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

Supreme Court. Gerrymanderings. Bocciate le sentenze dei giudici liberal.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-26.

2019-05-25__Gerrymanders__001

Supreme Court temporarily blocks rulings requiring new voting maps for Ohio and Michigan [Nbc]

«Lower courts had invalidated the GOP-friendly maps as partisan gerrymandering and ordered them redrawn before the 2020 election.»

*

«The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings that invalidated, as partisan gerrymandering, Ohio’s map for congressional districts and Michigan’s maps for congressional and state legislative districts.

The high court’s orders put on hold efforts in both states to redraw their electoral maps ahead of the 2020 elections, a remedy ordered by the lower courts.

In the Ohio case, a three-judge panel ruled unanimously earlier this month that the district map drawn up by the Republican-controlled Legislature unconstitutionally discriminated against Democrats. “We are convinced by the evidence that this partisan gerrymander was intentional,” the ruling said.»

* * * * * *

Abbiamo già ampiamente riportato sul problema del gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering. Republicani e democratici si stanno scannando.

Ogni dieci anni, ovvero quando ne emergessero le necessità, gli stati hanno la possibilità di ridisegnare con una apposita legge i confini dei distretti elettorali, equiripartendo al meglio possibile la popolazione nei seggi. Il termine gerrymandering designa una mappa di distretto elettorale artatamente manipolata per ottenere un vantaggio elettorale.

Negli ultimi anni i liberal democratici hanno contestato la mappatura fatta da governi repubblicani, portando il tutto nanti corti federali ove sedessero giudici di eguale dottrina. Queste corti avevano immediatamente bloccato la mappatura, imponendo agli stati il ritorno al pristino.

Orbene, il tutto è finito davanti alla Suprema Corte, che ha cassato le sentenze emesse da quelle corti inferiori.

La faccenda è al momento tutt’altro che conclusa, ma l’orientamento della Suprema Corte sembrerebbe essere oramai definito.

Con la nomina delle loro Giustizie Mr Gorsuch e Mr Kavanaugh, Mr Trump ha ricostituito la Suprema Corte con giudici ligi e rispettosi della costituzione: l’epoca in cui i giudici liberal democratici imponevano la loro ideologia con sentenze tribunizie sembrerebbe andare al termine. È la fine dei processi alle intenzioni, dei processi politici, dell’uso partigiano delle corti di giustizia.

* * * * * * *

«The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings that had ordered Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections after finding that the current districts were designed to illegally diminish the power of Democratic voters»

*

«The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to stay those decisions»

*

«The lower courts found that the electoral maps had been drawn to entrench the majority party in power, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.»

*

«While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case also challenges districts in the state legislature as well»

*

«Two other gerrymandering challenges are already pending at the Supreme Court, with rulings due by the end of June. In one case, Republican legislators in North Carolina are accused of rigging congressional maps to boost their party’s chances in that state»

* * * * * * *

Entro qualche mese la Suprema Corte dovrà sentenziare su molte questioni che avrebbero dovuto essere oggetto di dibattito politico in sede congressuale. A seconda di come orienteranno il giudizio, il mondo potrebbe subire una mutazione.



Reuters. 2019-05-25. U.S. Supreme Court blocks redrawing of Ohio, Michigan electoral maps

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings ordering Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections, dealing a blow to Democrats who had argued that the electoral districts were intended to unlawfully diminish their political clout.

The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to put those decisions on hold, halting further action in the cases and the need to rework electoral district boundaries. The justices did not provide any explanation for their brief orders.

The lower courts found that the electoral maps in the two states had been drawn to entrench Republicans in power by manipulating boundaries in a way that reduced the voting clout of Democrats – a practice known as partisan gerrymandering – in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case challenges districts in the state legislature as well.

The decisions in Michigan and Ohio that were put on hold by the justices were the latest rulings by federal courts determining that electoral maps designed by a state’s majority party unconstitutionally undermined the rights of voters who tend to support the other party.

But the action by the justices was not unexpected as they weigh two other gerrymandering cases – one from North Carolina and the other from Maryland – that could decide definitively whether federal judges have the power to intervene to curb partisan gerrymandering. The rulings in those cases, due by the end of June, are likely to dictate whether the legal challenges against the Ohio and Michigan electoral maps can move forward.

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings ordering Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections, dealing a blow to Democrats who had argued that the electoral districts were intended to unlawfully diminish their political clout.

The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to put those decisions on hold, halting further action in the cases and the need to rework electoral district boundaries. The justices did not provide any explanation for their brief orders.

The lower courts found that the electoral maps in the two states had been drawn to entrench Republicans in power by manipulating boundaries in a way that reduced the voting clout of Democrats – a practice known as partisan gerrymandering – in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case challenges districts in the state legislature as well.

The decisions in Michigan and Ohio that were put on hold by the justices were the latest rulings by federal courts determining that electoral maps designed by a state’s majority party unconstitutionally undermined the rights of voters who tend to support the other party.

But the action by the justices was not unexpected as they weigh two other gerrymandering cases – one from North Carolina and the other from Maryland – that could decide definitively whether federal judges have the power to intervene to curb partisan gerrymandering. The rulings in those cases, due by the end of June, are likely to dictate whether the legal challenges against the Ohio and Michigan electoral maps can move forward.

In the North Carolina case, Republican legislators were accused of rigging congressional maps to boost their party’s chances. In the Maryland, Democratic lawmakers faced similar allegations over one U.S. House district.

The Ohio and Michigan lawsuits accused Republican-controlled legislatures in the two states of discriminating against Democratic voters for their political views in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal treatment under the law and freedom of association.

Critics have said that gerrymandering, a feature of U.S. politics for generations, has become increasingly extreme and effective at advancing the interests of a political party as a result of precise voter data and powerful computer technology, illegally shaping the outcome of elections.

The Supreme Court has previously intervened when legislators impermissibly sought to dilute the voting power of racial minorities, but it has never curbed gerrymandering for purely partisan purposes.

The Michigan and Ohio lawsuits were filed by voting rights groups and individual Democratic voters. Nine U.S. House and 25 state legislative districts were at issue in Michigan, while Ohio’s case involved 16 U.S. House districts.

A three-judge panel in Detroit on April 25 ruled in the Democratic voters’ favor in the Michigan case, calling gerrymandering a “pernicious practice that undermines our democracy,” and ordered state officials to draw new maps by Aug. 1.

A three-judge panel in Cincinnati on May 3 sided with the Democratic voters in the Ohio case, and ordered the state to create a plan to fix the map by June 14.

Electoral districts are typically redrawn once a decade after the U.S. census to reflect population changes. In many states, the party in power controls the map-making.

*


MSN. 2019-05-25. U.S. Supreme Court blocks redrawing of Ohio, Michigan electoral maps

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings that had ordered Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections after finding that the current districts were designed to illegally diminish the power of Democratic voters.

The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to stay those decisions. The lower courts found that the electoral maps had been drawn to entrench the majority party in power, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case also challenges districts in the state legislature as well.

The decisions in Michigan and Ohio that were put on hold by the justices were the latest rulings by federal courts determining that electoral maps designed by a state’s majority party unconstitutionally undermined the rights of voters who tend to support the other party.

Two other gerrymandering challenges are already pending at the Supreme Court, with rulings due by the end of June. In one case, Republican legislators in North Carolina are accused of rigging congressional maps to boost their party’s chances in that state. In the other case, Democratic lawmakers in Maryland face similar allegations over one U.S. House district.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump taglia i fondi all’alta velocità Sacramento – San Diego.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-23.

California Bulet Train 001

«California High-Speed Rail (abbreviated CAHSR or CHSR) is a high-speed rail system under construction in the U.S. state of California. It is projected to connect the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center in Anaheim and Union Station in Downtown Los Angeles with the Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco via the Central Valley, providing a one-seat ride between Union Station and San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes. Future extensions are planned to connect to stations to San Diego County via the Inland Empire, as well as to Sacramento. ….

The CAHSRA was established by an act of the California State Legislature and tasked with presenting a high-speed rail plan to the voters. This plan, Proposition 1A, was presented to and approved by voters in 2008 and included a $9-billion bond to begin construction on the initial leg of the network.

Construction began in 2015 after a groundbreaking ceremony in Fresno.

On February 12, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom in his first State of the State address announced that, while work would continue on the 171-mile (275 km) Central Valley segment from Bakersfield to Merced, the rest of the system would be indefinitely postponed, citing cost overruns and delays ….

The 2008 business plan proposed a 2028 completion date for Phase 1 and a one-way fare of $55 from Los Angeles to San Francisco. In 2012 the Authority re-estimated the project’s cost at $53.4 billion (2011$) or $68.4 billion (YOE) In 2018 the Authority pushed estimated costs to between $63.2 billion and $98.1 billion (YOE) and delayed initial service to 2029, with Los Angeles to San Francisco service in 2033» [Fonte]

*

Ricapitoliamo.

