and want candidates to run on it, while among those backing other candidates, just 29% feel the same way.

Perceptions on these policy positions are one sharp divider between supporters of the two top candidates. Among Warren’s supporters, 64% say that none of the six tested positions are bad policy. Among Biden’s backers, though, just 29% feel the same way.

The CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll was conducted by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, Iowa, September 14 through 18 among a random sample of 602 likely Democratic caucusgoers reached on landlines or cell phones by a live interviewer. Results for the full sample of likely caucusgoers have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.0 percentage points.


Ansa. 2019-09-22. Usa 2020: sorpasso Warren in Iowa

WASHINGTON, 22 SET – Campanello d’allarme per Joe Biden, finora il front runner dei candidati dem alla Casa Bianca: nell’ultimo sondaggio in Iowa, lo Stato da dove partiranno le primarie, si è consumato per la prima volta il sorpasso di Elizabeth Warren. La senatrice, secondo la rilevazione di Cnn e Des Moines Register, ha adesso il consenso del 22% degli elettori dem, contro il 20% dell’ex vicepresidente. Nettamente staccato Bernie Sanders all’11%. Pete Buttigieg col 9% meglio di Kamaka Harris e tutti gli altri. Di solito chi vince in Iowa guadagna la nomination.

Pubblicato in: Cina, Commercio, Stati Uniti

Cina – Usa. Guerra dei Dazi. Le cifre della contrazione degli scambi.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-14.

Washington. White House. 001

The Office of the United States Trade Representative. USTR Statement on Section 301 Tariff Action Regarding China

«08/23/2019

Washington, DC – Today, China announced it will impose unjustified tariffs targeting U.S. products.  In response to China’s decision, and in order to achieve the objectives of the China Section 301 investigation, President Trump has instructed the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to increase by 5% the tariffs on approximately $550 billion worth of Chinese imports.  For the 25% tariffs on approximately $250 billion worth of Chinese imports, USTR will begin the process of increasing the tariff rate to 30%, effective October 1 following a notice and comment period.  For the 10% tariffs on approximately $300 billion worth of Chinese imports that the President announced earlier this month, the tariffs will now be 15%, effective on the already scheduled dates for tariff increases on these imports. 

USTR will publish in the Federal Register as soon as possible additional details on today’s announcement.»

* * *

The Office of the United States Trade Representative ha pubblicato il Report

The People’s Republic of China

* * *

«L’import di merci statunitensi è diminuito del 22% in agosto rispetto all’anno precedente, a quota 10,3 miliardi di dollari, dopo gli aumenti dei dazi cinesi e l’ingiunzione alle aziende di annullare gli ordini»

«L’export verso gli Usa, il più grande mercato cinese, sono affondate del 16% a 44,4 miliardi di dollari»

*

«U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled an estimated $737.1 billion in 2018. Exports were $179.3 billion; imports were $557.9 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with China was $378.6 billion in 2018.»

«China is currently our largest goods trading partner with $659.8 billion in total (two way) goods trade during 2018. Goods exports totaled $120.3 billion; goods imports totaled $539.5 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with China was $419.2 billion in 2018.»

«Trade in services with China (exports and imports) totaled an estimated $77.3 billion in 2018. Services exports were $58.9 billion; services imports were $18.4 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with China was $40.5 billion in 2018.»

«U.S. goods exports to China in 2018 were $120.3 billion, down 7.4% ($9.6 billion) from 2017 but up 72.6% from 2008. U.S. exports to China are up 527% from 2001 (pre-WTO accession). U.S. exports to China account for 7.2% of overall U.S. exports in 2018.»

«The top export categories (2-digit HS) in 2018 were: aircraft ($18 billion), machinery ($14 billion), electrical machinery ($13 billion), optical and medical instruments ($9.8 billion), and vehicles ($9.4 billion).»

«U.S. exports of services to China were an estimated $58.9 billion in 2018, 2.2% ($1.3 billion) more than 2017, and 272% greater than 2008 levels.»

«China was the United States’ largest supplier of goods imports in 2018.»

«U.S. goods imports from China totaled $539.5 billion in 2018, up 6.7% ($34.0 billion) from 2017, and up 59.7% from 2008. U.S. imports from are up 427% from 2001 (pre-WTO accession). U.S. imports from China account for 21.2% of overall U.S. imports in 2018.»

«The top import categories (2-digit HS) in 2018 were: electrical machinery ($152 billion), machinery ($117 billion), furniture and bedding ($35 billion), toys and sports equipment ($27 billion), and plastics ($19 billion).»

