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

California. È comparsa la parola ‘secessione’.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-07-13.

Macbeth__011

Quando il dialogo politico illanguidisce ed alla fine si arena, quando la parte viscerale prende il sopravvento su quella razionale, quando gli interessi economici sono conflittuali ed apparentemente non risolvibili, ebbene, allora inizia a prender corpo l’idea di una secessione.

Tutti gli stati nazionali hanno una qualche clausola costituzionale che dichiara il territorio uno ed indivisibile. È stata la base giuridica della guerra di secessione del sud contro il nord, e gli Stati Uniti ricordano l’allora Presidente Lincoln come un secondo fondatore della Patria.

La reazione spagnola al tentativo separatistico della Catalogna è un altro chiaro esempio di codesto concetto.

Per contro, poche decine di anni or sono la Repubblica Ceka si è separata dalla Slovakia in modo amichevole, continuando a mantenere ottimi rapporti e, si direbbe, con vantaggio di ambedue le parti.

*

Tutta la dirigenza politica ed amministrativa della California professa la ideologia liberal, e si senta in particolare disagio al momento attuale con il resto degli Stati Uniti che non condivide tale credo religioso.

I giudici del 9th Circuito hanno ripetutamente cercato di bloccare gli ordini Esecutivi di Mr Trump e si sentono particolarmente minacciati dal fatto che ora la Suprema Corte abbia cinque membri nominati da presidenti repubblicani contro i quattro nominati da presidenti democratici. Non solo, ma proprio di questi tempi la Suprema Corte ha preso posizione sul Censu, sul Gerrymandering. La procura federale ha incriminato un giudice distrettuale liberal per aver ostacolato la giustizia, ponendolo nella situazione di rischiare venticinque anni di carcere.

Tutti gli elementi noti deporrebbero per un netto calo dell’influenza dei liberal democratici e nella sempre più ragionevolmente sicura rielezione di Mr Trump.

*

In questa situazione è del tutti sequenziale che la California inizi a pensare ad una secessione. Farla sarebbe cosa ben diversa, Spagna docet.

«Secession is extremely improbable»

*

«Americans have grown increasingly polarised in recent years»

*

«According to the Pew Research Center, median Republicans are more conservative than 97% of Democrats, while median Democrats are more liberal than 95% of Republicans.»

*

«We have to go back historically, to something like the 1890s post-Civil War period, to find politics in the US that are anywhere near as bitterly polarised as we have now»

*

«Polarisation in Congress is at levels we have not seen in more than 100 years»

*

«For the past few years, divides both within the state, and between California and the rest of the US, have sparked at least six initiatives aimed at breaking California into smaller states or cleaving it entirely from the rest of the country»

*

«A constitutional law denies states the right to secession, and there’s scant evidence that the majority of California’s citizens actually want to leave»

*

«Democrats might say ‘we’ve gotta keep California or we might be marginalised forever’»

*

«Following California’s peaceful secession, though, Democratic fears would come true»

*

«The balance of power in Congress would tip toward complete Republican control»

*

«California’s much more serious efforts to reduce the pace of climate change would be undone by the rest of the US»

*

«California’s secession might, however, trigger a snowballing of similar initiatives in other parts of the US. The north-east, for example, would become increasingly alienated in a Republican-dominated country with no hope of winning political representation»

* * * * * * *

La storia ci insegna che nessuna situazione politica è stabile nel tempo. Non solo. Riescono a resistere ben di più quelle strutture agili ed aperte alle mutazioni in ragione dei tempi, mentre tutte le situazioni dogmatiche sono alla fine corrose dall’azione del tempo, fino alla implosione.

Un chiaro esempio è l’attuale devoluzione dell’ideologia liberal.

Soltanto dieci anni or sono al solo accennarne si sarebbe stati etichettati come pazzi visionari.

In fondo, Lenin dice che il comunismo sarebbe stato eterno, Mussolini più modestamente parlava di era fascista, durata nei fatti circa venti anni, ed il Reich millenario è vissuto dal 1932 al 1945. Veramente poco per i tempi della storia.


Bbc. 2019-04-19. What if California seceded from the Us?

Secession is extremely improbable. But looking at what could ensue if it happened underscores some fascinating truths about the US – and where power really lies.

*

Americans have grown increasingly polarised in recent years. According to the Pew Research Center, median Republicans are more conservative than 97% of Democrats, while median Democrats are more liberal than 95% of Republicans. By contrast, in 1994 those figures were just 64% and 70%, respectively. Some scholars argue that ideological tensions have never been greater in living memory.

“We have to go back historically, to something like the 1890s post-Civil War period, to find politics in the US that are anywhere near as bitterly polarised as we have now,” says Bernard Grofman, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine. “Polarisation in Congress is at levels we have not seen in more than 100 years.”

California is no exception. For the past few years, divides both within the state, and between California and the rest of the US, have sparked at least six initiatives aimed at breaking California into smaller states or cleaving it entirely from the rest of the country.

According to Monica Toft, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University in Boston, arguments in support of these plans include the belief that the federal government no longer represents California’s economic interests; that the state is so large that proper governance is only possible if applied across a smaller geographic scale; or that irreconcilable differences have emerged between what California and the rest of the US stand for.

To be clear, unless something drastically changes, California is not going to secede any time soon. A constitutional law denies states the right to secession, and there’s scant evidence that the majority of California’s citizens actually want to leave. A 2017 survey of 1,000 Californians conducted by the University of California, Berkeley, found that a bipartisan 68% opposed such initiatives.

Yet exploring what would happen should this improbable event come to pass is still worthwhile for the questions it raises about the precarious balance of power – and politics – in the US.

Civil war?