Nel 2008 lo stato della California deliberò la costruzione di una linea ad alta velocità che collegasse la capitale Sacramento, quindi San Francisco fino a San Diego, coprendo una distanza iniziale di 840 km, per un fine progetto di 1,300 km, cui aggiungere i rami collaterali. Il costo dell’opera era stato inizialmente preventivato a 9 miliardi Usd, circa il costo sostenuto per studiare il progetto.

Nel 2018 il costo dell’opera

era levitato a 98 miliardi Usd.

Il problema attuale dello stato della California è banale: non hanno più fondi disponibili e quindi l’intera opera è virtualmente bloccata, né si riesce a capire se o quando possa essere ripresa.

*

La California ha ottenuto una grande quantità di fondi federali, una parte di finanziamento diretto, un’altra, per nulla trascurabile, di sovvenzioni varie, per esempio, alla ricerca e progettazione.

La California è infatti oberata dal debito pubblico.

«We estimate that California’s total state and local government debt as of June 30, 2017 totaled just over $1.5 trillion. That total includes all outstanding bonds, loans, and other long-term liabilities, along with the officially reported unfunded liability for other post-employment benefits (primarily retiree healthcare), as well as unfunded pension liabilities.

This represents a rise of about $200 billion – or 15% – over our last debt analysis, in January 2017 ….

Our analysis differs from government reporting in a few ways, the most significant of which is governments’ use of a very generous expected rate of return on their pension fund investments. Using a more accurate rate, we calculate the total of unfunded pensions in California at $846 billion – $530 billion more than the official estimate of $316 billion. But even using only the officially reported estimates, California’s state and local governments are about $1.0 trillion in debt.» [California Policy Center]

Con un debito statale di 1,500 miliardi, dei quali 846 miliardi usati per finanziare i fondi pensioni, lo stato della California ha ben poche possibilità di accedere ulteriormente al credito.

Non solo, secondo quanto riportano le statistiche federali, il debito delle istituzioni locali sarebbe più che doppio di quello statale.

* * * * * * *

«The Trump administration said on Thursday it was formally cancelling $929 million in previously awarded funding for California’s high-speed rail program after rejecting an appeal by the state»

*

«The U.S. railway regulator, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), said on Thursday it had canceled the funding awarded in a 2010 agreement after it said the state had “repeatedly failed to comply” and “failed to make reasonable progress on the project.”»

« »

«The decision is the latest salvo in an ongoing battle between the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump and California over a series of issues including immigration, vehicle emissions standards and internet policy»

*

«The largest U.S. state has repeatedly sued the Trump administration and officials expect the state will sue over the rescinding of rail funding»

*

«The Trump administration moved to end funding after California Governor Gavin Newsom said in February the state would scale back the planned $77.3 billion high-speed rail project after cost hikes, delays and management concerns, but would finish a smaller section»

*

«The Obama administration awarded California $3.5 billion in 2010 and California voters in 2008 approved nearly $10 billion in bond proceeds. In March 2018, the state forecast project costs had jumped $13 billion to $77 billion and warned costs could be as much as $98.1 billion.»

*

«Federal officials may also claw back $2.5 billion in funds»

* * * * * * * *

Negli Stati Uniti, e parzialmente anche nell’Unione Europea, è in corso una vera e propria guerra civile.

Guerra civile americana. Si avvicina lo scontro finale.

La sconfitta elettorale alle elezioni presidenziali ha spinto i liberal democratici ad una aperta ribellione: non essendo riusciti a vincere politicamente nelle urne hanno puntato tutto sulle dimostrazioni di piazza, sul tentativo di demonizzare Mr Trump, su di una campagna giudiziaria ove le corti di livello inferiore bloccavano gli ordini esecutivi della White House, avendo a cassa di risonanza tutti i media. Salvo poi vedersi le sentenze cassate dalla Corte Suprema.

Ciò nonostante, Mr Trump alle elezioni di midterm è riuscito a mantenere il controllo del senato e quello dei governatorati: la maggioranza democratica al Congresso è esigua e, soprattutto, dilacerata dalle fazioni interne.

Poi, Mr Trump è riuscito ad imporre la nomina di due giudici, Sua Giustizia Gorsuch e Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh, spostando 5 a 4 gli equilibri repubblicani versus democratici.

È stata una svolta cruciale nei rapporti di forza.

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

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

Trump sferra l’attacco alle Corti distrettuali ed inferiori.

Trump Administration Will Ask Supreme Court To End Nationwide Injunctions

Dal 23 aprile i giudici politicizzati sanno che saranno incriminati.

*

Adesso Mr Trump prosegue a tagliare i fondi federali agli stati ed alle istituzioni governate dai liberal democratici: senza denaro pubblico sono destinate a soccombere.

Ci si pensi bene.

Quando un progetto levita da un preventivo di nove miliardi ad oltre novantotto la conta lunga sulle capacità gestionali dei democratici. Anche molte persone non si stupirebbero che tutto questo possa nascondere grossolane interferenze di interessi privati nella cosa pubblica.


Reuters. 2019-05-16. U.S. cancels $929 million in California high speed rail funds after appeal rejected

The Trump administration said on Thursday it was formally cancelling $929 million in previously awarded funding for California’s high-speed rail program after rejecting an appeal by the state.

The U.S. railway regulator, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), said on Thursday it had canceled the funding awarded in a 2010 agreement after it said the state had “repeatedly failed to comply” and “failed to make reasonable progress on the project.”

In a statement, the FRA said it was still considering “all options” on seeking the return of $2.5 billion in federal funds the state has already received.

The decision is the latest salvo in an ongoing battle between the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump and California over a series of issues including immigration, vehicle emissions standards and internet policy.

The largest U.S. state has repeatedly sued the Trump administration and officials expect the state will sue over the rescinding of rail funding.

The Trump administration moved to end funding after California Governor Gavin Newsom said in February the state would scale back the planned $77.3 billion high-speed rail project after cost hikes, delays and management concerns, but would finish a smaller section.

In a statement on Thursday, Newsom called the action “illegal and a direct assault on California, our green infrastructure, and the thousands of Central Valley workers who are building this project.”

He added “the Trump Administration is trying to exact political retribution on our state,” and vowed to go to court to protect “California’s money, appropriated by Congress.”

The traffic-choked state had planned to build a 520-mile (837-km) system in the first phase that would allow trains to travel at up to 220 miles per hour (354 kph) from Los Angeles to San Francisco and begin full operations by 2033.

Newsom said in February the state would instead complete a 119-mile high-speed link between Merced and Bakersfield in the state’s Central Valley.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, who overseas FRA, in February said California’s drastically scaled back rail project “is a classic example of bait and switch… We have a right to ask for that $2.5 billion back as well.”

The state said in March that ending funding “would cause massive disruption, dislocation, and waste, damaging the region and endangering the future of high-speed rail in California.”

The Obama administration awarded California $3.5 billion in 2010 and California voters in 2008 approved nearly $10 billion in bond proceeds.

In March 2018, the state forecast project costs had jumped $13 billion to $77 billion and warned costs could be as much as $98.1 billion.

*


Bloomberg. 2019-05-16. Trump Cancels $929 Million Grant for California Bullet Train

– Comes amid escalating tension between state and administration

– Federal officials may also claw back $2.5 billion in funds

*

The Trump administration officially canceled $929 million in federal grants earmarked for California’s ambitious high-speed rail project, escalating tensions between the federal government and the most-populous U.S. state.

Federal Railroad Administrator Ronald Batory said in a letter Thursday to Brian Kelly, the chief executive officer of the state agency running the project, that California has failed to show progress and meet requirements under the agreements for the funds. Governor Gavin Newsom, through a spokesman, vowed a court fight.

“It is now clear that California has no foreseeable plans, nor the capability, to pursue that statewide HSR System as originally proposed,” Batory wrote.

Initially conceived as connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles with a high-speed train that would slash travel times and transform the state’s economy, the project has been beset by cost overruns and delays, causing its estimated price to balloon to $79 billion. Newsom, a Democrat who took office this year, said in February that the train as planned “would cost too much and take too long,” and he would focus on finishing roughly 170 miles of track already under construction in the Central Valley.

The announcement from Washington came the same day that a top California environmental regulator threatened to enact tougher pollution rules that could include a ban on vehicles that burn petroleum-based fuels in retaliation against a federal plan to relax vehicle emission standards. California’s leaders and Trump, who often criticizes the state’s policies in tweets, have fought over issues in court dozens of times.

“The Trump administration’s action is illegal and a direct assault on California, our green infrastructure, and the thousands of Central Valley workers who are building this project,” Nathan Click, a spokesman for Newsom, said by email. “Just as we have seen from the Trump administration’s attacks on our clean air standards, our immigrant communities and in countless other areas, the Trump administration is trying to exact political retribution on our state.”

Newsom’s comments on the train in February were initially interpreted as walking away from the project that has been in the works for more than a decade, and the Trump administration subsequently seized on them to announce its intent to cancel the grant and claw back dollars already spent. The Federal Railroad Administration “continues to consider all options” regarding the return of $2.5 billion in federal funds already awarded to the project, the agency said in a statement Thursday.

Kelly argued in a March letter to the federal administration that Newsom’s proposal wasn’t a “fundamental change” and that it’s a “pragmatic approach” to ultimately connect the line to Silicon Valley and southern California.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Corte Suprema. Sentenza Tax Board v. Hyatt. Ci interessa e molto da vicino.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-22.

