Il 26 aprile di questo anno la White House aveva steso per il presidente Trump una sintetica nota sullo stato della Germania. Il Deutsche Welle riferisce di esserne entrato da pochi giorni in possesso e la pubblica.
Piaccia o non piaccia quanto riportato, questo sarebbe il punto di vista americano.
Per comprenderlo al meglio, comprendere non significa condividere, occorrerebbe ricordare come le cancellerie considerino gli altri stati sono due ottiche complementari, ma totalmente differenti: una è la visione dei problemi attuali, contingenti, e l’altra è l’inquadramento strategico, nel lungo termine.
Il Deutsche Welle ne resta perplesso ma anche atterrito: la White House ha correttamente indicato il punto di vista strategico che rende la Germania particolarmente vulnerabile:la demografia. Se al momento questo aspetto è appena percepito, nel lungo termine sarà la causa efficiente della disgregazione della Germania, e di questo l’America non può non tener conto. Non perché ami in modo particolare i tedeschi, quanto piuttosto perché in un futuro più o meno lontano, più o meno vicino, l’America dovrà intervenire in una situazione europea tumultuosa, molto tumultuosa.
«The paper focuses on Germany’s demographic challenges»
«The age of Germany’s population augurs a demographic crisis against the backdrop of rising immigration. Nearly 45% of Germany’s population is aged 55 and older, with 22 percent of population 65 and older. The elderly dependency ratio – the number of individual older than 65 for every 100 persons of working age – was 34.8 in 2015 and is forecast to be 59.2 in 2050.
Meanwhile … German women are not having enough children to keep the population growing or even steady. In 2017, the birth rate was 8.6 births per 1,000 residents, much lower than the death rate of 11.7 deaths per 1,000 residents. In 2016, 18.6 million residents in Germany had an immigrant background — a record high for the country — mostly attributable to the influx of refugees. While some immigrants come from the Middle East and Africa, most of the immigrant population has come from fellow European nations»
* * * * * * *
Le conseguenze strategiche sono semplici.
La Germania non è, né potrà essere, un alleato strategico su cui contare entro un futuro abbastanza ravvicinato.
La sempre più rapida diminuzione della popolazione autoctona porterà a breve alla paralisi politica ed alla regressione economica.
Alla fine l’America dovrà decidere se intervenire o meno se non altro per difendere quel territorio avanzato.
A briefing document for Trump’s last meeting with Angela Merkel, obtained by DW, underscores the White House’s view of Germany. The paper focuses on Germany’s demographic challenges and includes some trivial “tidbits.”
The Daily Economic Briefing compiled by US President Donald Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers the day before he received Chancellor Angela Merkel for a highly anticipated meeting in the White House in April frames Germany in a way that seems to be in line with the president’s widely perceived negative view of the country.
“Germany has the world’s largest current account surplus and its second oldest population, as well as one of the lowest unemployment rates in the European Union,” reads the headline — underlined and in caps — of the two-page document, dated April 26, 2018.
Trump and Merkel held a comparatively cordial working meeting on April 27. The get-together, while friendlier than some of their previous encounters, did nothing to solve the deep disagreements between both leaders, particularly on trade and economic issues.
After his meeting with Merkel, Trump reiterated that “all member states must honor their commitment to 2 percent, and hopefully much more, of GDP, on defense. It is essential our allies increase so everyone is paying their fair share.”
The document, which has not previously been reported, also addresses Germany’s immigration policy — another key point of contention between Merkel and Trump since the beginning of his presidential campaign.
“The age of Germany’s population augurs a demographic crisis against the backdrop of rising immigration,” according to the Daily Economic Briefing.
As the country’s population ages, reads the document, “German women are not having enough children to keep the population growing or even steady. In 2017, the birth rate was 8.6 births per 1,000 residents, much lower than the death rate of 11.7 deaths per 1,000 residents. In 2016, 18.6 million residents in Germany had an immigrant background — a record high for the country — mostly attributable to the influx of refugees. While some immigrants come from the Middle East and Africa, most of the immigrant population has come from fellow European nations.”
The document’s focus on Germany’s demographic challenges, and its emphasis on the large number of immigrants that came to the country as a result of the Merkel government’s decision to suspend joint European Union rules to allow in refugees fleeing Syria’s civil war in 2015, appear to support Trump’s long-held view that immigration is detrimental for Germany.
Glühwein and zoos
On a lighter note — perhaps geared towards a president who is not known for being bookish — in a section called “Interesting tidbits about Germany,” White House economists list what they apparently consider curious factoids about the country.
The list includes claims that Germany was the first country to institute daylight saving time, that running out of fuel on the German Autobahn is illegal, that “Glühwein,” or mulled red wine, is one of the most popular drinks in the country and that Germany is not only home to more than 2,100 castles, but also has more zoos (over 400) than any other country in the world.
Asked for their take on the briefing paper, US scholars on Germany and trans-Atlantic politics said that, while the document appears to be largely correct factually, it provides a somewhat skewed view of German-American economic ties.
The paper offers “a rather odd take on the German economy,” said Jeffrey Anderson, a professor at Georgetown University and the former director of its Center for German and European Studies. “I think it’s fair to say that the briefing plays to Trump’s concerns and prior judgments about Germany.”
“The emphasis seems to be on vulnerabilities, both political — unhappiness with the country’s current account surplus,” he said, “and structural — the demographic trends, which are actually old news and not unique to Germany.”
What’s more, noted Anderson, the “one-sided picture” presented in the briefing extends to trade as well, “insofar as there is no mention of German foreign direct investment in the United States, the value of which, in aggregate dollar amounts as well as jobs created, dwarfs the annual current account deficit the US runs with Germany.”
‘Funny and irrelevant’
Put differently, said Anderson, the US is not as it may appear in the paper, “a ‘loser’ in this relationship, but actually benefits greatly from our German economic partners.”
For Mark Hallerberg, the dean of research and faculty at Berlin’s Hertie School of Governance, the briefing fails to accurately reflect the broad economic ties between the US and Germany.
Not only is trade absent in the paper, he said, but “I would also expect something on foreign direct investment in both countries.” While German automakers have a strong presence in the US, “the US tech sector has interests in Germany.”
Having said that, added Hallerberg, “the comments on Glühwein, zoos and the autobahn are pretty funny — and largely irrelevant, though, given that Trump does not drink.”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Asked for a response, a German government spokeswoman said, “We generally don’t comment on briefing papers of other countries.”
«Aimee Stephens was fired after she announced to her colleagues that she would begin living as a woman»
«Now the Supreme Court may decide whether her dismissal violated a law against sex discrimination»
«Two weeks after receiving the letter, though, the home’s owner, Thomas Rost, fired Ms. Stephens»
«Asked for the “specific reason that you terminated Stephens,” Mr. Rost said: “Well, because he was no longer going to represent himself as a man. He wanted to dress as a woman.”»