The possibility of violence, even formal war, is the first and most crucial question for hypothesising what would happen if California tried to leave. Another US civil war may sound unlikely, but consider that the southern US did not expect lasting conflict to ensue when it decided to secede from the north 157 years ago.

Civil war did break out, leading to the loss of some 620,000 American lives and shaking the country to its core. “It seems unfathomable that the US would have another war of secession, but I think if you talked to people in the mid-19th Century they would have said the same thing,” Toft says. “The US is not immune to this.”

Other splits throughout history sparked violence too. Pakistan responded with genocide and mass rape when Bangladesh decided to become a separate nation in 1971, while Eritrea’s War of Independence from Ethiopia dragged on for 30 years.

It doesn’t always play out this way; some countries have pulled off peaceful secessions. In 1993, in what is known as the Velvet Divorce, the Czech Republic split from Slovakia with no resulting bloodshed. And despite tough talk between the EU and UK, Brexit is proceeding peacefully.

Whether the US opted to try to forcibly prevent California from leaving would largely depend on who was leading the country at the time and how they felt about secession, says Stephen Saideman, an international affairs professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. “Republicans might actually say ‘good riddance’, whereas Democrats might say ‘we’ve gotta keep California or we might be marginalised forever’,” he says.

Unlike in the US Civil War, however, there is no fundamental issue like slavery to inflame the divide, and most scholars agree that there is just too much shared identity between California and the rest of the US to imagine a scenario in which war breaks out.

“Californians are not akin to the Kurds in Iraq, the Catalans in Spain or even the Scots and Irish in the UK,” says Brendan O’Leary, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “I cannot foresee generals from the Pentagon obeying orders to go occupy California by force.”

Power politics

Following California’s peaceful secession, though, Democratic fears would come true. California is the largest state in the union by population, and its exit would radically shift the political playing field in the US. The balance of power in Congress would tip toward complete Republican control. Meanwhile, the loss of California’s electoral votes would leave little hope for the US to see another Democratic president in the near future.

“Politically, this would put Democrats in a deep, deep hole,” Saideman says. “They’ve depended on California since the early 1990s for having a chance to win presidential elections.”

In response to the red wave, remaining US Democratic representatives would likely shift their politics to the right. “If you no longer have California anchoring the Democratic Party positions, then that dramatically changes the center of gravity,” Grofman says. For Democrats, the most optimistic outcome for a US without California, he continues, would be a more centrist political arena – one akin to the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961), when bipartisan consensus allowed for major undertakings like the construction of the interstate highway system.

No matter how US politics shook out, however, losing California would deliver a significant economic blow to the newly diminished nation. California is the world’s fifth largest economy – bigger than that of the entire UK – grossing $2.7 trillion in 2017.

It also contributes more tax revenue to the US federal government than any other state, subsidising “all sorts of Republican states, for which it simply receives abuse in return”, O’Leary says.

How big the overall impact would be on the US economy would depend on whether leaders struck up free trade agreements or if they imposed tariffs and other trade barriers. No matter what, though, the US would not escape unscathed.

“The dollar would tank,” O’Leary says. “The euro and Chinese yuan could replace it as the global currency.”

The newly divided US would lose international footing and become more beholden to its allies, and some long-standing friendships would be tested. With the US leaning more strongly to the right, nations also run by right-leaning parties, such as Hungary and Russia, might become closer to the US. But relations between the US and Canada – which are generally better when both nations’ leaders sit on the same side of the political spectrum – would fray. So would those with Mexico as the increasingly right-wing US government shifted toward harder-line immigration policies.

California, on the other hand, would become an attractive new ally for those and other liberal countries. “Suddenly, instead of a bipolar system with the US and China, we’d see a multi-polar system with the US, China, California, India and so on,” Saideman says. “In international relations, multi-polar systems produce a lot more confusion because alliances matter a lot more.”

As California vied for a high standing in the international community, it would likely take a lead on key issues such as mitigating global warming. California’s progress, however, would be counterbalanced by the US’s continued backsliding, including its loosening of emissions and pollution standards, defunding of initiatives to develop sustainable energy and opening up of carbon-capturing wilderness areas for prospecting and development.

“California’s much more serious efforts to reduce the pace of climate change would be undone by the rest of the US,” Saideman says.

Immigration haven

California could also be more attractive than the US to immigrants. The newly formed country would almost certainly continue to welcome overseas innovators to Silicon Valley and its space agency, but it might also relax policies for less skilled workers as well. “Given the sheer scale of Hispanic populations in California and the role of agriculture there, I can’t imagine that California would not wish to develop a new policy on the question of welcoming people from Central America and elsewhere,” O’Leary says.

On the other hand, while highly diverse southern California might look favourably on immigration, much more conservative northern California could be staunchly opposed. “If you look at maps of the last election, there are deep pockets of red and blue, and areas in between,” Toft says. “It’s not inevitable that California is liberal.”

Grofman adds that, as humans, we are naturally inclined to view the world as a zero-sum game. “People tend to believe that adding new people will simply divide the pie in more ways,” he says. “In other words, anything you get, I lose.”

Though economists have shown time and time again that growth creates positive-sum benefits, Californians, with their newly established borders, also may fall subject to an erroneous us-versus-them mentality. “The standard rule about immigration is that whoever is already there decides that the best thing that could possibly happen is to put up barriers to anyone else coming in,” Grofman says. There’s no guarantee that an independent California would be an exception.

Also contrary to what many might assume, California’s secession probably wouldn’t kick off a sudden mass immigration of US liberals into California and an exodus of Republicans out. “I’m an American in Canada, and after every election, everyone says ‘I’m moving to Canada’, but they don’t,” Saideman says. “If California seceded there would be some flow, but it wouldn’t be as dramatic as people think, and most of it would be driven by jobs.”