* * * * * * *

L’interscambio Cina – US ammontava nel 2018 a 737.1 miliardi Usd. Il deficit commerciale per i beni ammontava a 419.2 miliardi Usd. Le importazione americane dalla Cina costituivano il 21.2% delle importazioni totali.

È semplicemente evidente come un deficit di simile livello sia intollerabile anche solo nel breve – medio periodo.

Altrettanto evidente dovrebbe essere come un caso così singolare non possa essere affrontato e risolto nell’ambito di trattative pluripolari, ma richieda una trattativa a due.

Ma altrettanto evidente appare il fatto che la Cina faccia di tutto per mantenere il proprio export, mentre gli Usa facciano il loro possibile per ridurlo e contenerlo. Si prospetta quindi un contenzioso duro e duraturo nel tempo.


Ansa. 2019-09-08. Dazi, crolla il commercio tra Usa e Cina

PECHINO, 8 SET – Il commercio della Cina con gli Usa crolla bruscamente mentre non si vedono segnali per la fine della guerra dei dazi. L’import di merci statunitensi è diminuito del 22% in agosto rispetto all’anno precedente, a quota 10,3 miliardi di dollari, dopo gli aumenti dei dazi cinesi e l’ingiunzione alle aziende di annullare gli ordini. L’export verso gli Usa, il più grande mercato cinese, sono affondate del 16% a 44,4 miliardi di dollari, per i dazi punitivi imposti dal presidente Donald Trump.

*


Office of the United States Trade Representative. The People’s Republic of China

U.S.-China Trade Facts

U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled an estimated $737.1 billion in 2018. Exports were $179.3 billion; imports were $557.9 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with China was $378.6 billion in 2018.

China is currently our largest goods trading partner with $659.8 billion in total (two way) goods trade during 2018. Goods exports totaled $120.3 billion; goods imports totaled $539.5 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with China was $419.2 billion in 2018.

Trade in services with China (exports and imports) totaled an estimated $77.3 billion in 2018. Services exports were $58.9 billion; services imports were $18.4 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with China was $40.5 billion in 2018.

According to the Department of Commerce, U.S. exports of Goods and Services to China supported an estimated 911,000 jobs in 2015 (latest data available) (601,000 supported by goods exports and 309,000 supported by services exports).

Exports

– China was the United States’ 3rd largest goods export market in 2018.

– U.S. goods exports to China in 2018 were $120.3 billion, down 7.4% ($9.6 billion) from 2017 but up 72.6% from 2008. U.S. exports to China are up 527% from 2001 (pre-WTO accession). U.S. exports to China account for 7.2% of overall U.S. exports in 2018.

– The top export categories (2-digit HS) in 2018 were: aircraft ($18 billion), machinery ($14 billion), electrical machinery ($13 billion), optical and medical instruments ($9.8 billion), and vehicles ($9.4 billion).

– U.S. total exports of agricultural products to China totaled $9.3 billion in 2018, our 4th largest agricultural export market. Leading domestic export categories include: soybeans ($3.1 billion), cotton ($924 million), hides & skins ($607 million), pork & pork products ($571 million), and coarse grains (ex. corn) ($530 million).

– U.S. exports of services to China were an estimated $58.9 billion in 2018, 2.2% ($1.3 billion) more than 2017, and 272% greater than 2008 levels. It was up roughly 997% from 2001 (pre-WTO accession). Leading services exports from the U.S. to China were in the travel, intellectual property (trademark, computer software), and transport sectors.

Imports

– China was the United States’ largest supplier of goods imports in 2018.

– U.S. goods imports from China totaled $539.5 billion in 2018, up 6.7% ($34.0 billion) from 2017, and up 59.7% from 2008. U.S. imports from are up 427% from 2001 (pre-WTO accession). U.S. imports from China account for 21.2% of overall U.S. imports in 2018.

– The top import categories (2-digit HS) in 2018 were: electrical machinery ($152 billion), machinery ($117 billion), furniture and bedding ($35 billion), toys and sports equipment ($27 billion), and plastics ($19 billion).

– U.S. total imports of agricultural products from China totaled $4.9 billion in 2018, our 3rd largest supplier of agricultural imports. Leading categories include: processed fruit & vegetables ($1.2 billion), fruit & vegetable juices ($393 million), snack foods ($222 million), spices ($167 million), and fresh vegetables ($160 million).

– U.S. imports of services from China were an estimated $18.4 billion in 2018, 5.5% ($963 million) more than 2017, and 68.3% greater than 2008 levels. It was up roughly 414% from 2001 (pre-WTO accession). Leading services imports from China to the U.S. were in the transport, travel, and research and development sectors.