«The case went to court, and Ms. Stephens won in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. Discrimination against transgender people, the court ruled, was barred by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination on the basis of sex»
«On Nov. 30, the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear the case»
«It is true that the appeals courts are more deeply divided on the question of whether Title VII covers discrimination against gay men and lesbians, with recent decisions from the Second Circuit, in New York, and the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, ruling that it does»
«A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country»
«Treating a person whose sex is male as a man is no more stereotyping than is classifying someone born in Canada as Canadian»
* * * * * * * *
Presso la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti giacciono in attesa di udienza fascicoli degni di tale alto consesso.
Una buona quota tuttavia è rappresentata da casi analoghi a questo, giunto agli onori della cronaca per l’oggetto, anche se il problema giuridico è ben più sottile.
Un tribunale dovrebbe infatti in primo luogo appurare i fatti realmente accaduti, ricostruendoli con la massima cura ed imparzialità.
Quindi dovrebbe accertare cosa disponga la legge in proposito, traendone infine le conseguenze nella sentenza.
Il fatto che Corti differenti possano giungere a sentenze differenti non dovrebbe stupire: se così non fosse, le leggi sarebbero applicate in via amministrativa. Il convenire in giudizio serve proprio per poter esaminare il caso e stabilire quanto e come applicare la legge. In linea generale, ogni caso è a sé state.
Ciò che invece lascia stupiti e perplessi è quando ad avere pareri discordi siano differenti Corti di Appello federali, essendo esse formate da giudici di comprovata dottrina.
In ogni caso conveniamo con questo statement:
«Treating a person whose sex is male as a man is no more stereotyping than is classifying someone born in Canada as Canadian»
Più che giuridico, il problema sembrerebbe essere semplicemente logico.
Aimee Stephens was fired after she announced to her colleagues that she would begin living as a woman. Now the Supreme Court may decide whether her dismissal violated a law against sex discrimination.
WASHINGTON — In 2013, a funeral director who had been known as Anthony Stephens wrote to colleagues at a Michigan funeral home, asking for patience and support.
“What I must tell you is very difficult for me and is taking all the courage I can muster,” the letter said. “I have felt imprisoned in a body that does not match my mind, and this has caused me great despair and loneliness.”
“I will return to work as my true self, Aimee Australia Stephens, in appropriate business attire,” she wrote. “I hope we can continue my work at R. G. and G. R. Harris Funeral Homes doing what I always have, which is my best!”
Ms. Stephens had worked there for six years. Her colleagues testified that she was able and compassionate.
“He was a very good embalmer,” one said. “He was very, very thorough. Had obviously had a lot of practice prior to coming to the Harris Funeral Home. Families seemed very pleased with his work. He did a good job.”
Two weeks after receiving the letter, though, the home’s owner, Thomas Rost, fired Ms. Stephens. Asked for the “specific reason that you terminated Stephens,” Mr. Rost said: “Well, because he was no longer going to represent himself as a man. He wanted to dress as a woman.”
Mr. Rost also said he did not want to address Ms. Stephens as Aimee. “I’m uncomfortable with the name,” Mr. Rost said, “because he’s a man.”
The case went to court, and Ms. Stephens won in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. Discrimination against transgender people, the court ruled, was barred by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination on the basis of sex.
“It is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex,” the court said. “Discrimination ‘because of sex’ inherently includes discrimination against employees because of a change in their sex.”
On Nov. 30, the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear the case. On the same day, the justices will consider whether to hear two related cases, on whether Title VII bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. If the court agrees to hear any of the three cases, a relatively sleepy term will have gained its first blockbuster case.
The Trump administration filed a curious brief in Ms. Stephens’s case, one that said two seemingly contradictory things. The appeals court had gotten things badly wrong on legal issues that were “recurring and important,” Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco told the justices. The ruling, he added, was “inconsistent with decisions of other circuits.”
Those are precisely the things you say when you want to persuade the Supreme Court to hear a case. But Mr. Francisco went on to urge the court to deny review in the funeral home’s appeal and instead hear one of the cases on whether Title VII bars discrimination based on what he called “another non-biological-sex attribute — an individual’s sexual orientation.”
It is true that the appeals courts are more deeply divided on the question of whether Title VII covers discrimination against gay men and lesbians, with recent decisions from the Second Circuit, in New York, and the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, ruling that it does. It could make sense to decide that question first, and to defer a decision in Ms. Stephens’s case in the meantime.
But Mr. Francisco went further, urging the Supreme Court to turn down the funeral home’s appeal even if the court declined to hear the two sexual-orientation cases. That has court watchers puzzled.
Mr. Francisco’s brief was nominally on behalf of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which had charged the funeral home with employment discrimination and had prevailed in the lower courts. But his legal arguments were at odds with the views the commission had taken in the case.
Mr. Francisco’s brief abandoned the position that had been pressed by the commission in the Sixth Circuit and instead lent support to the funeral home. But in urging the Supreme Court to deny review, the commission remained formally aligned with Ms. Stephens, and the case is still known as R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 18-107.
Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer
A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.
The funeral home, for its part, said both issues were important. “The sexual-orientation cases seek to expand what is included in the term ‘sex,’” its brief said, “whereas this case attempts to transform what ‘sex’ means by replacing it with ‘gender identity.’”
There is another issue in Ms. Stephens’s case, one that could allow her to win however the Supreme Court might rule on whether Title VII applies to discrimination against transgender people. In 1989, the Supreme Court said discrimination against workers because they did not conform to gender stereotypes was a form of sex discrimination.
The Sixth Circuit ruled for Ms. Stephens on that ground, too, saying she had been fired “for wishing to appear or behave in a manner that contradicts the funeral home’s perception of how she should behave or appear based on her sex.”
Ms. Stephens, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, said that separate issue was reason enough to deny review in her case. However the Supreme Court ruled on transgender rights, her brief said, she would still win her case.
The funeral home responded that it should be allowed to enforce its dress code, which requires male employees to wear suits and ties and female ones to wear skirts and business jackets.
“Treating a person whose sex is male as a man is no more stereotyping than is classifying someone born in Canada as Canadian,” the funeral home said in a brief filed last week.
Alla fine della seconda guerra mondiale gli Stati Uniti si ritrovarono ad essere l’unica superpotenza navale. Cosa questa del tutto evidente, dato il fatto che gli interessi strategici coprivano l’orbe terracqueo.
A quella data fu messa a punto una strategia costruttiva che prevedeva varo ed allestimento di una nuova portaerei ogni circa cinque anni, e rimpiazzo di un’altra avviata al disarmo. In questa maniera si mantenevano sempre in attività progettisti e cantieri in grado di lavorare sempre allo stato dell’arte: non solo navale in senso stretto, ma anche per tutto l’armamento di bordo, aerei ed elettronica inclusi.
Così agendo tutta l’industria collegata a questa tipologia di costruzioni restava aggiornata, allo stato dell’arte.