California’s secession might, however, trigger a snowballing of similar initiatives in other parts of the US. The north-east, for example, would become increasingly alienated in a Republican-dominated country with no hope of winning political representation. Therefore, states stretching north from Maryland to Maine and west to Pennsylvania may see secession as the only means of escaping a permanent Republican majority.

History has seen such dynamics play out. States such as Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova only seceded from the Soviet Union after the Baltic states led the way. “In this hypothetical situation, you can imagine folks in the north-east thinking that if D.C. allowed California to go scot-free, it would probably let them go, too,” says Saideman.

Following the secession of the north-east, Florida may opt to depart, too, as could parts of Texas. At that point, other states – many of which have the economic capacity and population size to become small countries of their own – may see little incentive to stick around. In other words, California’s secession could be the beginning of the end for the United States of America as we know it.

As Grofman says, “In a world in which California seceded, the most pessimistic scenario is further breakup of the US.”

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

Trump e Census. Non è uomo da darsi per sconfitto.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-07-10.

White House Animal 001

La Suprema Corte ha rinviato la sentenza sul Census, richiedendo ulteriori chiarimenti.

Il problema è se sia costituzionale o meno che alle elezioni presidenziali votino anche gli immigrati clandestini come se fossero cittadini americani.

Mr Trump però non è uomo che si rassegni.

A giudicare da quanto i liberal democratici lo odino e lo temano si direbbe proprio che sia un grande presidente.

*

Trump presses for contentious census citizenship question despite legal uncertainty

«The Trump administration on Friday refused to back down over its bid to put a contentious citizenship question on the 2020 U.S. census, meaning a court case will move forward over whether officials were motivated by racial bias in seeking to add it.»

*

U.S. Justice Department still pondering census citizenship move: court filing

«The U.S. Justice Department is still considering how to proceed on an effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. Census, according to court papers filed on Friday.»

*

Trump considering executive order for Census citizenship question

«President Donald Trump said on Friday that he is considering an executive order to add a contentious question about citizenship to the 2020 U.S. Census, after a U.S. Supreme Court blocked his initial effort to include it.»

*

White House considering ‘every option’ for adding citizenship question to census

«With a court deadline looming, the Trump administration is looking at “every option” as it seeks to add a contentious citizenship question to the 2020 census, a White House spokesman said on Thursday.»

*

Trump mulling executive order on citizenship question in Census: Axios

«U.S. President Donald Trump is considering issuing an executive order on including a citizenship question in the U.S. census, Axios reported on Thursday.

“The administration is considering the appropriateness of an executive order that would address the constitutional need for the citizenship question to be included in the 2020 census,” the news outlet reported a senior legal source as saying»

*

New U.S. census turmoil as Trump again pursues citizenship question

«President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he was moving ahead with adding a contentious citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. census in a dramatic reversal after his own administration including Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced a day earlier that the plan had been dropped.»

*

DOJ says new legal team will take over census case

«The Justice Department announced Sunday night a new legal team will take over the Trump administration’s fight to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

The department’s spokesperson said in a statement that the DOJ is “shifting these matters to a new team of Civil Division lawyers” and it will be revealed in filings Monday.

The spokesperson did not give a reason for the change. Officials within the Civil Division’s Federal Programs Branch had been lead on the census case up until now, but they are being replaced by a combination of career and political officials from the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch, a Justice official said.»

*

Trump Is Bringing In New Lawyers On The Citizenship Question Case And No One Knows What’s Happening

«In a surprising move, lawyers from the Justice Department’s Consumer Protection Branch are taking over the census litigation from a DOJ team that specializes in cases against agencies.

The legal fight over the Trump administration’s effort to put a citizenship question on the 2020 Census took another surprising turn Monday, as the Justice Department revealed the new team of lawyers suddenly being subbed in.

The staffing change represents the latest twist since the administration revealed on July 3 that it was still looking for ways to include the citizenship question — notwithstanding statements just a day earlier by the Justice Department and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross that the administration was dropping the question.»

*

Barr says DOJ has a new way to get the citizenship question on the census

«Attorney General William Barr said Monday that the Justice Department has a new legal strategy for adding a question about citizenship status onto the 2020 census, according to a new report.

“I think over the next day or two you’ll see what approach we’re taking,” Barr told reporters in South Carolina. “And I think it does provide a pathway for getting the question on the census.”

The attempt by the Justice and Commerce departments to add the question was struck down by a recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision

* * * * * * * * * * *

Nessuno è in grado ad oggi di predire con ragionevole certezza come andranno a finire le cose.

Di certo, questa devoluzione dell’ideologia liberal democratica è combattuta e dolorosa, ma il loro impero sta sgretolandosi.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Trump

Trump e le previsioni elettorali smentite dai fatti. La storia si ripete.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-19.

Tricoteuse 002

Alle elezioni presidenziali del 2016 Mr Trump seppe conquistarsi 304 grandi elettori contro i 227 di Mrs Hillary Clinton.

Fu una vittoria strepitosa, anche se ragionando in termini percentuali lui aveva ottenuto il 46.1% dei suffragi contro il 48.2% della sua avversaria.

Sembrerebbe quasi che nessuno sappia come negli Stati Uniti si voti da due secoli e mezzo.

Tutti i media lo avevano deriso, quasi fosse stato un mero velleitario. Tutte le proiezioni elettorali lo davano concordemente per sonoramente sconfitto. Non ci fu un commentatore politico, di quelli da un milione di dollari al mese, che avesse parlato bene di Mr Trump. Si sviluppò anche una campagna elettorale anomala: più che concentrarsi sui problemi politici ed economici, i liberal democratici iniziarono ad attaccarlo in prima persona, dal colore dei capelli a sua moglie Melania, alla sua famiglia, arrivando al punto di denigrare il figlio allora di otto anni.

Eppure Mr Trump vinse, ed alla grande.