2019-05-15__Scoturs__001

La sentenza della Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti sul caso Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, No. 17-1299  riguarda sicuramente l’America, ma ha anche grandi risvolti sia per la giurisprudenza in generale sia alla fine per tutto il mondo, Europa in particolare.

Essendo una sentenza molto tecnica non è intuitivo cogliere il nesso: cercheremo di spiegarlo al meglio: i giuristi perdonino se useremo un linguaggio piano, ma lo scopo è quello di farsi intendere dal largo pubblico. Le persone con conoscenze specifiche troveranno piacevole leggere il dispositivo qui riportato.

*

In sintesi succinta:

– vieta di portare in giudizio uno Stato nella Corte di Giustizia di un altro Stato.

– afferma il diritto della Corte Suprema di sentenziare anche variando ovvero annullando sentenze pregresse.

*

«Overruling a 40-year-old precedent, the Supreme Court said on Monday that states may not be sued in the courts of other states»

*

«most states already grant sovereign immunity to other states, shielding them from lawsuits»

*

«there have been only 14 cases in the past 40 years in which one state allowed another to be sued in its courts»

*

«The decision was more important for its discussion of when precedents may be overruled»

*

«Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next»

*

«In 1991, Mr. Hyatt, who had lived in California, told the authorities that he had moved to Nevada, which collects no personal income tax. The authorities were doubtful, and they started an aggressive investigation, interviewing estranged family members and making private information available to Mr. Hyatt’s business associates.Mr. Hyatt sued in state court in Nevada over that conduct, and he won a large jury award that was later reduced to $100,000. California argued that allowing such a lawsuit violated the Constitution.»

*

«In 1979, in Nevada v. Hall, the Supreme Court had ruled that such suits were permissible»

*

«Writing for the majority on Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas said California had the stronger argument, basing his decision on constitutional history. Before the states joined the union, he wrote, they were independent nations. “The founding generation thus took as given that states could not be haled involuntarily before each other’s courts,” he wrote.

The Constitution, Justice Thomas added, confirmed that principle, if not in so many words. “The Constitution implicitly strips states of any power they once had to refuse each other sovereign immunity,” he wrote.»

*

«The most heated disagreement in Monday’s decision was over the doctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin for “to stand by things decided.”»

*

«Justice Thomas, noting that respect for precedent is not an “inexorable command,” said three of four factors supported overruling the 1979 decision. »

*

«The people of this nation rely upon stability in the law, …. Legal stability allows lawyers to give clients sound advice and allows ordinary citizens to plan their lives. …. To overrule a sound decision like Hall is to encourage litigants to seek to overrule other cases; it is to make it more difficult for lawyers to refrain from challenging settled law; and it is to cause the public to become increasingly uncertain about which cases the court will overrule and which cases are here to stay»

* * * * * * * *

Il problema è affascinante da un punto di vista giuridico, massimamente in un sistema giuridico basato sul common law, ove le sentenza acquisiscono valore di leggi.

L’errore sottile si insinua qualora si cercasse di massimizzare l’enunciato di una sentenza.

Le sentenze pregresse dovrebbero essere considerate sempre con il massimo rispetto, formale e sostanziale, ma né possono né debbono essere divinizzate. Come tutte le azioni umane possono rivelare nel tempo vizi di forma o carenze di dottrina, possono generare effetti secondari non voluti, indesiderati ed indesiderabili, ovvero potrebbero dimostrarsi superate dai tempi.  Nel ragionare su queste evenienza, Sua Giustizia Thomas reintroduce nella prassi mentale della Suprema Corte ciò che un tempo era denominato ‘buon senso’.

Non solo. Avoca alla Suprema Corte il potere e l’obbligo di riformare sentenze pregresse, in ossequio a quanto prima enunciato.

* * * * * * * *


Il malcontento e la costernazione dei liberal democratici è ben descritto nei seguenti articoli.

Supreme Court Weighs Core Questions of Precedent and States’ Rights

Supreme Court Precedents That May Be at Risk

«Fourteen cases had civil rights at their core, like rulings involving voting rights, affirmative action and deportation. However, one case has already been overturned by Congressional action or another may require assistance from Congress before a new Supreme Court majority could act.

In 2009, Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act after the Supreme Court ruled in Ledbetter v. the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposed strict time limits for bringing workplace discrimination suits.

In a 2013 decision, Shelby County v. Holder, the court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, which essentially gave Congress a chance to redraft the law. Should Congress rewrite it, a new liberal majority would most likely sustain the new version.»

The Threat to Roe v. Wade in the Case of the Missing Precedent

* * * * * * * *

Vediamo adesso cosa questa sentenza implica per l’America e per il resto del mondo. Quindi anche per l’Italia.

Per i liberal democratici stava diventando abitudine citare gli stati che legiferavano a maggioranza repubblicana presso Corti di altri stati a maggioranza democratica, i giudici delle quali regolarmente bloccavano le leggi deliberate dalle maggioranze espresse dal Popolo Sovrano. Si metteva così in atto un ostruzionismo giudiziario di lunga durata, che era quindi abilmente utilizzato per bollare come illegale ogni legge promulgata dai repubblicani, salvo poi abbandonare l’argomento quando interveniva la Corte Suprema a ristabilire il rule of law.

Dal 23 aprile i giudici politicizzati sanno che saranno incriminati.

L’incriminazione del giudice Joseph ha costituito un altro punto di svolta nella competizione giudiziaria, evidenziando come i comportamenti partigiani dei giudizi non sarebbe stati più a lungo tollerati.

Immediatamente, giudici e media si son fatti silenziosi e cauti.

Più delicata e sottile è invece la questione che la Corte Suprema possa rivedere sentenze già emesse.

Sono infatti in attesa di essere sottoposte al vaglio della Suprema Corte un largo numero di sentenze emesse da Corti inferiori inerenti problemi etici e morali che così stanno a cuore dei liberal democratici, massimamente poi la questione dell’aborto.

Alabama passes bill banning abortion

Avendo fatto dell’aborto e dell’etica il proprio programma politico, i liberal democratici si sentono scendere per le ossa che questo potrebbe essere semplicemente distrutto in via giudiziaria. Ed il tutto con grande clamore.

Ma il crollo dei liberal democratici negli Stati Uniti avrebbe consistenti ripercussioni sull’Europa, ove molte nazioni sono governate ancora da una loro maggioranza.


The New York Times. 2019-05-13. Justices Split Over the Power of Precedent

WASHINGTON — Overruling a 40-year-old precedent, the Supreme Court said on Monday that states may not be sued in the courts of other states.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s more conservative members in the majority. The ruling itself will probably not be particularly consequential, as most states already grant sovereign immunity to other states, shielding them from lawsuits. By one count, there have been only 14 cases in the past 40 years in which one state allowed another to be sued in its courts.

The decision was more important for its discussion of when precedents may be overruled. In dissent, after repeatedly citing a 1992 decision that reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he feared for the future.

“Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next,” he wrote.

Monday’s decision, Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, No. 17-1299, resolved a long-running dispute involving Gilbert P. Hyatt, who had made money from technology patents, and California’s tax authorities. In 1991, Mr. Hyatt, who had lived in California, told the authorities that he had moved to Nevada, which collects no personal income tax.

The authorities were doubtful, and they started an aggressive investigation, interviewing estranged family members and making private information available to Mr. Hyatt’s business associates.

Mr. Hyatt sued in state court in Nevada over that conduct, and he won a large jury award that was later reduced to $100,000. California argued that allowing such a lawsuit violated the Constitution.

In 1979, in Nevada v. Hall, the Supreme Court had ruled that such suits were permissible.

In an earlier encounter with Mr. Hyatt’s case, the court in 2016 came close to overruling that decision. But the court was short-handed after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and it deadlocked 4 to 4.

Writing for the majority on Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas said California had the stronger argument, basing his decision on constitutional history. Before the states joined the union, he wrote, they were independent nations. “The founding generation thus took as given that states could not be haled involuntarily before each other’s courts,” he wrote.

The Constitution, Justice Thomas added, confirmed that principle, if not in so many words. “The Constitution implicitly strips states of any power they once had to refuse each other sovereign immunity,” he wrote.

In dissent, Justice Breyer took issue with both points. Before and after the adoption of the Constitution, he wrote, states generally granted sovereign immunity to other states — but only as a matter of grace and self-interest. Those that desired to take a different approach could do so, Justice Breyer wrote.

The most heated disagreement in Monday’s decision was over the doctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” Justice Thomas, noting that respect for precedent is not an “inexorable command,” said three of four factors supported overruling the 1979 decision.

The earlier decision, he said, was poorly reasoned, inconsistent with related decisions and in tension with later legal developments. But he said that Mr. Hyatt and others had relied on the decision, a factor cutting the opposite way.

“We acknowledge that some plaintiffs, such as Hyatt, have relied on Hall by suing sovereign states,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Because of our decision to overrule Hall, Hyatt unfortunately will suffer the loss of two decades of litigation expenses and a final judgment against the board for its egregious conduct.”