Una conseguenza è del tutto pacifica.
Anche se le portaerei realizzate seguono i canoni costruttivi di una classe, in effetti ogni nuova portaerei è un caso singolo, e le novità implementate sono soggette ad un piuttosto lungo periodo di messa a punto operativa. In altri termini, tra il varo e la messa in linea intercorre un lungo lasso di tempo. Poi, le innovazioni installate sottostanno al vaglio operativo e le versioni ragionevolmente definitive formano il substrato costruttivo degli ulteriori scafi messi in cantiere.
Alla luce di quanto detto non desta meraviglia che la portaerei Gerald Ford presenti dei problemi.
È una nave da 104,000 tonnellate, lunga 337 metri e larga 78, spinta da due reattori nucleare A1B che consentono una velocità di 30 nodi. A pieno carico dovrebbe essere dotata di circa 75 aeroplani. Per la difesa ha sistemi antimissile Vulcan Phalanx, Rim-116 e Sea Sparrow. Tuttavia la vera contraerea è supportata dalle navi di appoggio che fanno squadra con la portaerei.
Al momento attuale i più pericolosi nemici delle portaerei sono i missili ipersonici, quali i russi Zircon e Kinžal, oppure il cinese CM-302. In linea generale, questi missili hanno una portata di 100 – 300 km, possono volare rasente la superficie marina a circa cinque metri di altezza, sono in grado di mutar rotta ed eseguire manovre di disimpegno, nonché una velocità di Mach 5 / 6. Se queste caratteristiche fossero effettivamente vere, il missile raggiungerebbe la nave in circa due – tre minuti primi, consentendo all’avversario tempi minimi di risposta.
Lo sviluppo di queste armi anti nave obbliga i costruttori e manutentori delle portaerei ad incrementare gli armamenti anti – missile e la corazzatura.
«Huntington Ingalls ship lacked 11 elevators needed for warfare»
«Futuristic elevator’s ‘uncommanded movements’ among problems»
«The $13 billion Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, the U.S. Navy’s costliest warship, was delivered last year without elevators needed to lift bombs from below deck magazines for loading on fighter jets»
«Previously undisclosed problems with the 11 elevators for the ship built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. add to long-standing reliability and technical problems with two other core systems — the electromagnetic system to launch planes and the arresting gear to catch them when they land»
«The Advanced Weapons Elevators, which are moved by magnets rather than cables, were supposed to be installed by the vessel’s original delivery date in May 2017. Instead, final installation was delayed by problems including four instances of unsafe “uncommanded movements” since 2015»
«While progress was being made on the carrier’s other flawed systems, the elevator is “our Achilles heel,”»
«The elevator system is “just another example of the Navy pushing technology risk into design and construction — without fully demonstrating it»
* * * * * * * *
L’innovazione tecnologica ha un acerrimo nemico mortale: gli entusiasti della tecnologia.
Costoro sopravvalutano in modo quasi fanciullesco la potenza della nuova tecnologia e, soprattutto, la sua affidabilità. Ma un sistema non completamente affidabile può diventare causa primaria di disastri.
– Huntington Ingalls ship lacked 11 elevators needed for warfare
– Futuristic elevator’s ‘uncommanded movements’ among problems
The $13 billion Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, the U.S. Navy’s costliest warship, was delivered last year without elevators needed to lift bombs from below deck magazines for loading on fighter jets.
Previously undisclosed problems with the 11 elevators for the ship built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. add to long-standing reliability and technical problems with two other core systems — the electromagnetic system to launch planes and the arresting gear to catch them when they land.
The Advanced Weapons Elevators, which are moved by magnets rather than cables, were supposed to be installed by the vessel’s original delivery date in May 2017. Instead, final installation was delayed by problems including four instances of unsafe “uncommanded movements” since 2015, according to the Navy.
While progress was being made on the carrier’s other flawed systems, the elevator is “our Achilles heel,” Navy Secretary Richard Spencer told reporters in August without providing details.
The elevator system is “just another example of the Navy pushing technology risk into design and construction — without fully demonstrating it,” said Shelby Oakley, a director with the U.S. Government Accountability Office who monitors Navy shipbuilding.
Problems with the elevators add to questions about the Navy’s plan to bundle the third and fourth carriers in the $58 billion Ford class into one contract. It’s part of the service’s push to expand its 284-ship fleet to 355 as soon as the mid-2030s.
Congress gave the Navy permission for the two-at-once contract in this year’s defense spending and policy bills despite the unresolved technical issues and the lack of a Navy estimate so far of how much money it would save the service. Deputy Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan continues to review the contracting plan.
The Navy says that the first carrier will be fully combat-capable, including the elevators, by July — the end of its current 12-month pier-side shakedown period in Virginia.
Navy weapons buyer James Geurts cited what he called “considerable progress” on the Ford, including on the elevators, in a July 6 memo to Pentagon acquisition head Ellen Lord.
The Navy in May requested permission from Congress in May to increase the Ford’s cost cap by $120 million, partly to fix elevator issues “to preclude any effect on the safety of the ship and personnel.” The safety issues related to the uncommanded movements, the Navy said in an email.
Beci Brenton, a spokeswoman for Newport News, Virginia-based Huntington Ingalls, said “all the elevators are installed.” She said the weapons elevator is among “the most advanced technologies being incorporated into” the carrier and “its completion has been delayed due to a number of first-in-class issues,” Brenton said.
“We are committed to working through the remaining technical challenges,” she said.
William Couch, a spokesman for the Naval Sea Systems Command, said the elevators are “in varying levels of construction and testing.”
Six are far enough along to be operated by the shipbuilder, and testing has started on two of those, he said. All 11 “should have been completed and delivered with the ship delivery,” according to Couch.
He said the contractor has corrected “all issues,” including the “four uncommanded movements over the last three years that were discovered during the building, operational grooming, or testing phases.”
‘Elevator of Tomorrow’
A November 2010 program on PBS’s “Nova” science series extolled the “Elevator of Tomorrow” being developed by Federal Equipment Co., a Cincinnati-based subcontractor to Huntington Ingalls.
“In the not-too-distant future the Advanced Weapons Elevator will be lifting bombs to the flight deck of a new aircraft carrier,” the narrator said. “If it survives the rigors of Navy life, someday we might all be passengers on elevators powered like this one.”
Doug Ridenour, president of Federal Equipment Co., said the elevator’s key technologies “have been consistently demonstrated for years” in a test unit in the company’s plant and any programming or software-related issues have been fixed.
But “shipboard integration involves many other technology insertions not controlled by” his company, he said.
«The G20 (or Group of Twenty) is an international forum for the governments and central bank governors from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Founded in 1999, the G20 aims to discuss policy pertaining to the promotion of international financial stability. It seeks to address issues that go beyond the responsibilities of any one organization. The G20 heads of government or heads of state have periodically conferred at summits since their initial meeting in 2008, and the group also hosts separate meetings of finance ministers and foreign ministers due to the expansion of its agenda in recent years.» [Fonte]
La composizione del G20 presenta molte vistose anomalie che ne impediscono un pieno funzionamento.