Mr Trump aveva impostato la campagna elettorale sui problemi politici ed economici della gente comune ed aveva anche promesso l’abbattimento delle tasse. Mrs Clinton, invece, aveva impostato la propria campagna sui problemi etici e morali, proposti nella visione dell’ideologia liberal democratica. Il giudizio lo dettero gli Elettori.

*

I risultati di quelle elezioni presidenziali portarono in primo piano un problema che affligge adesso tutto l’occidente.

Sia la base degli iscritti ai partiti, quelli che poi ne votano la dirigenza, sia gli eletti e la dirigenza in senso lato, sembrerebbero essere del tutto avulsi dalla realtà dei propri Elettori, che alla fine voltano loro le spalle. Casi lampanti son quello di Mrs May e del partito conservatore inglese, dei socialisti francesi ridotti al 6%, della disintegrazione della cdu e della spd in Germania, delle continue débâcle elettorali del partito democratico in Italia, per non parlare poi della cesura che corre tra attivisti ed Elettorato per il M5S.

Tratto caratteristico è che nessuna di quelle formazioni politiche sembrerebbe essere in grado di imparare dai propri errori.

I partiti politici si trovano ad un bivio senza alternative: o propongono le proprie ideologie essendo ben consci di perdere gran parte dei consensi, scelta coerente e comprensibile, oppure devono ritornare a sentire cosa dicono e vogliono gli Elettori, mettendo a tacere o allontanando gli iscritti che non la hanno ancora capita.

*

La Bbc pubblica ora un articolo che cerca di ricostruire gli eventi dell’epoca in cui Mr Trump si era presentato come candidato.

Sembrerebbe essere di grande interesse attuale, perché sembrerebbe proprio che i democratici stiano rifacendo gli errori passati, che li portarono al disastro.

«When Donald Trump descended the golden escalator to announce his run for president, none in the sceptical media pack below could have imagined he would win»

«The property mogul and TV host was the 12th candidate to come forward to try to claim the Republican Party’s nomination.»

«If the Washington establishment was sceptical, it was because this was not the first time he had floated a run for the White House, only not to follow up on his own speculation»

«Many of the reports that day reflected those doubts. Many of them, employing a degree of mockery rarely used in news, denigrated his performance at the podium inside the gilded Trump Tower. Some of them, though only some, focused on his claim Mexico was sending “rapists” over the border»

* * * * * * *

Poniamo quindi una domanda.

Perché si dovrebbe continuare a fidarsi di ambienti e società di sondaggi elettorali che da quattro anni a questa parte non ne azzeccano una nemmeno per sbaglio?


Bbc. 2019-06-15. The day Trump ran for president (and what people predicted)

When Donald Trump descended the golden escalator to announce his run for president, none in the sceptical media pack below could have imagined he would win.

It was on this day four years ago – at the exact same stage of the last US presidential cycle – that Mr Trump made his announcement: he would, for real this time, run for the highest office in the land.

The property mogul and TV host was the 12th candidate to come forward to try to claim the Republican Party’s nomination.

If the Washington establishment was sceptical, it was because this was not the first time he had floated a run for the White House, only not to follow up on his own speculation.

Many of the reports that day reflected those doubts. Many of them, employing a degree of mockery rarely used in news, denigrated his performance at the podium inside the gilded Trump Tower. Some of them, though only some, focused on his claim Mexico was sending “rapists” over the border.

What did commentators that day fail to understand about the man who would be president? And what did they get right?

——-

When Donald Trump descended the golden escalator to announce his run for president, none in the sceptical media pack below could have imagined he would win.

It was on this day four years ago – at the exact same stage of the last US presidential cycle – that Mr Trump made his announcement: he would, for real this time, run for the highest office in the land.

The property mogul and TV host was the 12th candidate to come forward to try to claim the Republican Party’s nomination.

If the Washington establishment was sceptical, it was because this was not the first time he had floated a run for the White House, only not to follow up on his own speculation.

Many of the reports that day reflected those doubts. Many of them, employing a degree of mockery rarely used in news, denigrated his performance at the podium inside the gilded Trump Tower. Some of them, though only some, focused on his claim Mexico was sending “rapists” over the border.

What did commentators that day fail to understand about the man who would be president? And what did they get right?

How does that view look now?

“Donald Trump got people to take notice all right, but I never thought someone with negative ratings as high as his could capture the nomination,” Anthony writes in 2019. “I figured the Republican establishment would coalesce around an alternative – and it never really did.

“There’s a theory that Trump’s presidential campaign was a publicity stunt gone awry, a real-life version of The Producers, where an enterprise designed to fail became an accidental success.

“Only Mr Trump knows the truth, but his pugilistic brand of politics capitalised on a moment in American history when just enough voters were fed up with the status quo to take a chance on an unlikely outsider.”

——-

‘Much-needed seriousness’ – Democrats

What they said in 2015

“Today, Donald Trump became the second major Republican candidate to announce for president in two days,” Democratic National Committee (DNC) spokeswoman Holly Shulman said in a statement that proceeded to lay on the sarcasm in spades.

“He adds some much-needed seriousness that has previously been lacking from the GOP field, and we look forward to hearing more about his ideas for the nation.”

How does that view look now?

Neither the DNC nor Holly Shulman responded when asked how they viewed those comments now.

——-

Trump may have an opening – Washington Examiner

What they said in 2015

Days before Mr Trump’s announcement, Byron York wrote in the conservative Washington Examiner that the mogul could appeal to Republican voters tired with the direction the party was taking.

“It’s been clear for quite a while that some conservative voters are so disgusted with the GOP that they would entertain the notion of a third party,” he wrote.

“If he pursues a race seriously, Trump could win the support of those I’ve-had-it-up-to-my-eyeballs voters. Their concerns aren’t a joke. If Trump doesn’t address them, somebody else will.”