Justice Breyer responded that there was no good reason to overrule the precedent.

“The people of this nation rely upon stability in the law,” he wrote. “Legal stability allows lawyers to give clients sound advice and allows ordinary citizens to plan their lives.” He added, “To overrule a sound decision like Hall is to encourage litigants to seek to overrule other cases; it is to make it more difficult for lawyers to refrain from challenging settled law; and it is to cause the public to become increasingly uncertain about which cases the court will overrule and which cases are here to stay.”

Justice Breyer did not address the fate of Roe v. Wade directly. But he sounded a general note of caution, saying it was “dangerous to overrule a decision only because five members of a later court come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question.”

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

Trump sferra l’attacco alle Corti distrettuali ed inferiori.

Giuseppe Sandro mela.

2019-05-17.

Supreme Court

Il sistema giudiziario americano è complesso perché complessa è la struttura degli Stati Uniti.

Anche se nominalmente politica e giustizia dovrebbero essere poteri separati, nei fatti sicuramente non lo sono, se non altro perché i giudici sono di nomina politica, ancorché vidimata da un assenso senatoriale. Ma il senato è pur sempre composto da politici.

Nei tempi passati, quando un giudice di basso livello si imbatteva in un problema che avesse coinvolto un giudizio costituzionale, era consuetudine rimandare il tutto alla Suprema Corte, attendendo quindi il suo giudizio.

Il sistema ha retto fino a circa due decenni or sono, quando i liberal democratici hanno usato i tribunali di baso livello come arma politica: i giudici di basso livello iniziarono non solo a dare pareri di costituzionalità, ma soprattutto iniziarono ad emettere provvedimenti di blocco su scala federale.

Questo fenomeno è diventato gigantesco con la presidenza Trump, del quale quasi ogni ordine Esecutivo era stato bloccato da un giudice distrettuale. Poi, dopo un anno circa, la Corte Suprema rimetteva le cose a loro posto, bacchettando anche i giudici inferiori, ma era evidente sia l’intromissione dei giudici nella politica sia l’abuso  del potere operativo del giudice.

Il problema giuridico si configura quindi nello stabilire norme giuridiche inequivocabili che regolino la possibilità che un giudice distrettuale possa emettere ordinanza a valore federale.

È semplicemente evidente come un sentenza della Corte Suprema possa bloccare alla radice la guerra legale dei liberal democratici.

«Vice President Mike Pence said the Trump administration will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent lower courts from imposing nationwide injunctions against the president’s policies»

*

«federal district courts have imposed more nationwide injunctions against Trump than the first 40 presidents combined»

*

«A Supreme Court justice has to convince four of his colleagues to uphold a nationwide injunction — but a single district court judge can issue one, effectively preventing the duly-elected president of the United States from fulfilling his constitutional duties»

*

«In the days ahead, our administration will seek opportunities to put this question before the Supreme Court»

*

«Justice Clarence Thomas said he was that skeptical federal trial judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions»

*

«Thomas wrote in an opinion that no other justice joined»

* * * * * * * *


Trump Administration Will Ask Supreme Court To End Nationwide Injunctions, Pence Says

«Nationwide injunctions, in which federal trial judges bar the federal government from enforcing a law or carrying out a policy across the entire country, have beset President Donald Trump since he took office. District courts have blocked administration policy priorities on immigration, national security and health care.

“The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that district judges can decide no more than the cases before them — and it’s imperative that we restore the historic tradition that district judges do not set policy for the whole nation,” Pence told the conservative lawyers group.»

* * * * * * *

Si faccia grande attenzione

«The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that

district judges can decide no more than the cases before them»

Non è un cavillo di lana caprina: qualsiasi sia la decisione della Corte Suprema sarà pur sempre una decisione epocale.


Bloomberg. 2019-05-09. Trump to Ask Supreme Court to Prevent Nationwide Injunctions

– Administration has previously attemped to curb injunctions

– High court hasn’t ruled on question because policies upheld

*

Vice President Mike Pence said the Trump administration will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent lower courts from imposing nationwide injunctions against the president’s policies.

Pence complained Wednesday in a speech to the conservative Federalist Society that federal district courts have imposed more nationwide injunctions against Trump than the first 40 presidents combined. On Tuesday, an appeals court lifted such an injunction against a Trump policy that allows U.S. immigration authorities to force some migrants seeking asylum to wait in Mex while their cases are adjudicated.

“A Supreme Court justice has to convince four of his colleagues to uphold a nationwide injunction — but a single district court judge can issue one, effectively preventing the duly-elected president of the United States from fulfilling his constitutional duties,” Pence said in prepared remarks. “This judicial obstruction is unprecedented.”

“In the days ahead, our administration will seek opportunities to put this question before the Supreme Court,” Pence said.

The Trump administration has already tried on several occasions to persuade the Supreme Court to curb nationwide injunctions. It was an issue when the court considered Trump’s travel ban last year, but the justices didn’t reach the question because they upheld the ban in its entirety.

In a concurring opinion in that case, Justice Clarence Thomas said he was that skeptical federal trial judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions.

“These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system — preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the executive branch,” Thomas wrote in an opinion that no other justice joined.

The administration similarly offered the Supreme Court a chance to curb nationwide injunctions in a clash over military service by transgender people. Lower courts had blocked Trump’s effort to bar most transgender people from service. At the Supreme Court, the administration said those orders should, at most, cover the people involved in the case.

Much like with the travel ban, the high court didn’t address the issue because it let the policy take full effect.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Dal 23 aprile i giudici politicizzati sanno che saranno incriminati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-02-15.

2019-05-11__Giudice_Joseph__001

Quanto è successo il 23 aprile negli Stati Uniti ha qualche precedente sparso nella storia secolare dell’America, ma mai era successo in questa maniera.

Tre anni or sono era nato il caso del giudice Joseph Mutava.

Suspended Judge Joseph Mutava defends himself on charges leveled against him

Suspended Judge Joseph Mutava is expected to face the tribunal

Ma questa volta la faccenda è ben differente, come spiega il The New York Times:

Judge Is Charged With Helping Immigrant Escape ICE at Courthouse

«Federal prosecutors charged a state judge and a former court officer in Massachusetts with obstruction of justice on Thursday for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant escape from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer at a courthouse last year.

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

Prosecutors accused Judge Joseph and Mr. MacGregor of letting their beliefs trump federal immigration law when they allegedly helped the man, who was not named in the indictment, sneak out of Newton District Courthouse in Newton, Mass., in March 2018. The judge ordered the man to go to a basement facility, where he was let out a back door, rather than into the lobby, where she knew that an ICE officer was waiting for him, prosecutors say.

“The allegations in today’s indictment involve obstruction by a sitting judge, that is intentional interference with the enforcement of federal law, and that is a crime,” United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling said in a statement. “We cannot pick and choose the federal laws we follow, or use our personal views to justify violating the law.”»

* * * * * * *

«The allegations in today’s indictment involve obstruction by a sitting judge, that is intentional interference with the enforcement of federal law, and that is a crime»

Chi avesse pensato che questo fosse un evento folkloristico incorrerebbe in un severo errore di giudizio.

Si è mossa la Procura Federale

«We cannot pick and choose the federal laws we follow, or use our personal views to justify violating the law»

* * *

Benissimo.

Adesso i giudici liberal democratici sanno cosa spetta a quanti si arroghino il diritto di amministrare la giustizia dal loro alto scranno con criteri di faziosità politica.

Non a caso da tale data sui media liberal democratici è sceso un ossessivo silenzio stampa sull’argomento.

Ma la faccenda non finisce sicuramente qui.

«The state Supreme Judicial Court has suspended Joseph»

*

«and cut off her $184,694 salary»

*

«Joseph, who has been suspended without pay, and MacGregor appeared in court Thursday and pleaded not guilty to all counts. No date has been set for their next court appearance»

Già. Nessuno, ma proprio nessuno, avrebbe mai piacere che questa causa sia discussa velocemente.

* * * *

Così adesso il giudice Joseph è sospesa e senza stipendio.

Una colletta che avrebbe dovuto raccogliere 750,000 dollari si è fermata a 31.600.

Adesso e per circa due anni il giudice Joseph è condita per le feste e sta sperimentando la solidarietà dei suoi sodali. Portare avanti una difesa sarà cosa lunga e costosa, ed alla fine si schianterà sullo scoglio della Suprema Corte, da sempre oltremodo rigida in casi del genere.

* * * * * * *

Adesso guardate con molta attenzione la foto riportata a seguito.

Tanto se la rideva soddisfatta e goduta quando pronunciava sentenze politiche, mandando in rovina gli avversari ideologici, tanto adesso inizia a piangere su sé stessa.

Ride bene esclusivamente chi ride ultimo. Ed i liberal sanno bene che saranno trattati per come hanno trattato.