La più vistosa è la presenza della Francia, della Germania e dell’Italia oltre a quella dell’Unione Europea: se l’Unione parlasse a nome di tutti, le prime tre presenze sarebbero ridondanti, in caso contrario resterebbe indefinito il ruolo stesso dell’Unione.
Questo topic è bene illustrato da questa dichiarazione di Mr Kaczyński:
«condemned an “organisational mess” in which a few European leaders speak in the name of all the EU without legitimate authorisation in cases which belong to the European Commission.»
«Polish economy is according to our data an 18th world economy. The place of my country is among the members of the G20. This is a very simple postulate: firstly – it results from the size of Polish economy, secondly – it results from the fact that Poland is the biggest country in its region and the biggest country that has experienced a certain story. That story is a political and economic transformation» [Polska w G-20 – warto się bić]
* * * * * * *
Dal 30 novembre al 1° dicembre si terrà a Buenos Aires, Argentina, la classica riunione annuale, cui sono stati invitati anche Cile, Jamaica, Paesi Bassi, Papua Nuova Guinea, Rwanda, Singapore e Spagna.
Sarà una riunione ben differente dal pregresso G20 del 2017, tenutosi ad Amburgo.
«Apart from the recurring themes relating to global economic growth, international trade and financial market regulation, the G20 Hamburg summit was expected to focus on the following “issues of global significance”: Migration, digitisation, occupation, health, Women’s Economic Empowerment and development aid.
On 7 July terrorism, free trade and the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement were on the agenda, on 8 July Africa was supposed to be a topic. ….
The 45th President of the United States Donald J. Trump has accused steel producers in China and Europe of dumping and have been threatening with antidumping duty. The G20 demanded a report of overcapacities by November 2017 ….
There was no consensus with the USA regarding climate protection: a dissent with communalities in the deployment of renewable energy was formulated. The other 19 participants agreed to stick with the Paris agreement, to view it as irreversible and to swiftly put it into practice. After the summit finished, the Turkish president, Erdoğan said his country would not ratify the Paris agreement; Turkey was no industrialized nation but a developing country like other neighboring countries of the region and that François Hollande as then President had assured international assistance funds. President Macron has now invited members for further negotiations at another climate summit in Paris on 12 December. In spite of the United States’ dissent, the German presidency wanted to make the most of the “renewed public policy interest for environmental sustainability, gender equity and social inclusiveness, in the spirit of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” – notably by promoting renewable energy and further fossil fuel divestment in all nations»
Si legga con molta attenzione l’ultima frase del comunicato:
«In spite of the United States’ dissent, the German presidency wanted to make the most of the “renewed public policy interest for environmental sustainability, gender equity and social inclusiveness, in the spirit of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” – notably by promoting renewable energy and further fossil fuel divestment in all nations»
L’allora Frau Merkel imperante volle che fosse scritto nella comunicazione finale “interest for environmental sustainability“, “gender equity“, “social inclusiveness“, “promoting renewable energy” e “fossil fuel divestment“.
Adesso non ci sarà più Frau Merkel o, nel caso ci fosse, conterebbe meno di un positrone errante per lo spazio. E senza di lei non si parlerà più di questi argomenti.
Positrone è nell’antimateria l’equivalente dell’elettrone, di eguale massa, ma carica positiva.
I liberal democratici hanno rimesso in auge negli ultimi decenni il modo con cui concepivano giustizia e tribunali i giacobini, i comunisti sovietici ed i tedeschi nazionalsocialisti.
Il giudice ideologizzato persegue la ideologia, non certo la giustizia ovvero le leggi.
Per far ciò è stato ideato dapprima il giuspositivismo, quindi il concetto che i giudici debbano interpretare, non applicare, le leggi. Da questo punto di vista Brenno era un liberal.
Formalmente staccato dal potere politico, quello giudiziario si è tramutato nel vero punto decisionale degli stati occidentali: le Corti di giustizia emettono sentenze esecutive e quelle delle Corti Supreme sono anche inappellabili. Alla fine, sono loro ad avere l’ultima parola sulla formulazione delle leggi.
Così, dei burocrati funzionari, nominati non eletti, sono stati investiti di un potere che supera e condiziona quello politico elettivo. Elezioni e volontà popolare diventano inutili orpelli, spesso anche tediosamente noiosi.
Essendo uno dei più potenti stati del mondo, la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti è sempre stata guardata con particolare attenzione. È stato il centro di potere che ha condizionato la politica americana degli ultimi decenni.
Quando era a maggioranza liberal democratica, i media osannavano la Suprema Corte come sommo centro di elargizione della giustizia: adesso è un covo di luciferi degni solo di un prossimo venturo impeachment.
Le elezioni presidenziali americane del novembre 2016 furono infatti particolarmente aspre perché il nuovo Presidente avrebbe avuto la possibilità di nominare, a vita, due giudici nella Corte Suprema. Avesse vinto Mrs Clinton avrebbe nominato due giudici liberal, ma invece ha vinto Mr Trump, che ha nominato due giudici repubblicani.
Capito questo, si capisce perfettamente la reazione isterica dei democratici, che hanno riversato su Mr Trump tutto il livoroso odio impotente che avevano in corpo.
Al momento attuale nella Corte Suprema vi siedono cinque giudici repubblicani e quattro democratici. Ed essendo eletti a vita questa composizione resterà per diverse decine di anni. Sufficit.
La decana della Corte Suprema, Sua Giustizia Ruth Ginsburg, è liberal democratica di provatissima fede. Mai fece in vita sua una sentenza a favore di un repubblicano, anche contro la più lampante evidenza dei fatti.
La sua cultura giuridica è notevole, e la ha pienamente impiegata a soddisfare i propri fini.
Sta di fatto che Sua Giustizia Ruth Ginsburg ha 85 anni ed ha una salute malferma. Giorni or sono è caduta, non sappiamo in quali circostanze, riportando fratture di tre costole.
Il mondo è la galassia liberal democratica sono subitamente entrati in crisi.
Tutti augurano a Sua Giustizia Ruth Ginsburg lunghissima e felice vita, ma nel contempo tutti prendono atto che l’eternità non è data agli umani. E quando un anziano inizia a cadere, specie poi malo modo, è segno prognostico non buono.
Orbene. Mr Trump ha ancora due anni di mandato ed ha anche la maggioranza in senato. Nel caso, potrebbe nominare chi volesse.
Dovesse accadere qualcosa, avrebbe l’occasione di sostituire un giudice liberal con un giudice giovinetto repubblicano: la Suprema Borte passerebbe da cinque a quattro a sei a tre per trenata lunghi anni.