How does that view look now?

The fact Mr Trump was not an establishment politician, and could shake up the system, was a factor his supporters went on to regularly cite for why they loved him.

Here’s what some of his supporters told us in summer 2016:

Four years on, there is no question that the Republican Party has been shaped in the image of the man who led it to the White House: more hardline and more aggressive.

Former Ohio governor John Kasich, who was the last Republican candidate standing alongside Mr Trump in 2016, said in May that it was now the Trump party. “Ninety percent of the Republican Party supports him,” he told CNN.

——-

All eyes on the primaries – New York Times

What they said in 2015

Correspondent Maggie Haberman predicted Mr Trump’s campaign would end with him not winning the nomination (and instead earning a nice fat cheque for the next season of The Apprentice).

But she also anticipated intriguing times ahead in the crucial early states in the Republican primary race.

“He would likely have to somehow outperform both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in Florida, where he is a part-time resident,” she wrote. “If Mr Trump could buy a state with an early nominating contest, like New Hampshire, and brand it with his name, it might help.”

Anyone suggesting Mr Trump could win a primary at this stage was… a lone voice, shall we say.

How does that view look now?

Well, The Apprentice did return, but Mr Trump was a bit too busy to host it by that point.

As far as the primary race was concerned, Maggie Haberman was right – his win in New Hampshire in the second primary gave him a critical boost.

After that, he didn’t look back. And by the time of the Florida primary in March 2016, his momentum did help him outperform Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush (who had by that point withdrawn from the race) – Mr Trump won 45.7% of the vote there.

——-

Trump could dominate debate – Washington Post

What they said in 2015

Trump the performer could take up all the oxygen of the other candidates, predicted Chris Cillizza, now of CNN.

He will interrupt, bully and seek to dominate the debate in ways that will make it impossible to get a word in edge-wise,” he wrote. “And, if past is prologue, the sorts of things he does say when he gains control of the debate floor will be stuff that appeals heavily to the Republican base and turns off, well, almost everyone else…

“While it’s possible Trump’s poll numbers collapse between now and August, that doesn’t seem very likely since much of how you perform in national polling at this point is a function of pure name recognition, and Trump has plenty of that.”

How does that view look now?

Even though the Trump campaign didn’t launch until mid-June, analysis shows his campaign was the second-most covered news story of the year on US television networks in 2015. No other candidate – apart from the Democrats’ Hillary Clinton – was anywhere close.

When the first Republican debate rolled around in August 2015, all the headlines were about him and what he said (in this case, he refused to withdraw comments he had made denigrating women). He would continue to dominate the news agenda all the way through to the election.

——-

How does that view look now?

Even though the Trump campaign didn’t launch until mid-June, analysis shows his campaign was the second-most covered news story of the year on US television networks in 2015. No other candidate – apart from the Democrats’ Hillary Clinton – was anywhere close.

When the first Republican debate rolled around in August 2015, all the headlines were about him and what he said (in this case, he refused to withdraw comments he had made denigrating women). He would continue to dominate the news agenda all the way through to the election.

Trump’s ‘pretty sexy’ message – Fox News

What he said in 2015

Republican media strategist Adam Goodman predicted Mr Trump’s status as an outsider billionaire who was “unashamed” about his wealth could prove attractive to voters.

Appearing on conservative channel Fox News on the day of Mr Trump’s announcement, he told broadcaster Gregg Jarrett that Mr Trump was “talking to the disaffected” American.

In prescient comments, he discussed how Mr Trump’s “America First” platform would appeal to those voters.

“In a way he’s sending a signal to a lot of Americans who are not making it, which is: ‘Put me in place, and I will make sure America’s brand is back on top again’. ‘I will make sure that when I am president of the United States, I will do everything I can to put you first, and allow you the opportunities I had to make it and fulfil the American dream.’

“That’s a pretty sexy message for anyone to hear.”

How does that view look now?

Four years on, Mr Goodman maintains he “felt something” when watching Mr Trump declare his candidacy for the Republican ticket. He tells the BBC he stands by the comments he made on Fox News.

Mr Trump’s “America First” message, Mr Goodman says, was “code” to disenfranchised Americans who felt the system had “let them down”.

The “sexy message” he described on Fox News gave Americans “something to feel good about in a pro-America way”.

“Donald Trump, for all of his faults, certainly brought that message. Unashamedly and unedited,” Mr Goodman says. “Trump reflected what was in people.”

Has Trump delivered on his promises?

Neither Mr Trump nor his nationalistic platform have changed since then, Mr Goodman says.

“Trump today is the same as candidate Trump in 2015,” he says. In the 2020 presidential election, Mr Goodman predicts Mr Trump will leave a “lot of people scratching their heads again”.

——-

Jeb Bush would win the nomination – Polls

What they said in 2015

On the day Mr Trump entered the race, polling data painted a fairly bleak picture for him. He was languishing towards the bottom of the pack with 3.6% of support, according to a RealClearPolitics average of polls.

Leading the field on 10.8% was former Florida governor Jeb Bush, ahead of Wisconsin’s then-governor Scott Walker (yes, really).

Mr Trump’s average in the polls would dip to 3.2% on 22 June 2015, but that would prove to be his lowest ebb. From that point onwards, his rise was meteoric.

His approval rating spiked on 12 July 2015, when he accused Mexicans of “killing us at the border” at a mass rally in Phoenix.

Eight days later, he overtook Mr Bush, his polling average climbing to 16.8%. After that, only Ben Carson would surpass him – once on 5 November 2015 – until his nomination was confirmed.

What do the polls say now?

It’s only the Democrats picking a candidate this time around and so far, their race has been dominated by one name: former US Vice-President Joe Biden.