Trade Balance

– The U.S. goods trade deficit with China was $419.2 billion in 2018, a 11.6% increase ($43.6 billion) over 2017.

– The United States has a services trade surplus of an estimated $41 billion with China in 2018, up 0.8% from 2017.

Investment

– U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China (stock) was $107.6 billion in 2017, a 10.6% increase from 2016. U.S. direct investment in China is led by manufacturing, wholesale trade, and finance and insurance.

– China’s FDI in the United States (stock) was $39.5 billion in 2017, down 2.3% from 2016. China’s direct investment in the U.S. is led by manufacturing, real estate, and depository institutions.

 – Sales of services in China by majority U.S.-owned affiliates were $55.1 billion in 2016 (latest data available), while sales of services in the United States by majority China-owned firms were $8.3 billion.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ong - Ngo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Corte Suprema ripristina le limitazioni alle richieste di asilo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-13.

Supreme Court

«Donald Trump incassa una vittoria sull’immigrazione alla corte suprema, a maggioranza repubblicana dopo le sue due nomine: ribaltando la decisione di una corte d’appello, i giudici hanno deciso di far entrare in vigore la nuova normativa governativa che vieta a gran parte degli immigrati centroamericani di chiedere asilo in Usa se durante il loro viaggio hanno attraversato Paesi terzi sicuri dove potevano avanzare la stessa istanza.

Due giudici, Ruth Bader Ginsburg e Sonia Sotomayor, si sono dissociati.

“Grande vittoria alla corte suprema degli Stati Uniti per la frontiera sulla questione dell’asilo”: ha commentato Trump.

La nuova normativa entrerà in vigore finché prosegue la battaglia legale nel merito»

* * * * * * *

Questa è la documentazione rilasciata dalla Suprema Corte.

Aug 26 2019      Application (19A230) for a stay pending appeal, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Aug 27 2019      Response to application (19A230) requested by Justice Kagan, due Wednesday, September 4, 2019, by 3 p.m.

Sep 03 2019       Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Immigration Reform Law Institute.

Sep 03 2019       Motion for leave to file amici brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Arizona, et al.

Sep 04 2019       Response to application from respondents East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al. filed.

Sep 04 2019       Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Non-Profit Organizations and Law School Clinics.

Sep 06 2019       Reply of applicants William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. filed.

Sep 10 2019       Supplemental brief of applicants William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. filed.

Sep 11 2019       Letter of applicants William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. received.

* * * * * * *

Il problema è semplice e può essere visto da due punti di vista differenti.

Nel caso specifico, la Suprema Corte ha dichiarato legale la normativa governativa che preclude dal diritto di asilo i migranti illegali che abbiano transitato in altri stati ai quali avrebbero potuto rivolgersi in piena sicurezza. La Suprema Corte ribalta quindi le sentenze emesse sia dal giudice distrettuale sia da quello federale del Nono Circuito, che erano state emesse con valore applicativo su tutta la nazione.

Dal punto di vista generale, invece, si ripropone il quesito dei limiti entro i quali i giudici di livello inferiore possano emettere sentenze su dispositivi nazionali in materia francamente politica, sentenziando anche con argomentazioni politiche.

Non solo quindi un problema giuridico in sé e per sé, ma anche politico: mentre infatti il Presidente degli Stati Uniti è stato eletto da libere elezioni, i giudici sono semplici funzionari della pubblica amministrazione.

Se per il concetto di divisione dei poteri la politica dovrebbe astenersi dall’immettersi nelle procedure sentenziali, il potere giudiziario dovrebbe astenersi dal voler svolgere ruolo politico.

* * * * * * *

«The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for President Trump and his administration to enforce a ban on nearly all asylum seekers arriving at the southern border.»

«In a one-paragraph order, the justices by a 7-2 vote granted an emergency appeal from Trump administration lawyers and set aside decisions from judges in California who had blocked the president’s new rule from taking effect.»

«While it is not a final ruling on the issue, the decision is nonetheless a major victory for Trump and his effort to restrict immigration because it allows the asylum ban to be enforced at the southern border while the dispute wends its way through the courts. That potentially could last for the remainder of Trump’s current term in office.»

«Wednesday’s order is further evidence that Trump is changing how the Supreme Court works. Prior to 2017, it was rare for federal judges to issue nationwide orders that blocked actions of the federal government. And it was also rare for the high court to intervene in such pending cases with emergency orders, rather than holding oral arguments and releasing written decisions.»