* * * * * * *
Se i liberal democratici fossero religiosi, snocciolerebbero novena su novena augurando a Sua Giustizia Ruth Ginsburg vita eterna o. almeno, per ancora due anni, nella presunzione che al rinnovo del Presidente il loro candidato possa prevalere su Mr Trump. Ma i liberal non solo non sono religiosi, ma odiano invece la religione. E poi, mica è detto che Mr Trump debba essere trombato.
Di qui scaturisce questo articolo della Bbc.
«I hereby donate all of my ribs and organs to Ruth Bader Ginsburg».
Ma gli esseri umani non sono in grado di allungare la durata della propria vita terrena nemmeno di un attosecondo.
Ci si unisce quindi alla Bbc nel formulare i migliori auguri a Sua Giustizia.
Earlier this week, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was admitted to hospital. Why did the news send many Americans into a tizzy?
On Wednesday evening, Justice Ginsburg fell in her office at the US Supreme Court and went to the hospital, where doctors discovered she had fractured three ribs. The reaction from the liberal corners of social media was an instantaneous mixture of well-wishes and barely-suppressed horror.
“#RuthBaderGinsburg DON’T YOU DARE DIE WE NEED YOU!” wrote one.
“I hereby donate all of my ribs and organs to Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” wrote Lauren Duca, a columnist for Teen Vogue.
That evening, late night television host Jimmy Kimmel introduced the “Ruth Bader Gins-bubble” on his programme, saying the 85-year-old needed to be “protected at all costs” as a Ginsburg stand-in rolled on stage encased in a gigantic plastic bubble.
Although Ginsburg returned home on Friday, anxiety surrounding the health of the oldest sitting justice will surely continue. If Ginsburg were to retire or become too ill to serve, President Donald Trump would be able to cement the court’s conservative majority with the appointment of his third justice, after Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Beyond that, the outpouring of concern can be credited to the fact that for liberals, Ginsburg has become a bona fide icon. She’s the subject of a new biopic On the Basis of Sex, a documentary, and a bestselling book called Notorious RBG, which re-introduced her to a generation of millennial women. It’s now possible to purchase T-shirts and coffee mugs with her likeness on them.
On Halloween, scores of miniature Ginsburgs waving tiny gavels filled social media:
“I think people of all ages are excited to see a woman in public life who has shown that, even at the age of 85, she can be unflinching in her commitment to equality and justice,” says Irin Carmon, one of the co-authors of Notorious RBG. “We don’t have enough figures like her.”
Famous for her diminutive stature, serious demeanour and long pauses – she is said to have no tolerance for small talk – how did Ruth Bader Ginsburg go from celebrated legal scholar to full-blown celebrity?
Playing ‘kindergarten teacher’ to all-male justices
She became a professor at Rutgers Law School in 1963, where she taught some of the first women and law classes, and co-founded the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. In 1973, she became the ACLU’s general counsel, which kicked off a prolific era of arguing gender discrimination cases, six of which brought her before the US Supreme Court.
She argued on behalf of a female Air Force lieutenant who was denied a housing benefit for her husband that her male colleagues received for their wives. She also took men’s cases. In 1975, she argued the case of a young widower who was denied benefits after his wife died in childbirth.
“His case was a the perfect example of how gender-based discrimination hurts everyone,” Ginsburg said years later, at her confirmation hearing.
She won five out of the six cases she argued before the Supreme Court, a time when she says she felt she had to explain gender discrimination to the all-male justices like “a kindergarten teacher”.
It was also during this time that she argued on behalf of a female Air Force captain who’d become pregnant, and was being told to abort the baby or lose her job. Ginsburg hoped that the case would make reproductive autonomy a constitutionally-protected right, but instead, the Air Force changed its policy and the case was dismissed.
The next year, Roe v Wade decided the question of abortion, and Ginsburg fretted that since the decision hinged on right to privacy instead of equal protection, it was open to legal attack.
“The Court ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action,” she said in a 1984 lecture.
The second woman on Supreme Court
In 1980, as a part of President Jimmy Carter’s efforts to diversify the nation’s federal courts, Ginsburg was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. She gained a reputation as a centrist, voting with conservatives many times and against, for example, hearing the discrimination case of a sailor who said he’d been discharged from the Navy for being gay.
President Bill Clinton nominated her to the Supreme Court in 1993, after a protracted search process in which some feminist groups, according to the New Yorker, spoke privately against her over her past remarks on Roe. But Clinton eventually made up his mind, making Ginsburg the second woman ever nominated to the US Supreme Court.
“It was her interview that did it,” Clinton says in the 2018 documentary, RBG. “Literally within 15 minutes, I decided I was gonna name her.”
During her confirmation hearing, Ginsburg proclaimed staunch pro-choice views.
“It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decision maker,” she said in the hearing before Congress. “If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.”
The fiery dissenter
One of her most important, early cases on the Supreme Court was United States v Virginia, which struck down the men-only admission policy at Virginia Military Institute. Writing for the majority, Ginsburg said that no law or policy should deny women “full citizenship stature – equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities”.
“It really was the last step in her own trajectory as a lawyer in trying to get the Supreme Court to recognise that gender classifications are a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment,” says Paul Schiff Berman, professor of law at George Washington University and one of Ginsburg’s law clerks in the late ’90s.
Over the decades, as the court has become more conservative, Ginsburg has increasingly moved to the left, and is now famous for her fiery dissents.
In the case of Shelby County v Holder, the court struck down a portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, eliminating federal preclearance for changes to local voting laws – a provision intended to prevent voter suppression.
In response to the majority’s assertion that America had changed so much for the better that the preclearance was no longer needed, Ginsburg wrote in her dissent that this was “like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet”.
From justice to icon
In part thanks to her unsparing dissents, a young law student named Shana Knizhnik created a Tumblr account dedicated to Ginsburg called Notorious RBG – a reference to the late rapper The Notorious BIG. The account reintroduced Ginsburg to a new generation of young feminists, and became so popular that Knizhnik and her co-author Carmon turned the blog into a book of the same name, which became a bestseller.
Notorious RBG helped propel Ginsburg into pop culture stardom. Actress Kate McKinnon began playing Ginsburg on Saturday Night Live. The justice herself is said to distribute T-shirts with her own likeness on them.
“I think that it’s actually something that Justice Ginsburg has really enjoyed in these last few years,” says Berman, her former clerk. “For her to feel as if her legacy can inspire a new generation of young women in particular, I think, is very exciting to her.”
As a part of her new pop culture relevance, all aspects of Ginsburg’s life have become the subject of internet fascination – her workout routine, for example, has been attempted by comedian Stephen Colbert. She’s been lauded as a fashion icon, from her penchant for lace gloves to her elaborate jabots, the collars she wears over her robes. Her famous “dissent collar” has been reproduced in miniature for necklaces.