He has been the runaway leader for the nomination, even before entering the race on 25 April this year. As of 12 June, his polling average, according to RealClearPolitics, puts him top at 32.8%.

Vermont senator Bernie Sanders is his closest competitor on 17.3%, while the rest of the pack – including Elizabeth Warren (9.2%), Pete Buttigieg (7.2%) and Kamala Harris (7.2%) – trail in single digits.

Those ratings are likely to fluctuate as candidates lock horns in Democratic primary debates starting on 26 June. As Mr Trump’s unexpected ascendancy in the 2016 race shows though, it’s still too early to make any sensible predictions…

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Trump

KKR vorrebbe comprare da Springer Business Insider Bild e Politico.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-18.

2019-06-14__KKR__001

KKR, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, è una società di investimenti globali, con un total assets di circa 40 miliardi Usd.

Come tutte le persone di mondo, per sopravvivere versano generosi contributi ai partiti politici.

2019-06-14__KKR__002

Nel 2016 hanno elargito 2,654,443 dollari ai partiti politici: 329,223 Usd ai democratici e 1,642,869 Usd ai repubblicani.

Diciamo pure che dai finanziamenti effettuati ben si comprende l’orientamento politico.

*

«US private equity giant KKR wants to take the owner of Business Insider private in a deal that values the European publishing company at nearly $8 billion»

«KKR on Wednesday offered investors in Axel Springer €63 ($71.40) per share in a deal that has support from the company’s largest shareholder»

«The offer values the Berlin-based company at €6.8 billion ($7.7 billion).»

«The price is a 12.5% premium over Tuesday’s close and an increase of nearly 40% from late May, when talks between the companies were first reported»

«Axel Springer …. owns a range of publications, including top German tabloid newspaper Bild and the web site Business Insider»

«Axel Spring said tougher economic conditions and the introduction of a digital tax in France forced the company to change its forecast»

«Springer, the widow of founder Axel Springer and owner of 42% of the company, said in a statement that partnering with KKR would allow for new investments»

«In February, it bought Tele München Group, one of Germany’s largest television production companies»

* * * * * * *

Vi sarebbero almeno due elementi da prendere in considerazione.

In primo luogo, si deve nuovamente constatare la carenza di fondi per investimenti industriali in Germania, fatto questo che obbliga alla fine alla vendita delle attività per carenza di investimenti. La Germania sta liquidando gran parte dei gioielli di famiglia.

In secondo luogo, si prende atto di quanto sia vasta l’operazione lanciata dai repubblicano per acquisire le principali testate mondiali, al fine poi di trasformarle lentamente da liberal in organi di stampa ed informazione amici.

* * * * * * *

È una operazione di vastissimo raggio che per il momento ha comportato investimenti per oltre i duecento miliardi di dollari.


Cnn. 2019-06-12. KKR is buying the publisher of Business Insider and Bild in a $7.7 billion deal

US private equity giant KKR wants to take the owner of Business Insider private in a deal that values the European publishing company at nearly $8 billion.

KKR (KKR) on Wednesday offered investors in Axel Springer €63 ($71.40) per share in a deal that has support from the company’s largest shareholder, Friede Springer, and CEO Mathias Döpfner.

The offer values the Berlin-based company at €6.8 billion ($7.7 billion). The price is a 12.5% premium over Tuesday’s close and an increase of nearly 40% from late May, when talks between the companies were first reported.

Axel Springer, which owns a range of publications, including top German tabloid newspaper Bild and the website Business Insider, has been under intense pressure from investors in recent months.

The publisher said Wednesday that it expects revenue for the current financial year to decline “in the low single-digit percentage range.” It also expects profit to fall.

Axel Spring said tougher economic conditions and the introduction of a digital tax in France forced the company to change its forecast.

Springer, the widow of founder Axel Springer and owner of 42% of the company, said in a statement that partnering with KKR would allow for new investments.

“Our journalistic principles and our corporate culture remain the foundation on which we build and in which we trust,” she said. “KKR would be a good partner who sees this the same way.”

Döpfner, the CEO, said in a statement that going private will allow the publisher to shift its focus away from short-term financial targets. He plans new investments in people, products, technology and brands.

Berenberg analyst Sarah Simon said in a research note that going private could increase Axel Springer’s flexibility, especially if it seeks to acquire more classifieds businesses, such as parts of eBay. EBay said in March it is considering a spinoff of its classifieds business.

“We believe that management is taking the right approach: indeed, we believe that additional spending is crucial to the long-term future of the business,” Simon wrote.

Axel Springer also operates a 50-50 joint venture that publishes the European edition of Politico.

KKR is no stranger to media investments. In February, it bought Tele München Group, one of Germany’s largest television production companies.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump, Supreme Court, Census e strilli dei liberal democratici.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-16.

Supreme Court

Entro fine giugno la Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti si pronuncerà se il Census possa o meno richiedere la nazionalità.

Trump, Lib Dem, Suprema Corte e Census. Un duello all’ultimo sangue.

Suprema Corte. Senza i liberal democratici sarebbero disoccupati.

Corte Suprema. Il 23 aprile primo pronunciamento sulla costituzionalità del Census.

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

*

Riassumiamo.

Il problema se il Census possa o meno chiedere agli intervistati di quale cittadinanza godano sottende una conseguenza gravida di ricadute.

A rigor di termini potrebbe votare nelle elezioni federali o statali solo ed esclusivamente chi abbia cittadinanza statunitense.

Se così fosse, i liberal democratici che fanno votare gli immigrati illegali, perderebbero un numero di voti stimabile trai sei milioni e mezzo nel caso più restrittivo, fino a valutazioni di oltre sedici milioni.

Non solo.

Sulla base dei dati censuali si ripartiscono i deputati che spettano ai singoli stati: la California ed altri stati liberal si troverebbe con un numero di congressisti dimezzato.