2019-05-11__Giudice_Joseph__002


Usa Breaking News. 2019-05-11. Natick attorney launches ’emergency’ defense fund for indicted Judge Joseph

A Natick lawyer who believes state Judge Shelley M. Joseph has been bulldozed into a financial crisis by her indictment Thursday on charges she hindered a federal immigration investigation has launched a fundraising campaign to help pay for her defense. As of this morning, the Shelley Joseph Legal Defense Fund had raised more than $31,600 from 220 donors toward a goal of $750,000. The state Supreme Judicial Court has suspended Joseph, 51, of Natick, and cut off her $184,694 salary. Attorney Alan S. Fanger, the fund’s organizer, said in a statement to the Herald, “Those of us who know Shelley Joseph know that she takes her oath and her role as a judge seriously and would not violate the law.  Shelley is fighting politically motivated charges and expects to be vindicated.  As a result, she and her family are facing a significant financial crisis due to the outrageous action by the United States Attorney General’s Office. Shelley’s family obligation to pay for two college tuitions, the mortgage, daily living expenses and legal defense fees and expenses continue despite these unproven allegations. “In this dire emergency, we have carefully consulted with experts to comply with judicial ethical rules – even though she is not currently an active judge – and have created a fund to accept donations for her defense,” Fanger said. ….»

*


Patch. 2019-05-11. Indicted Judge From Natick: Legal Fund Established

A Natick lawyer set up a GoFundMe campaign for Natick resident Judge Shelley Joseph, who is facing obstruction of justice charges.

*

A Natick lawyer is standing behind Newton Judge and Natick resident, Shelley M. Joseph, after she was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice relating to a federal immigration investigation. Joseph is a Newton District Court Judge who is accused of helping a man set for deportation escape federal immigration agents. Joseph and court officer Wesley MacGregor pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Alan S. Fanger created the fund the day after Joseph appeared in court. As of Monday morning, the fund has raised $31,000 with a goal of $750,000. Over 200 people have contributed to the fund. Joseph was suspended without pay and Fanger wrote in the fund description that this leaves her in a position to “raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to afford a quality legal defense to federal charges that carry with them lengthy prison terms.”

Fanger said in the description that the case represented “monumental prosecutorial overreach.” The fund requests that all donations be made anonymously.

Joseph and MacGregor are accused of helping an undocumented man escape from Newton District Court on April 2, 2018. According to court documents, Joseph knew the ICE officer was waiting outside in the lobby to detain the man, who was facing drug charges.

Later that afternoon, the audio recording captured Joseph, the defense attorney and the ADA speaking about the defendant and the ICE detainer. According to court documents, Joseph then ordered the courtroom clerk to turn off the audio recorder — which it was for just under a minute, which is a violation of District Court rules.

According to court documents, the defense attorney asked to speak with Medina-Perez downstairs, Joseph let them and had MacGregor escort the attorney and an interpreter downstairs to the lockup and used his security access card to open the rear door and let man go at 3:01 p.m.

Fanger told the Boston Herald, “Those of us who know Shelley Joseph know that she takes her oath and her role as a judge seriously and would not violate the law. Shelley is fighting politically motivated charges and expects to be vindicated. “

In reaction to Joseph’s indictment, two Democratic district attorneys plan to file an “unprecedented” lawsuit in federal court Monday that would ban U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from local courthouses.

Pubblicato in: Armamenti, Devoluzione socialismo, Senza categoria, Stati Uniti, Unione Europea

Trump ed Orban. Esiste anche la Nato, ed è quella che ha le armi.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-14.

2019-05-14__Orban__001

«U.S. President Donald Trump warmly welcomed Viktor Orban to the White House on Monday, saying the far-right Hungarian leader was “respected all over Europe.”»

*

«The pair sat down for talks about NATO and trade, less than two weeks before European parliamentary elections in which far-right parties are expected to make a strong showing»

*

«Orban’s hardline stance against migrants has attracted criticism from other European leaders, but appeared to find a more sympathetic audience in Trump»

*

«You have been great with respect to Christian communities, …. You have really put a block up and we appreciate that very much»

*

«People have a lot of respect for this prime minister, he’s a respected man. He’s done the right thing, according to many people, on immigration.»

*

«Don’t forget they’re a member of NATO, a very good member of NATO»

*

«The two leaders were due to discuss Hungary’s plan to buy medium-range missiles from the U.S.»

* * * * * * *

Secondo le ultime prospezioni elettorali il partito popolare europeo e quello socialista assieme dovrebbero perdere circa un centinaio di eurodeputati. Se così sarà, avrebbero perso la maggioranza, subendo una severa batosta.

Stranamente, sembrerebbe che a ben pochi possa interessare il cercare di capire come abbiano fatto ad inimicarsi e disaffezionare una così larga quota di Elettori.

Il comportamento tenuto nei confronti dell’Ungheria di Mr Orban spiegherebbe molto della mentalità che ha portato a questo risultato.

Stretta osservanza ideologica, rigidità comportamentale ed una tediosamente fastidiosa supponenza sono stati elementi cardini che hanno portato alla disfatta: quanti non la pensassero come loro sarebbero bollati di comportamento eretico e bollati con l’ostracismo.

Ma senza Realpolitik ci si condanna alla estinzione: una eutanasia ben poco ‘eu‘ e molto ‘kakà‘. Una morte tormentosa e tormentata.

*

Non solo.

Un’altra caratteristica dei liberal socialisti è un esasperato solipsismo, che impedisce loro sia di guardare il futuro sia la realtà.

Fossero diversi, non andrebbero incontro alla disfatta elettorale.

Quindi, ci si curi ben poco di quanto affermano al momento gli eurodirigenti uscenti di carica e gli eurodeputati, ben pochi dei quali potranno ritornare nel parlamento europeo o sulle poltrone della Commissione: il parere degli sconfitti non conta poi più di tanto.

*

Un tema da sempre glissato dagli eurocrati è la divisione del mondo tra le superpotenze atomiche: ed ora alla America ed alla Russia si è unita anche la Cina.

Si voglia o meno, la Nato ha costituito elemento calmierante la pace mondiale, che si manterrà sotto la condizione che i diversi gruppi atomici restino in equilibrio.

Sotto questo punto di vista, di non poca importanza, se è vero che al momento l’Ungheria fa parte dell’Unione Europea, sarebbe altrettanto doveroso ricordarsi che essa è incardinata nella Nato, di cui funge da postazione avanzata, unitamente ad altri paesi dell’ex est europeo.

Mr Orban gradirebbe anche ospitare sistemi missilistici a medio raggio americani, magari anche comprandoli.

L’Unione Europea non dispone di forze armate degne di quel nome, non ha forze atomiche e neppure dispone di missili anti-missile. L’armamento atomico inglese è ben poca cosa, e quello francese ancor meno, sempre poi che riescano a farlo funzionare.

Che poi gli Stati Uniti brucino dalla voglia di difendere questa Europa sarebbe cosa tutta da dimostrare.

Ma senza forze armate efficienti è impossibile esercitare una sia pur minima politica estera.

Vedremo come i nuovi eletti, Commissione Compresa, affronteranno codesta situazione, ma intanto gli anni sprecati non saranno recuperati facilmente.


Euro News. 2019-05-14. Trump praises Orban for protecting Christians from migrants

U.S. President Donald Trump warmly welcomed Viktor Orban to the White House on Monday, saying the far-right Hungarian leader was “respected all over Europe.”

The pair sat down for talks about NATO and trade, less than two weeks before European parliamentary elections in which far-right parties are expected to make a strong showing.

Orban’s hardline stance against migrants has attracted criticism from other European leaders, but appeared to find a more sympathetic audience in Trump.

“You’re respected all over Europe. Probably like me a little bit controversial, but that’s okay,” Trump told Orban at a brief news conference. “You’ve done a good job and you’ve kept your country safe.”

In 2015, Orban erected a razor-wire fence the length of Hungary’s southern border to prevent migrants, most of whom travelled from Muslim countries, entering from Serbia.

“You have been great with respect to Christian communities,” Trump told Orban. “You have really put a block up and we appreciate that very much.”

Hungary missile plan

Asked if he shared European concerns about Hungary backsliding on democracy, Trump said: “People have a lot of respect for this prime minister, he’s a respected man. He’s done the right thing, according to many people, on immigration.”

Orban said: “From the people, by the people, for the people, this is the basis for the Hungarian government. We are happy to serve our nation. We have a new constitution accepted in 2011 and its functioning well.”

Trump interjected: “Don’t forget they’re a member of NATO, a very good member of NATO.”

The two leaders were due to discuss Hungary’s plan to buy medium-range missiles from the U.S.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

Supreme Court e Census. – Il punto di vista dei liberal democratici.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-14.

Supreme Court

La Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti ha concesso di esaminare il problema dell’inclusione o meno della domanda sulla cittadinanza nel questionario del censimento che prossimamente il Census porterà a termine.

«The Supreme Court will decide whether the 2020 U.S. Census

can include a question about citizenship»

Il tema è scottante e dibattuto: le note già depositate dalle Loro Giustizie illustrano alla perfezioni i diversi punti di vista giuridici.

A livello dei media, invece, si è spesso andati a toni molto sopra le righe, financo tediosamente astiosi.

Si noti come la Suprema Corte sia chiamata ad esprimere il suo alto giudizio solo dal punto di vista giuridico, non dal punto di vista sociologico o politico.