Her marriage to husband Marty is central to the new biopic, On the Basis of Sex. Marty Ginsburg died in 2010 – during the course of their 56-year marriage, he became his wife’s greatest advocate, happy to play second fiddle to his famous partner.
“Meeting Marty was by far the most fortunate thing that ever happened to me,” Ginsburg says in the documentary RBG.
Ginsburg is a famously stoic woman, but she adores the opera, a passion she shared with the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who despite being her ideological opposite was a close friend before he died in 2016.
“I get totally carried away,” she says of opera in the documentary. “It’s like an electric current going through me.”
But the justice is not immune from criticism – or from error. During the 2016 election, she called then-candidate Donald Trump a “faker”, and said she could not imagine a world with him as president.
“He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego,” she told CNN.
Afterward she was criticised by both the right and left, who said her comments could undermine her impartiality and the authority of the court. She ultimately apologised.
Why she refuses to retire
During President Barack Obama’s two terms in office, some liberal pundits wondered loudly if it wasn’t time for Ginsburg to retire, with a Democrat in office who could be relied upon to install another liberal justice. Those calls have been dismissed by Ginsburg, with some irritation on her part.
“Many people have asked me, ‘Well, when are you going to step down?'” she said in an interview this year. “As long as I can do the job full steam, I will be here.”
Carmon is quick to point out that this is not the first time Ginsburg has broken her ribs, and that while she has survived two battles with cancer, and had a stent placed in her heart in 2014, she has never missed a day of arguments.
“Each time she’s returned with just as much determination and resilience,” says Carmon. “She has been at this work for at least a half-century, and she’s not done yet.”
Uno dei punti cardini dell’ideologia illuminista recepita in quella liberal è la così detta divisione dei poteri.
Formalmente potrebbe anche essere un buon enunciato, ma è cosa utopica: potere politico e potere giudiziario sono commisti, se non altro perché qualcuno alla fine deve pur nominare i giudici.
Spesso si proclama anche una mezza verità, forse più pericolosa di una menzogna.
Si reclama che la politica non interferisca con l’operato dei giudici, cosa di per sé financo ragionevole, ma solo ed unicamente se la magistratura si astenesse dal fare politica. Dovrebbero essere due aspetti di una stessa medaglia.
Il caso del Keystone XL oil pipeline è da manuale.
«A federal judge halted construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline on Thursday, in a blow to the Trump administration and a win for environmental groups»
«US District Judge Brian Morris found that the US government’s use of a 2014 environmental review to justify issuing a presidential permit for construction of the cross-border pipeline violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, according to the court order issued Thursday»
«The Court enjoins Federal Defendants and TransCanada from engaging in any activity in furtherance of the construction or operation of Keystone and associated facilities, …. until the Department has completed a supplement to the 2014 SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) that complies with the requirements of NEPA and the APA»
«In March 2017, President Donald Trump’s administration issued a permit approving construction of the pipeline, reversing the Obama administration’s decision to block the controversial project»
* * * * * * *
Se il problema è evidente dal punto di vista politico – i liberal democratici stanno facendo il loro possibile per ostacolare l’Amministrazione Trump – dal punto di vista giuridico si pone invece quello dell’autorità con cui una Corte, sia pur essa federale, possa bloccare un provvedimento governativo.
Il nodo giuridico consiste nel fatto che un organo nominato, ossia composto da funzionari, esprima pareri su fatti non giuridici, bensì di scelta politica.
In secondo luogo, ma non per questo di minore importanza, il blocco, sia pur temporaneo, dovrebbe essere di competenza del Senato.
Sono temi poi nemmeno tanto sottili, che coinvolgono severamente il sistema democratico. L’America attuale è dilaniata da due forze contendenti ed opposte, inconciliabili tra di esse, che dispongono di forze quasi equivalenti. Sarà il controllo della Magistrarua a far pendere i piatti della bilancia.
Avverso alla decisione del giudice federale l’Amministrazione presenterà ricorso alla Suprema Corte, come già fatto in altre occasioni, e ci si stupirebbe se questa, a maggioranza repubblicana, smentisse l’operato del Presidente.
* * * * * * *
Il clima sociale e politico americano sta corrompendosi giorno dopo giorno.
I liberal democratici sembrerebbero non riuscire a darsi pace di aver perso le elezioni presidenziali prima, e due posti nella Suprema Corte, dopo.
«Occorre saper perdere», aveva chiosato Mr Putin.
Ci si rende anche conto come il non essere riusciti a conquistare il Senato alle elezioni di midterm sia stato per i liberal democratici uno smacco oltremodo severo: Mr Trump potrà infatti procedere alle nomine dei posti vacanti di 239 giudici federali, nomine che il Senato è tenuto a convalidare.
A fine ciclo, la magistratura americana sarà in gran parte transitata in campo repubblicano, inattivando alla radice questo ultimo centro di potere democratico.
Resterà però il veleno sparso: sono queste ferite che stentano a rimarginarsi.
A federal judge halted construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline on Thursday, in a blow to the Trump administration and a win for environmental groups.
US District Judge Brian Morris found that the US government’s use of a 2014 environmental review to justify issuing a presidential permit for construction of the cross-border pipeline violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, according to the court order issued Thursday.
“The Court enjoins Federal Defendants and TransCanada from engaging in any activity in furtherance of the construction or operation of Keystone and associated facilities,” the court document reads, “until the Department has completed a supplement to the 2014 SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) that complies with the requirements of NEPA and the APA.”
In March 2017, President Donald Trump’s administration issued a permit approving construction of the pipeline, reversing the Obama administration’s decision to block the controversial project.
The permit approval followed years of intense debate over the pipeline amid steadfast opposition from environmental groups.
They argued that the pipeline would support the extraction of crude oil from oil sands, a process that pumps more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than standard crude oil extraction. They also opposed the pipeline because it would run across one of the world’s largest underground deposits of fresh water.
Native American groups argued the pipeline would cut across their sovereign lands.
«Mr Trump aveva semplicemente ignorato eurodirigenza e governi europei, ottenendo in questa maniera il massimo risultato con il mimino sforzo. Non solo, Mr Trump aveva piantato un cuneo tra il governo tedesco e la realtà del comparto produttivo e commerciale, ponendoli in un’antitesi di vita o di morte.»
«Anyone doing business with Iran will not be doing business with the United States»
«Even as European leaders oppose the measure, the likes of Daimler and Siemens are scrambling to comply rather than risk disruption of their US business»
* * *
Giuridicamente parlando, codeste non sono sanzioni.
Ma adesso i tempi sono mutati.
«US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced the details of US sanctions against Iran, including oil exemptions for eight countries»
«As US sanctions against Iran came back into effect on Monday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo revealed that several countries secured oil import exemptions, including: India, China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Greece, and Italy»
* * *
Se è vero che è stato Mr Trump a stilare questa direttiva, sarebbe altrettanto vero e doveroso ricordasi della fine diplomazia messa in atto da Mr Conte e da Mr Salvini. L’Italia è l’unico paese europeo ad essere esentato dall’azione americana, e questo è per gli eurocrati un ferro incandescente inserito nei canali lacrimali e nelle trombe di Eustachio.