Per finire, i fondi federali, una gran parte, è ripartita tra gli stati i base ai dati censuali.

*

I liberal democratici stanno schiumando rabbia impotente: Mr Trump li sta massacrando ogni giorno che passa, tagliando loro le una volta rigogliose fonti di denari pubblici.

Con Mr Trump anche i liberal democratci dovranno lavorare per vivere.

«The Trump administration denied accusations that it concealed evidence that its plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. Census was aimed at boosting Republicans’ electoral power, and said its accusers were making up a conspiracy theory.»

Ma non si rassegnano.

Stanno provando già su questa terra quelle che saranno le pene infernali nell’aldilà.


Reuters. 2019-06-04. Trump administration denies deceit in census citizenship fight

The Trump administration denied accusations that it concealed evidence that its plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. Census was aimed at boosting Republicans’ electoral power, and said its accusers were making up a conspiracy theory.

In a letter to Manhattan U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, who in January blocked the citizenship question from being used on the decennial census, the government called the allegations an “eleventh-hour campaign to improperly derail the Supreme Court’s resolution of the government’s appeal.”

The conservative-majority Supreme Court is due to issue a ruling by the end of June on whether the question can be added in time for next year’s census.

Furman has scheduled a hearing into the new controversy for Wednesday.

Several immigrant advocacy groups, among the plaintiffs in the case, submitted a filing to the Manhattan federal court on May 30 saying that during the course of their lawsuit the administration hid the fact that Thomas Hofeller, a longtime Republican specialist on drawing electoral districts, played a “significant role” in planning the citizenship question.

Hofeller concluded in a 2015 study that asking census respondents whether they are U.S. citizens “would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats” and “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” in redistricting, the plaintiffs said.

Hofeller, who died in 2018, went on to ghostwrite a draft letter from the Department of Justice to the Department of Commerce, asking for a citizenship question on the grounds it would help enforce voting rights, according to the plaintiffs.

In Monday’s filing, the government said it did not rely on Hofeller’s work and said the plaintiffs were “conjuring a conspiracy theory involving a deceased political operative.”

A Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement: “This baseless attack on the integrity of the department and its employees is based on nothing more than fevered speculation.”

Opponents have said a citizenship question would cause a sizeable undercount by deterring immigrant households and Latinos from filling out the forms, out of fear the information would be shared with law enforcement.

Democrats, immigrant advocates and demographers say such an undercount could deprive some communities of funds and political representation because the Census determines how the federal government distributes aid, as well as seats in Congress.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Usa – Messico. No migranti, no dazi. Accordo fatto.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-08.

2019-06-08__Trump_Messico

«Sono lieto di informare che gli Stati Uniti hanno firmato una accordo col Messico»

«Le tariffe che dovevano essere applicate dagli Usa lunedì sono quindi sospese a tempo indeterminato»

«Il Messico, in cambio, ha concordato di prendere misure forti per fermare il flusso della migrazione attraverso il Messico e verso il nostro confine meridionale.»

«Questo sarà fatto per ridurre grandemente, o eliminare, l’immigrazione illegale proveniente dal Messico e verso gli Stati Uniti»

«The United States and Mexico struck a deal on Friday to avert a tariff war, with Mexico agreeing to rapidly expand a controversial asylum program and deploy security forces to stem the flow of illegal Central American migrants.»

«U.S. President Donald Trump had threatened to impose 5% import tariffs on all Mexican goods starting on Monday if Mexico did not commit to do more to tighten its borders»

«I am pleased to inform you that The United States of America has reached a signed agreement with Mexico. The Tariffs scheduled to be implemented by the U.S. on Monday, against Mexico, are hereby indefinitely suspended. Mexico, in turn, has agreed to take strong measures to….»

* * * * * * *

E così alla fine si ragiona.            

«indefinitely suspended»

Gli Stati Uniti sospendono l’applicazione dei dazi sui prodotti importati dal Messico, e questo interrompe il flusso migratorio illegale verso gli Stati Uniti.

Sospeso non significa abrogato.

Quindi, il Messico ci pensi sopra due volte se far riprendere il flusso dei migranti ‘clandestini’, che poi, diciamolo pure, così tanto clandestini proprio non lo erano:

Trump, Messico, trattative dazi e migranti. Mr Soros e sodali.


Ansa. 2019-06-08. Trump: accordo col Messico su migranti, niente dazi

WASHINGTON, 8 GIU – Niente dazi Usa sull’export del Messico. I due Paesi hanno raggiunto un’intesa dopo tre giorni di negoziati. L’annuncio e’ stato dato via Twitter da Donald Trump, poche ore dopo il suo rientro dal lungo viaggio europeo.
“Sono lieto di informare che gli Stati Uniti hanno firmato una accordo col Messico. Le tariffe che dovevano essere applicate dagli Usa lunedì sono quindi sospese a tempo indeterminato”, ha scritto il presidente. “Il Messico, in cambio, ha concordato di prendere misure forti per fermare il flusso della migrazione attraverso il Messico e verso il nostro confine meridionale. Questo sarà fatto per ridurre grandemente, o eliminare, l’immigrazione illegale proveniente dal Messico e verso gli Stati Uniti”, ha aggiunto.

Gia’ quando era a bordo dell’Air Force One il tycoon aveva lanciato segnali di ottimismo, twittando che c’era “una buona chance di fare l’accordo”. I dettagli sono stati diffusi dal dipartimento di Stato americano, che ha condotto i negoziati con Messico, Paese fortemente deciso ad evitare la minaccia di dazi crescenti sul proprio export, a partire dal 5% sino al 25% in ottobre.