Il The New York Times ha pubblicato un editoriale in materia, che riporta il punto di vista dei liberal democratici, usando però quel linguaggio corrente, anche se usando un inglese colto, che dovrebbe rendere meglio intellegibile il problema in almeno molte delle sue sfumature.

Premesso che non lo si condivide in alcunché, lo riportiamo tuttavia per completezza informativa.

*


The New York Times. 2019-05-10. The Supreme Court, the Census Case and the Truth

Will the justices be the administration’s enablers or form a firewall against its lies?

*

The smart money says the Trump administration is going to prevail at the Supreme Court in its effort to add a citizenship question to next year’s census. Having read the transcript and listened to the audio file of the recent argument, I don’t challenge that forecast.

Neither am I going to argue with the experts’ prediction that adding the citizenship question, which has been omitted since 1950 from the census form that goes to every household, will lead immigrant families to fail to return the form out of fear caused by the Trump administration’s brutal anti-immigrant policies. The resulting differential undercount will penalize immigrant-rich cities and states in political representation and federal funding.

Harmful as that impact would be on the affected areas, I want to argue here that validating the Trump administration’s cynical hijacking of the census would have a devastating effect on the integrity of the Supreme Court.

Never mind that three Federal District Courts, ruling since the first of the year in three cases, have found the addition of the citizenship question to be procedurally improper or flat-out unconstitutional. There are respectable contrary arguments that might be made, under the Administrative Procedure Act or the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause, or there would be, had the administration acted in the good faith that Judge Jesse Furman, ruling in the case now before the court, found to be conspicuously lacking.

Perhaps the justices who appear poised to overturn the lower-court decisions really believe that Congress has delegated its constitutional census obligation to the secretary of commerce to conduct the enumeration however he wishes without judicial supervision. Maybe they really think that the 18 states suing the Commerce Department lack standing because any harm that befalls them from the citizenship question is due not to the government but to the “illegal” acts of immigrants who fail to answer the census. These propositions constitute the core of the administration’s argument. If the justices are honestly persuaded by them, well, that’s litigation for you. It’s a zero-sum game in which someone wins and someone loses.

But if the plaintiff states are going to lose, it seems to me that it matters greatly how they lose. What was depressing and even scary about the April 23 argument was the disingenuous lengths to which the conservative justices were willing to go to tilt the case in the administration’s favor. They played dumb. They pretended not to know what they surely knew: that the citizenship question will depress the census count in a way that is predictably harmful and that the administration’s brief concealed the real story of how the citizenship question made its way onto the census. In other words, I have enough respect for the justices’ basic intelligence, which includes the ability to read the same briefs and opinions that I read, to conclude that they know full well what game is afoot.

Don’t take my word for it. Read the transcript. The conservative justices were at pains to challenge the very idea that the citizenship question could depress noncitizens’ response rates, despite the fact that numerous Census Bureau studies have shown that to be the case. “What jumps out,” Justice Samuel Alito said to Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood of New York, “is the fact that citizens and noncitizens differ in a lot of respects other than citizenship. They differ in socioeconomic status. They differ in education. They differ in language ability.” And so, he went on, “I don’t think you have to be much of a statistician to wonder about the legitimacy of concluding” that the response rate would go down “because of this one factor.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch weighed in. “There could be multiple reasons why individuals don’t complete the form.” He continued: “We don’t have any evidence disaggregating the reasons why the forms are left uncompleted. What do you do with that? I mean, normally we would have a regression analysis that would disaggregate the potential cause and identify to a 95th percentile degree of certainty what the reason is that persons are not filling out this form and we could attribute it to this question. We don’t have anything like that here. So what are we supposed to do about that?”

Justice Alito then returned to his theme. There were “many factors that could explain a decline when you’re distinguishing between citizens and noncitizens,” he said.

When Ms. Underwood started to explain that the Census Bureau studies had controlled for the differences, Justice Gorsuch broke in. “It’s fair to say we don’t have this isolated, though, isn’t it?” he asked.

At this point in the transcript, Justice Stephen Breyer’s exasperation with his colleagues almost jumps off the page. “There are a million factors,” he said with evident sarcasm. “There are pet dogs, you know. I mean, there are cats.”

It fell to Justice Elena Kagan to bring the argument back to earth. “Would it be right to say, General,” she said to Ms. Underwood, “that it was the Census Bureau’s conclusion, a bureau full of statisticians, that it was the citizenship question that was driving the differential response rates?”

“That is correct,” Ms. Underwood replied.

Among the other conservative justices, Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his custom, said nothing, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh said relatively little. Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t join in the game that Justices Alito and Gorsuch were playing, but he did seem strangely obtuse when he observed to Ms. Underwood that “we’ve had demographic questions on the census, I don’t know how far back, but certainly, it’s quite common. Sex, age, things like that. ‘Do you own your house?’ ‘Do you own a radio?’ I mean, the questions go quite beyond how many people there are.”

The chief justice’s observations, while accurate, made no sense in the context of this case, as Ms. Underwood diplomatically pointed out. “We have no comparable evidence about any of those other questions that they depress the count in this substantial a way and in this disproportionate a way,” she said.

And what is there to say about Solicitor General Noel Francisco’s argument for the Trump administration? It’s part of our current national tragedy that an allergy to the truth has infected the Department of Justice from the top down. Mr. Francisco maintained in both his brief and his oral argument that it was the Justice Department that urged Wilbur Ross, the secretary of commerce, to add the citizenship question, ostensibly to provide for more precise enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. Aside from the fact that the Trump administration has shown no interest in protecting voting rights and that no administration has asked for a citizenship question in the 54 years since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 became law, there is one problem with the solicitor general’s narrative: It is demonstrably untrue.

According to the record methodically compiled in Judge Furman’s District Court courtroom, Secretary Ross was urged to add the citizenship question by Steve Bannon, a White House adviser at the time, and the anti-immigrant crusader Kris Kobach. Mr. Ross shopped the idea around the federal government for a year and was initially turned down by the Department of Homeland Security as well as the Justice Department. He finally made a direct pitch to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who agreed to get him a letter that would request the citizenship question and provide the Voting Rights Act rationale — the rationale that Judge Furman called pretextual.

So when Mr. Francisco told the justices that there was “no evidence in this record” that Secretary Ross would have added the citizenship question “had the Department of Justice not requested it,” he was at that moment the luckiest person in the courtroom: The red light on the lectern came on, indicating the end of his argument time. No one could ask a follow-up question, including Justice Kagan, who earlier had observed to Mr. Francisco that “you can’t read this record without sensing that this need is a contrived one.”

This sordid tale might be just so much inside-the-Beltway gossip except that it goes directly to the legal matter at hand in the pending case, Department of Commerce v. New York. The administration is demanding deference to its decision on what to ask on the census. Yet experts at the Census Bureau have testified that asking the citizenship question will make the 2020 census less accurate. As Solicitor General Underwood of New York put it in her brief for the plaintiffs, addressing the Justice Department’s purported request for the question, “Settled principles of administrative law foreclose any deference when a decision maker falsely claims to rely on the expertise of another agency to defend its determination.”

The basic legal claim of New York and the other states is that adding the citizenship question is “arbitrary and capricious,” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. As the states’ brief explains: “A decision maker acts arbitrarily by purporting to rely on another agency’s expertise when, in fact, the decision maker instructed that agency rather than the other way around. Such illusory reliance undercuts the foundational premise for judicial deference to administrative action: that the decision resulted from an exercise of specialized expertise that courts lack. When a decision maker purports to rely on an exercise of expert judgment that never happened, there is nothing to which the courts can defer.”

In the administration’s brief, Mr. Francisco complains that “until now no court has seen fit to police the contents of the decennial census questionnaire by even entertaining an arbitrary-and-capricious challenge, let alone upholding one.” Could the reason be that no administration before this one thought to pull off such a trick? But this one did, leaving the Roberts court with a choice: It can be the administration’s enabler or it can acknowledge the truth and be a firewall. That choice is a fateful one, for the court and for the rest of us.

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

Cnn. Trump si avvia ad essere rieletto.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-14.

Minosse & Macron

«The US economy is booming.»

*

«The economy added 263,000 jobs in the month of April, and the unemployment rate is now just 3.6% — the lowest it’s been since 1969! On top of the better-than-expected GDP news last month, it’s now quite clear that President Donald Trump is overseeing an economy going gangbusters»

*

«Which brings me to a radical idea I have been kicking around for a while now: Trump’s best chance at winning would be to cease issuing statements — or tweets — about anything other than the economy. And to cut ALL statements and tweets down to, roughly, one a day.»

*

«No Mueller report. No name-calling of potential Democratic candidates. No nothing — other than tweeting or speaking about the current state of the economy. And doing that once a day.»

*

«But such an extreme approach to his public pronouncements would also give Trump the best chance to bridge the current chasm between people who think he is doing a good job on the economy (a majority of the public) and people who approve of the job he is doing overall»

*

«A less divisive — and less abnormal — Republican president, with this same economic record through two-plus years of his term, would be sitting pretty for reelection.»