Poi ci si domanda per quale motivo i partiti europei tradizionali siano snobbati dai Cittadini Elettori.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced the details of US sanctions against Iran, including oil exemptions for eight countries. Tehran has said it will continue to sell oil despite the new sanctions.
As US sanctions against Iran came back into effect on Monday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo revealed that several countries secured oil import exemptions, including: India, China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Greece, and Italy.
Iran has said it will defy the reimposition of sanctions, which target the country’s oil exports and financial transactions. The US decided to reimpose the sanctions after US President Donald Trump withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal earlier this year.
Exemptions from sanctions:
– Pompeo told reporters that the eight countries secured temporary waivers to continue importing oil from Iran.
– The exemptions were granted with the understanding that the countries will seek to reduce their imports to zero.
– Waivers were also issued to allow European firms to continue conversion work on two of Iran’s nuclear facilities.
– Pompeo also warned Tehran that it can “either do a 180-degree-turn, or it can see its economy crumble.”
– Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told reporters that he expects European nations to honor the sanctions, but that certain transactions — particularly humanitarian ones — will continue to be allowed.
Iran decries ‘bullying’
Iranian leaders appeared defiant on Monday, saying they are preparing to weather the storm. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said that his country “will continue to sell our oil,” despite the sanctions.
Foreign Minister Javad Zarif described the reimposition of sanctions as “bullying,” adding that the move was backfiring against Washington by making it more isolated even among its allies.
What the sanctions target: Monday’s measures completely restore all the US sanctions that were lifted under the Iran nuclear deal. This round specifically targets over 700 Iranian entities and assets including: 50 Iranian banks, Iran Air, as well as numerous people and vessels in the country’s shipping sector. The sanctions also come as Iran’s economy is under pressure from the first round of US sanctions that went into effect in August.
What is the Iran nuclear deal? In July 2015, international powers and Iran agreed to a deal that called for lifting crippling international sanctions in exchange for Iran dismantling its nuclear program. Known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the deal with Iran was signed by the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, France and the European Union. Trump announced he was pulling his country out of the deal earlier this year.
I liberal democratici avevano promesso una Marea Blu che avrebbe conquistato l’84% dei seggi.
Questi risultati non corroborano le loro previsioni.
Confermano invece l’alta densità dei liberal sulla costa dell’ovest e quella del nord-est.
Come in tutte le votazioni per collegio, ciò che conta è la loro conquista, uno per uno, non la percentuale totale di voti ottenuta. Vincere un collegio con il 51% oppure con l’89% dei voti non cambia il risultato finale. È solo uno spreco di energie.
La Marea Rosa sembrerebbe essre molto scarna. Sicuramente alcuni casi avranno un grande effetto mediatico, ma ciò che conta sarà poi la resa nel Congresso.
Questa grafica da molto a cui pensare. Sicuramente i repubblicani sono prevalentemente bianchi. L’incremento delle quote ispaniche o negre nel mondo del lavoro sembrerebbe aver influito poco sull’orientamento del voto. Sarà un dato su cui meditare.
Le zone rurali sono quasi tutte repubblicane. I liberal non riescono ad ottenere gran ché in quelle lande. Ma sarebbe anche vero l’opposto. Questo dato tende a cristallizzare gli schieramenti.
Di nuovo, la composizione razziale delle contee è determinante sul voto ai partiti.
«Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg (Brooklyn, 15 marzo 1933) è una magistrata statunitense, giudice della Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti.
La Ginsburg fu nominata dal Presidente Bill Clinton, ed entrò in carica il 5 agosto 1993. È una delle quattro donne che hanno mai fatto parte della Corte Suprema, assieme a Sandra Day O’Connor (attualmente in pensione), Sonia Sotomayor ed Elena Kagan (entrambe in carica).
Per gran parte della sua carriera, la Ginsburg si è occupata dei diritti delle donne, promuovendo l’uguaglianza di genere. Nel 2009 è stata inserita da Forbes fra le 100 donne più potenti.» [Fonte]
«La Corte suprema degli Stati Uniti d’America (in inglese: Supreme Court of the United States, a volte abbreviato SCOTUS) è stata istituita il 24 settembre 1789 come la più alta corte federale degli Stati Uniti. È l’unico tribunale specificamente disciplinato dalla Costituzione. I membri della Corte sono 9: un presidente, Chief Justice of the United States, e otto membri, gli Associates Justices, nominati a vita.
I giudici della Corte suprema sono nominati a vita; hanno tuttavia la facoltà di ritirarsi quando non si ritengono più in grado di esercitare adeguatamente il proprio mandato, ad esempio per malattia o per il raggiungimento di un’età troppo avanzata. Quando un seggio diviene vacante, il Presidente degli Stati Uniti provvede alla nomina del giudice con il consenso del Senato.» [Fonte]
«In November 2014, she underwent a heart procedure to have a stent placed in her right coronary artery, and in 2009, she was treated for early stages of pancreatic cancer. In 1999, just six years after being sworn in as an associate justice, Ginsburg successfully underwent surgery to treat colon cancer.»
«Ginsburg, who became the second woman to serve on the high court following her appointment by President Bill Clinton in 1993, has become a progressive and pop culture icon. Admirers have recently nicknamed her “Notorious RBG,” a play on the late rapper Notorious B.I.G., and have hailed her as a bulwark against conservative ideology because of her liberal opinions and dissents»
La Corte Suprema Americana è il massimo organo giudiziario degli Stati Uniti, l’unico in grado di bloccare con sentenze inappellabili anche il Presidente. Il suo potere è enorme.
Nel suo ambito si sono sviluppate due correnti di pensiero.
La prima considera che la Costituzione debba essere interpretata dai giudici, la seconda che questi debbano applicarla alla lettera.
Quando questa prima chiave di lettura ha prevalso, ne sono conseguiti due decenni nei quali la Suprema Corte ha sentenziato in via politica, elaborando una sorta di nuova costituzione, ritagliata sulla ideologia liberal. La Suprema Corte era diventata la micidiale arma dei liberal democratici, che ne detenevano la maggioranza.
Con la Presidenza Trump sono successi due fatti nuovi. Il Presidente ha avuto l’occasione di rimpiazzare due giudici con due persone a retroterra repubblicano, portando il rapporto sui liberal a cinque a quattro.
Solo comprendendo quanto detto si può capire la rabbiosa reazione dei democratici nel corso delle valutazioni delle loro Giustizie Mr Gorsuch e Mr Kavanaugh.
Tutti noi formuliamo i migliori auspici di una pronta e completa guarigione.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fractured three ribs after falling in her Supreme Court office Wednesday night, the Supreme Court said in a statement.