«In late July, the justices cleared the way by a 5-4 vote for Trump to spend $2.5 billion from the military budget to pay for border wall construction. Congress had refused to appropriate the money, and a federal judge in Oakland and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco blocked the transfer.»

«U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar in San Francisco agreed and issued a nationwide injunction that barred enforcement of the new rule. The 9th Circuit Court upheld this order, but restricted its reach to California and Arizona.»

«U.S. Solicitor Gen. Noel Francisco filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court in late August in the case of Barr vs. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant. He urged the justices to lift the injunction and allow the new rule to take effect immediately. Doing so would “alleviate a crushing burden on the U.S. asylum system,” he said.»

* * * * * * *


 Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant (09/11/2019)

«SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. 19A230.

 The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. The district court’s July 24, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction andSeptember 9, 2019 order restoring the nationwide scope of the injunction are stayed in full pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’spetition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the peti­tion, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.»

*


Trump lawyers ask Supreme Court to allow rule limiting asylum claims to go into effect nationwide. [2019-08-26]

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow a rule limiting asylum claims to go into effect nationwide while a lower court ruling blocking it is appealed.

A federal judge had blocked the Trump administration rule, which dramatically limits the ability of Central American migrants to claim asylum if they enter the US by land through Mexico, nationwide. Earlier this month, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals dialed back the nationwide injunction, saying that it can only apply to migrants claiming asylum in California and Arizona, states that fall under the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction.

In its filing Monday, the administration laid out its case for the rule, arguing that, among other things, it “alleviates a crushing burden on the US asylum system” and deters migrants from coming to the US.

“The injunction now in effect is deeply flawed and should be stayed pending appeal and pending any further proceedings in this Court,” the filing reads.

The Trump administration has rolled out a slew of policies in recent weeks to try to curb migration to the United States amid high border apprehension numbers. The solicitor general acknowledged the uptick in illegal border crossings in Monday’s filing.

The rule, which was issued from the departments of Justice and Homeland Security in July, would prohibit migrants who have resided in or traveled through a third country from seeking asylum in the US, therefore barring migrants traveling through Mexico from being able to claim asylum. The result would be a severe limiting of who’s eligible for asylum.

Immigrant advocacy groups have claimed the rule is unlawful and leaves migrants in harm’s way.

In his July ruling, US District Judge Jon Tigar, a Barack Obama nominee, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, wrote, “This new rule is likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws.”

“An injunction,” Tigar added, “would vindicate the public’s interest — which our existing immigration laws clearly articulate — in ensuring that we do not deliver aliens into the hands of their persecutors.”

The US District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a hearing in early September.

*


Supreme Court Allows Broad Enforcement of Asylum Limits

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States.

The justices’ order late Wednesday temporarily undoes a lower-court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border. The policy is meant to deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there.

Most people crossing the southern border are Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty. They are largely ineligible under the new rule, as are asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and South America who arrive regularly at the southern border.

The shift reverses decades of U.S. policy. The administration has said that it wants to close the gap between an initial asylum screening that most people pass and a final decision on asylum that most people do not win.

“BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!” Trump tweeted.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high-court’s order. “Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote.

The legal challenge to the new policy has a brief but somewhat convoluted history. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked the new policy from taking effect in late July. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Tigar’s order so that it applied only in Arizona and California, states that are within the 9th Circuit.

That left the administration free to enforce the policy on asylum seekers arriving in New Mexico and Texas. Tigar issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy. The 9th Circuit again narrowed his order on Tuesday.

The high-court action allows the administration to impose the new policy everywhere while the court case against it continues.

Lee Gelernt, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing immigrant advocacy groups in the case, said: “This is just a temporary step, and we’re hopeful we’ll prevail at the end of the day. The lives of thousands of families are at stake.”


Usa: Corte suprema, ok a limiti asilo

Donald Trump incassa una vittoria sull’immigrazione alla corte suprema, a maggioranza repubblicana dopo le sue due nomine: ribaltando la decisione di una corte d’appello, i giudici hanno deciso di far entrare in vigore la nuova normativa governativa che vieta a gran parte degli immigrati centroamericani di chiedere asilo in Usa se durante il loro viaggio hanno attraversato Paesi terzi sicuri dove potevano avanzare la stessa istanza.

Due giudici, Ruth Bader Ginsburg e Sonia Sotomayor, si sono dissociati.

“Grande vittoria alla corte suprema degli Stati Uniti per la frontiera sulla questione dell’asilo”: ha commentato Trump.

La nuova normativa entrerà in vigore finche’ prosegue la battaglia legale nel merito.