*

«Yes, more people still disapprove of the job Trump is doing (50%) than approve of it. And, yes, again, Trump has come close to 46% approval before — he got to 45% in June 2018 and in January 2017. And, yes, for a third time, there is no meaningful statistical difference between 45% approval and 46% approval.»

*

«Likely a series of good economic numbers — led by 3.2% GDP growth in the first quarter of 2019. (Worth noting: The Gallup poll was out of the field by April 30, meaning that the gangbusters April jobs report isn’t even factored into Trump’s numbers.)»

*

«It’s among Democrats where Trump’s job approval has improved the most month-to-month; just 4% approved of the job he was doing in March compared to 10% who said the same in April. Independents went from 33% job approval for Trump in March to 39% in April.»

*

«The more the strong economy is front and center, the better for Trump.»

* * * * * * * *

È una Cnn sconsolata che parla affranta con il cuore in mano.

Più l’economia tira e più Mr Trump aumenta le probabilità di essere rieletto l’anno prossimo.

Alla gente comune interessa avere un lavoro dignitoso, con cui mantenere sé stessi e la propria famiglia. Interessa avere uno stipendio in crescita, avendo con ciò un maggior potere di acquisto.

Delle sottili diatribe e di tutte le altre discussioni che stanno riempiendo la pagine dei giornali ben poco se ne cale.

E questo è un punto sul quale i liberal democratici hanno ben poco potere di intervento. Possono sicuramente impostare leggi che blocchino oppure ostacolino il processo economico, possono sicuramente far fuoco di sbarramento usando le corti distrettuali, ma alla fine la gente guarda a quanto entra ed a quanto deve uscire dal proprio portafoglio.

Far lavorare e guadagnare la gente è la migliore propaganda elettorale che sia possibile.

Ma se Mr Trump dovesse essere rieletto, ebbene, allora i liberal democratici sarebbero davvero finiti.

Me Trump finirebbe di bonificare le corti distrettuali e quelle federali, immettendovi giudici quarantenni, che occuperebbero il loro posto per altri quaranta anni.


CNN. 2019-05-07. Donald Trump is more popular than ever before

Donald Trump is the only president in modern history to never crack 50% job approval in Gallup’s weekly tracking poll of how Americans perceive the job that the president is doing. 

But in the latest Gallup numbers, Trump is at 46% approval — the highest mark he has reached in more than two years as President.

Yes, more people still disapprove of the job Trump is doing (50%) than approve of it. And, yes, again, Trump has come close to 46% approval before — he got to 45% in June 2018 and in January 2017. And, yes, for a third time, there is no meaningful statistical difference between 45% approval and 46% approval.

But, still! This is Donald Trump we are talking about. A man who has struggled for much of his presidency to even win the approval of 40% of Americans for the job he is doing. Just look at Trump’s week-by-week performance in Gallup. Not good!

What explains Trump’s upward trajectory? Likely a series of good economic numbers — led by 3.2% GDP growth in the first quarter of 2019. (Worth noting: The Gallup poll was out of the field by April 30, meaning that the gangbusters April jobs report isn’t even factored into Trump’s numbers.)

Dig into the numbers and you see something very interesting. Trump’s gains of late are not, as you might expect, from Republicans. Nine in 10 Republicans backed Trump in March, the same number who did so in April. It’s among Democrats where Trump’s job approval has improved the most month-to-month; just 4% approved of the job he was doing in March compared to 10% who said the same in April. Independents went from 33% job approval for Trump in March to 39% in April.

Obviously, Trump’s gains of late come even as special counsel Robert Mueller has concluded his report into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the entire 448-page behemoth, with some redactions, has been released to the public. The report’s finding — no provable criminal conspiracy with the Russians by anyone within the Trump campaign, no recommendation on whether to charge Trump with obstruction of justice — remain a vigorously debated subject but don’t seem to have adversely affected how people perceive Trump to be doing his job.

All of which seems to prove the point White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney made last week: “People will vote for somebody they don’t like if they think it’s good for them.”

The Point: The more the strong economy is front and center, the better for Trump. Now, all he needs to do is get out of his own way — which is easier said than done.

*


CNN. 2019-05-07. A radical proposal to get Donald Trump reelected in 2020

The news on Friday confirmed — beyond a shadow of a doubt — this fact: The US economy is booming.

The economy added 263,000 jobs in the month of April, and the unemployment rate is now just 3.6% — the lowest it’s been since 1969! On top of the better-than-expected GDP news last month, it’s now quite clear that President Donald Trump is overseeing an economy going gangbusters.

And yet, for all of the successes of the economy — and the fact that a majority of Americans (56%) give him credit for his handling of the nation’s finances — Trump’s job approval ratings remain mired in the low 40s, a dangerous place to be for a sitting president ramping up a reelection bid.

Which brings me to a radical idea I have been kicking around for a while now: Trump’s best chance at winning would be to cease issuing statements — or tweets — about anything other than the economy. And to cut ALL statements and tweets down to, roughly, one a day.

No Mueller report. No name-calling of potential Democratic candidates. No nothing — other than tweeting or speaking about the current state of the economy. And doing that once a day.

Yes, such a strategy might prompt accusations that Trump is hiding from the media. Or that he is walking away from things such as building the border wall that his base quite clearly values.  

But such an extreme approach to his public pronouncements would also give Trump the best chance to bridge the current chasm between people who think he is doing a good job on the economy (a majority of the public) and people who approve of the job he is doing overall (43% in the latest CNN-SSRS poll).

That gap seems, quite clearly, the result of the fact that people simply do not like Trump and his overall approach — bragging, bullying etc. — to the job. What better way to make people focus on the part of the Trump presidency they do like (the economy) than by downplaying the part they don’t like (Trump personally)?

To be clear: This will NEVER happen. Trump is not capable of the sort of discipline it would require. And, even if he were, other issues would likely crop up that, as president, he and his advisers would feel compelled to address.

But, I propose it to make this point: Trump’s biggest hurdle to a second term is his personality and behavior in office.

The Point: A less divisive — and less abnormal — Republican president, with this same economic record through two-plus years of his term, would be sitting pretty for reelection. Trump, because he is Trump, isn’t.

Pubblicato in: Banche Centrali, Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Ministero del tesoro. Ad aprile surplus di 160.3 miliardi.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

201-05-13.

2019-05-13__America__Teesoro__001

Il Bureau of The Fiscal Service ha rilasciato il

Monthly Receipts, Outlays, and Deficit or Surplus, Fiscal Years 1981-2019:

Per il mese di aprile.

«The federal government recorded a $160.3 billion surplus in April as revenues for the month»

*

«But even with a flood of tax receipts, the deficit so far this year is running 37.7% higher than a year ago»

*

«The Treasury Department reported Friday that the deficit for the first seven months of the budget year that began Oct. 1 totals $530.9 billion, compared to a deficit of $385.5 billion for the same period a year ago»

*

«The Trump administration projected in March that this year’s deficit will hit $1.1 trillion, up from last year’s deficit of $779 billion»

*

«The administration is projecting the deficit will stay above $1 trillion for four straight years before starting to decline for the rest of the decade»

*

«The deficits have increased following congressional passage in December 2017 of a $1.5 trillion tax cut promoted by President Donald Trump as well as a boost last year in spending on domestic and military programs»

*

«The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit this year will climb to $896 billion, smaller than the administration’s $1.1 trillion forecast»

*

«The new report showed that customs duties total $41 billion so far this year, up 82% from a year ago, a big increase that reflects the higher tariffs the Trump administration has imposed on China and other countries»

* * * * * * *

Solitamente ad aprile i conti americani registrano un surplus dovuto al versamento delle tasse.

Si resta piuttosto stupiti per il fatto che sia stato conseguito e per la sua entità.

Lo scorso anno infatti era stato varato un taglio delle tasse di circa 1,500 miliardi, per cui ci si sarebbe aspettati non tanto un surplus, quanto piuttosto un deficit, cosa invece che non è stata.

I soli dazi doganali ammontano a 41 miliardi, essendo aumentati dell’82%.


Bloomberg. 2019-05-13. U.S. Government Records $160.3 Billion April Surplus

The federal government recorded a $160.3 billion surplus in April as revenues for the month jumped to an all-time high. But even with a flood of tax receipts, the deficit so far this year is running 37.7% higher than a year ago.

The Treasury Department reported Friday that the deficit for the first seven months of the budget year that began Oct. 1 totals $530.9 billion, compared to a deficit of $385.5 billion for the same period a year ago.

The Trump administration projected in March that this year’s deficit will hit $1.1 trillion, up from last year’s deficit of $779 billion. The administration is projecting the deficit will stay above $1 trillion for four straight years before starting to decline for the rest of the decade.

The deficits have increased following congressional passage in December 2017 of a $1.5 trillion tax cut promoted by President Donald Trump as well as a boost last year in spending on domestic and military programs.

The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit this year will climb to $896 billion, smaller than the administration’s $1.1 trillion forecast but still 15% higher than last year.

The CBO shows slightly smaller deficits in the short-term, projecting that they will remain below $1 trillion through 2021 but after that will top $1 trillion and will remain above the $1 trillion mark for the rest of the decade.