According to the statement, Ginsburg, 85, experienced discomfort after going home following the fall and was admitted to George Washington University Thursday morning for observation and treatment.
As one of the court’s older members, Ginsburg’s health has become the subject of much attention in recent years.
In November 2014, she underwent a heart procedure to have a stent placed in her right coronary artery, and in 2009, she was treated for early stages of pancreatic cancer.
In 1999, just six years after being sworn in as an associate justice, Ginsburg successfully underwent surgery to treat colon cancer.
Ginsburg, who became the second woman to serve on the high court following her appointment by President Bill Clinton in 1993, has become a progressive and pop culture icon.
Admirers have recently nicknamed her “Notorious RBG,” a play on the late rapper Notorious B.I.G., and have hailed her as a bulwark against conservative ideology because of her liberal opinions and dissents.
Dal 30 aprile 1789 gli Stati Uniti di America hanno avuto 45 presidenti. Solo durante tre mandati quadriennali alle elezioni di midterm gli Elettori hanno nominato un Congresso ed un Senato dello stesso partito del Presidente. In tutte le altre circostanze il Presidente ha avuto Congresso e Senato di colore opposto al suo, ivi compreso il past-president Obama.
Sembrerebbe quindi che non sia particolare disonore per Mr Trump avere il Congresso a maggioranza democratica. Tanto, il Senato è dalla sua.
Gli Stati Uniti sono inoltre uno stato presidenziale, per cui l’importanza del Congresso è notevole, ma non certo equiparabile a quella che avrebbe in uno stato a regime parlamentare.
Ben differente è l’importanza del Senato, corte di giustizia nei casi di impeachment, ma soprattutto organo deputato a vidimare le nomine presidenziali.
«Republicans looked to have increased their 51-49 majority to as many as 54 seats»
«That means President Donald Trump, who holds the most important power center, can continue getting conservative federal judges confirmed – something he has done in record numbers already. And he is in a strong position should another vacancy materialize on the Supreme Court»
Il Presidente Trump ha adesso mano libera nel procedere con le nome di giudici federali nelle 239 sedi ancora vacanti. Saranno tutti giudici chiaramente repubblicani e giovanissimi: poiché le cariche durano a vita, per trenta anni almeno la quasi totalità delle Corti di Appello federali saranno a maggioranza Gop.
Ma la frase citata ha anche un accenno velenosissimo.
«And he is in a strong position
should another vacancy materialize on the Supreme Court»
Sua Giustizia Ruth Bader Ginsburg è nata il 15 marzo 1933, ha 85 anni. Se è vero che ci sono siti denominati “Justice Ginsburg Death Watch”, è altrettanto vero che Sua Giustizia afferma di stare più che bene. Perché queste facezie? Semplice. La Ginsburg è l’icona dei liberal democratici. Ma se fosse obbligata a lasciare libera la poltrona, Mr Trump potrebbe piazzare un terzo giudice repubblicano nella Corte Suprema. Sarebbe la morte definitiva dei liberal democratici.
«ۛWASHINGTON – Republicans held on strongly Tuesday to their second-most important bastion of power: the United States Senate.
That means President Donald Trump, who holds the most important power center, can continue getting conservative federal judges confirmed – something he has done in record numbers already. And he is in a strong position should another vacancy materialize on the Supreme Court.
It means Trump’s anticipated shakeup of his administration should go relatively smoothly: Senate Republicans will be able to rubber-stamp new Cabinet nominees for posts ranging from attorney general to, possibly, defense secretary.
It means that no matter what the new Democratic House of Representatives does in terms of investigating Trump, the Senate is poised to beat back impeachment, as it did for President Bill Clinton in 1998.
And by gaining rather than losing Senate seats, it means Republicans have a vastly improved chance of keeping control through 2020, when they will be defending 22 of 34 seats up for grabs. That represents a table-turning from this year’s election, when Democrats had to defend 26 of 35 seats.
Even Sen. Mitch McConnell, the normally stone-faced GOP leader of the Senate, showed a glimpse of glee Wednesday.
“I had one of the cable networks on this morning, and they said, “This is probably a rare opportunity to see McConnell smile,'” the Kentucky Republican told reporters.
The red-state wins in what pundits had predicted would be a blue-wave election prompted self-congratulations from Trump, who tweeted that presidents have added Senate seats in off-year elections only five times in 105 years.
Former president Barack Obama, meanwhile, was silent about the Senate. “Obviously, the Democrats’ success in flipping the House of Representatives, several governorships, and state legislatures will get the most attention,” he said in a statement.
As the sun rose in the nation’s capital Wednesday, McConnell emerged as the biggest winner of the 2018 midterm elections. Republicans looked to have increased their 51-49 majority to as many as 54 seats.»
«After confirming 84 judges since Trump was elected, including two to the Supreme Court and 29 to circuit courts, McConnell said confirming judges remains his top priority»
Republicans moved toward expanding their control of the Senate as Democrats took power in the House, with incomplete election results pointing toward a reaffirmation of a deeply divided nation.
The Republicans flipped seats in three states — Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota — that President Trump had won by a large margin in 2016, and won an open seat in Tennessee. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas held off a surprisingly strong challenge from Beto O’Rourke.
Money and momentum favored the Democrats, who seized more than a dozen of the 23 seats they needed to take the House in early returns. Democrats faced mixed results in the governor’s races, picking up governorships in Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico and Wisconsin, but failing to claim the coveted battleground of Florida.
The returns provided fresh evidence of the partisan split in American political life with Democrats seizing Republican House seats in suburban districts where affluent educated voters had been vocal in their opposition to Mr. Trump.
«So how big was the blue wave? Over all, 2018’s shift to the left was smaller than the one in 2006, the last time the Democrats flipped the House. And it was half the size of the most recent Republican wave in 2010 when districts shifted more than 19 points to the right.»
«The midterms saw a “blue wave” of Democratic support, with the party gaining at least 26 House seats and winning the popular vote by seven points. While it was a significant victory that gave control of the House to the Democrats, they could have won even more seats if not for gerrymanders – carefully manipulated district maps that have given Republicans a substantial advantage in House elections since 2012.
Particularly in four states – Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina and Texas – Democratic candidates gained support from voters relative to 2016, but gained relatively few seats.
In Michigan, Democrats flipped two seats, but got only 50 percent of the seats despite winning 54 percent of the vote… Republican gerrymanders in North Carolina, Michigan and Texas also withstood the blue wave, with few or no districts flipping in the Democrats’ favor:
In North Carolina, the Democrats gained 2.9 percentage points, but flipped no seats… But that’s not what happened. The results were tilted toward Republicans. ….»
* * * * * * *
Idem per la Marea Rosa.
La percentuale delle femmine elette è di gran lunga inferiore alla percentuale delle femmine candidate.
Al pratico: la gente vota la persona senza badare al sesso.