While the government runs deficits in most months, April has been a surplus month for 60 of the past 65 years, reflecting the flood of revenue that comes in with the annual deadline for individuals to pay tax bills.

This year’s surplus was down from a $214.3 billion surplus in April 2018. That primarily reflected calendar quirks which had shifted $45 billion in benefit payments into March last year because April 1 fell on a weekend.

The new report showed that customs duties total $41 billion so far this year, up 82% from a year ago, a big increase that reflects the higher tariffs the Trump administration has imposed on China and other countries. The duties on China increased again Friday with both sides unable to reach a deal to resolve a number of contentious trade issues.

So far this year, receipts are up 1.8 percent to $2 trillion while spending is up 7.6% to $2.57 trillion.

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

Gli ‘economisti’ liberal erano solo falsi profeti. – The New York Times.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-09.

Falsi Profeti 001

«The labor market the United States is experiencing right now wasn’t supposed to be possible»

*

Già. Tutti gli economisti liberal credevano a livello religioso che fosse impossibile. Le teorie che avevano elaborato indicavano il fatto impossibile.

Poi, nei loro conciliaboli si incensavano vicendevolmente, magari anche insignendosi del titolo di Premi Nobel per l’Economia.

I media liberal facevano il coro, inneggiando la immensa intelligenza degli economisti liberal, tappa ultima e perfetta di un’evoluzione arrivata al compimento, e quindi non ulteriormente evolvibile. Tutte le ecclesiazuse annuivano gravemente, pregustandosi il dolce banchetto finale.

Invece era più che possibile.

Sarebbe stato sufficiente che la gente si fosse letta, magari anche capendoli, Adam Smith oppure von Mises. Il dramma di questi grandi è che ben pochi li hanno letti ed ancor meno li hanno capiti. Mr Trump è una eccezione.

* * *

Il problema è semplice. Lo lasciamo esporre al The New York Times.

*

«Maybe using data from a few decades in the middle of the 20th century to set policy in the 21st isn’t such a good idea»

*

«The labor market the United States is experiencing right now wasn’t supposed to be possible»

*

«Not that long ago, the overwhelming consensus among economists would have been that you couldn’t have a 3.6 percent unemployment rate without also seeing the rate of job creation slowing (where are new workers going to come from with so few out of work, after all?) and having an inflation surge (a worker shortage should mean employers bidding up wages, right?)»

*

«After more than two years of the Trump administration, warnings that trade wars and erratic management style would throw the economy off course have proved wrong so far, and tax cuts and deregulation are most likely part of the reason for the strong growth rates in 2018 and the beginning of 2019 (though most forecasts envision a slowing in the coming quarters as the impact of tax cuts fades).»

*

«The last few years have made it clear that the Phillips curve — the relationship between unemployment and inflation — has either changed shape or become irrelevant.»

*

«The breakdown of the old guidelines suggests that policymakers need to avoid overreliance on them, and to stay broad-minded to the full range of economic possibilities. Maybe using data from a few decades in the middle of the 20th century to set policy in the 21st isn’t actually a good idea.»

*

«The results of the last few years make you wonder whether we’ve been too pessimistic about just how hot the United States economy can run without inflation or other negative effects.»

* * * * * * * *

«The continued boom in the American job market suggests that economic policymakers need to be open-minded about when the old relationships and rules of thumb no longer apply»

*

Non molto tempo fa, il consenso schiacciante tra gli economisti sarebbe stato che non si sarebbe potuto avere un tasso di disoccupazione del 3,6% senza vedere in rallentamento anche il tasso di creazione di posti di lavoro (da dove arriveranno i nuovi lavoratori con così pochi disoccupati, dopo tutto?) e con un aumento dell’inflazione (una carenza di lavoratori dovrebbe significare che i datori di lavoro offrono salari più alti, giusto?).

Dopo più di due anni di amministrazione Trump, gli avvertimenti che le guerre commerciali e lo stile di gestione erratico avrebbero fatto fallire l’economia si sono rivelati finora sbagliati, e i tagli fiscali e la deregolamentazione sono probabilmente parte della ragione dei forti tassi di crescita nel 2018 e all’inizio del 2019.

Questi fatti, che sono sotto il naso di tutti, porterebbero alla conclusone che i politici economici dovrebbero essere di mentalità ben più aperta quando i vecchi rapporti e le regole empiriche non siano più applicabili. Le toerie obsolete dovrebbero essere collocate nel cestino.

Su questi fatti su riportati si infrangono letteralmente tutte le teorie fatte dagli economisti liberal. Tolto un tassello, crolla tutta la strutura che su di esso era fondata.

Ma il dramma nel dramma è costituito dal fatto che i liberal considerano ciò che avrebbe dovuto essere considerato una mera teoria come un credo religioso: chi lo accetta è un credente e chi lo mettesse anche solo in dubbio sarebbe un eretico da bruciare sul fuoco. Nessuno condanna i liberal per aver tentato teorie errate: ma la condanna è priva di appello perché le avevamo consoderate essere vere.

Il vero errore consta nella assolutizzazione.

Di nuovo, nei fatti, gli economisti liberal non hanno mai azzeccato una previsione, nemmeno per sbaglio. Le teorie che non sanno prevedere cono false per definizione.

Hanno solo fatto dilapidare migliaia di miliardi per nulla.

Nota.

Il The New York Times è il tempio dei liberal democratici. Tutti gli intellettuali di sinistra si abbeverano a quanto propala, e poi lo ripetono come dischi inceppati. Ma la realtà dei fatti li corrode alla base e li fa crollare come castelli di carte. Questa autocritica ricorda ben da vicino quelle che erano state fatte nella ex Unione Sovietica, che almeno però spediva in Siberia con un biglietto di sola andata gente come gli ‘economisti’ liberal. Non ne hanno azzeccato una che fosse una, nemmeno per sbaglio.


The New York Times. 2019-05-04. The Economy That Wasn’t Supposed to Happen: Booming Jobs, Low Inflation

Maybe using data from a few decades in the middle of the 20th century to set policy in the 21st isn’t such a good idea.

*

The labor market the United States is experiencing right now wasn’t supposed to be possible.

Not that long ago, the overwhelming consensus among economists would have been that you couldn’t have a 3.6 percent unemployment rate without also seeing the rate of job creation slowing (where are new workers going to come from with so few out of work, after all?) and having an inflation surge (a worker shortage should mean employers bidding up wages, right?).

And yet that is what has happened, with the April employment numbers putting an exclamation point on the trend. The jobless rate receded to its lowest level in five decades. Employers also added 263,000 jobs; the job creation estimates of previous months were revised up; and average hourly earnings continued to rise at a steady rate — up 3.2 percent over the last year.

Compare that reality with the projections the Federal Reserve published just three years ago. In mid-2016, Fed officials thought that the long-run rate of unemployment would be around 4.8 percent, and that this would coincide with 2 percent inflation.

If that were the jobless rate today, 1.9 million Americans would not be working who are instead gainfully employed. And despite this ultralow unemployment rate, inflation is only 1.6 percent over the last year, below the level the Fed aims for.

Because this is 2019 and everything immediately devolves into partisan warfare, these good results are immediately seized upon by Trump partisans who view the good news as a result of the president’s policies, and by opponents who give credit to the already-improving economy that President Obama handed over in January 2017.

There is truth in both. The job market had already been improving for years when President Trump took office, and its performance since then has been more continuation of the trend than an abrupt upturn.

After more than two years of the Trump administration, warnings that trade wars and erratic management style would throw the economy off course have proved wrong so far, and tax cuts and deregulation are most likely part of the reason for the strong growth rates in 2018 and the beginning of 2019 (though most forecasts envision a slowing in the coming quarters as the impact of tax cuts fades).

In particular, it now appears that recession fears that emerged at the end of 2018 were misguided — especially once the Fed backed off its campaign of rate increases at the start of 2019.

But beyond the assigning of credit or blame, there’s a bigger lesson in the job market’s remarkably strong performance: about the limits of knowledge when it comes to something as complex as the $20 trillion U.S. economy.

The last few years have made it clear that the Phillips curve — the relationship between unemployment and inflation — has either changed shape or become irrelevant.

The breakdown of the old guidelines suggests that policymakers need to avoid overreliance on them, and to stay broad-minded to the full range of economic possibilities. Maybe using data from a few decades in the middle of the 20th century to set policy in the 21st isn’t actually a good idea.

The results of the last few years make you wonder whether we’ve been too pessimistic about just how hot the United States economy can run without inflation or other negative effects.

There are even early signs that the tight labor market may be contributing to, or at least coinciding with, a surge in worker productivity, which if sustained would fuel higher wages and living standards over time. That further supports the case for the Fed and other policymakers to let the expansion rip rather than trying to hold it back.

It’s tough setting economic policy. To make decisions, you have to create a forecast, and there’s a reason these forecasts tend to be based on historical experience.

But the last 20 years have been a wrenching period for the world economy, with all sorts of forces that have reshaped fundamentals: globalization, demographic shifts, technological changes and much more.

The continued boom in the American job market suggests that economic policymakers need to be open-minded about when the old relationships and rules of thumb no longer apply.