Nella dichiarazione comune il Messico si impegna a fare tre cose: schierare da lunedi’ la guardia nazionale, in particolare al confine sud con il Guatemala; rafforzare l’applicazione delle leggi sull’immigrazione e accogliere sul proprio territorio un maggior numero di richiedenti asilo in Usa finche’ non verra’ completato l’iter della loro richiesta.

A costoro verranno offerte occasioni di lavoro. Il Messico sembra aver rifiutato la richiesta Usa di diventare un “paese terzo sicuro”, che l’avrebbe costretto a prendersi gran parte dei migranti centroamericani.

Il segretario di stato Mike Pompeo ha ringraziato la controparte. “Penso che sia un giusto equilibrio”, ha commentato dal canto suo il ministro degli esteri messicano Marcelo Ebrard.

Le parti continueranno a discutere per altri 90 giorni su ulteriori passi da prendere. Si conclude cosi’ per ora un conflitto da cui Trump esce in qualche modo vincitore grazie all’arma delle tariffe, anche se l’entrata in vigore dei dazi avrebbe danneggiato pure i consumatori e l’economia americana. E anche i mercati, da lunedi’, tireranno un sospiro di sollievo, in attesa di vedere come finira’ la guerra dei dazi con la Cina. 

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

Trump e Nationwide Court Injunctions. – Bloomberg.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-02.

Supreme Court

Da un punto di vista strettamente giuridico l’Amministrazione Trump intende porre al giudizio della Suprema Corte il quesito se i giudici federali distrettuali possano o meno sentenziare ingiunzioni con effetto su tutto il territorio americano. L’Amministrazione sostiene che una Corte federale distrettuale dovrebbe avere potere solo nel distretto in cui opera ed in relazione al singolo caso su cui abbia emesso sentenza.

È un quesito giuridicamente di non poco conto, anche tenendo conto di come nel corso di più di due secoli si possano riscontrare sentenze non concordanti.

*

Il problema sarebbe limitati ad una interessante ma circoscritta problematica giuridica, se nel corso degli ultimi decenni, e massimamente negli ultimi due anni, i giudici federali distrettuali non avessero usato con crescente frequenza di questa opzione, prevalentemente per fini politici.

Nel caso dell’Amministrazione Trump, i giudici distrettuali, specie quelli del 9th Circuito, hanno sistematicamente bloccato gli Ordini Esecutivi del Presidente Trump, sicuri che intanto la relativa Corte di Appello era composta da giudici di nomina liberal. Poi il tutto approdava alla Suprema Corte che ristabiliva una certa quale legalità, ma l’azione politica era stata fatta e l’azione di governo bloccata per oltre un anno.

In passato, a dir di molti correttamente, le corti distrettuali si limitavano a rimandare alla Corte Suprema i giudizi di costituzionalità, e ciò non senza sensate ragioni giuridiche: esse non sono infatti corti costituzionali.

*

Adesso i tempi sono mutati.

Trump vs Liberal. Ultima battaglia per la vita o la morte nel generale silenzio.

La Procura Federale incrimina un giudice liberal per ‘conspiracy and obstruction’.

I liberal democratici sarebbero colpiti nella carne viva da un provvedimento del genere. Hanno fatto infatti largo uso delle sentenze politicizzate.

Intanto, almeno per il momento, hanno fatto scendere un ferreo silenzio stampa su questi argomenti, ma a cadenza settimanale pubblicano un editoriale la cui stesura è affidata a parti terze.

Di questi tempi è intervenuto il The New York Times, che riportiamo in extenso per completezza informativa.

Premettiamo che non ne condividiamo nemmeno una virgola.

Nota.

L’articolo riporta che le Nationwide Court Injunctions roiniziato ad essere usate a partire dagli anni sessanta. Vi sono tuttavia sentenze sull’argomento anche nei due secoli precedenti. Vedremo come la Suprema Corte le interpreterà nei Certiorari.

* * * * *

«Vice President Mike Pence says that the Trump administration will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to bar federal district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — the court orders that make the entire government stop enforcing a law or policy that one district judge finds is likely to be unconstitutional»

*

«But in the long run, nationwide injunctions are a powerful judicial tool to check the president and Congress, regardless of party»

*

«So you can expect the justices to think hard before taking that power away from lower courts — and effectively transferring it to themselves»

*

«Such injunctions didn’t appear in the U.S. until the 1960s, and even then were not widely accepted»

*

«They have become increasingly common in the past decade»

*

«Pence said in his speech that the Trump administration has been blocked by more nationwide injunctions than the previous presidents combined»

*

«The law professors against the injunctions (also sometimes called “universal” injunctions because they bind the government universally) point out that the decisions of individual federal district courts aren’t supposed to be binding on other jurisdictions. It’s anomalous for one judge in one place to issue a ruling that affects the whole country»

*

«The critics add that allowing nationwide injunctions leads litigants to cherry-pick judges whom they expect to be sympathetic to their cause»

*

«The leading legal defense of the injunctions is that there are some policies where it would simply make no sense for the law to be different in areas»

*

«What’s more, sometimes blocking a policy in one place effectively means blocking it everywhere»

*

«Members of Congress are pretty good at remembering that they won’t be the majority party forever»

*

«If the justices were to hold that the lower courts lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions, then there would be only one way for the courts to block a law nationwide: The Supreme Court would have to issue the injunction itself. After all, it’s the only court with a truly national jurisdiction»

* * * * * *

Apprezziamo il fatto che l’editoriale del The New York Times riporti i differenti punti di vista, ma soprattutto valutiamo essere proficuo che si siano usati finalmente toni calmi ed un linguaggio degno della profondità dell’argomento in esame.


Bloomberg. 2019-05-12. Trump Is Stuck With Nationwide Court Injunctions

The Supreme Court is unlikely to step in to stop the use of this powerful judicial tool because that would give the justices more work.

*

Vice President Mike Pence says that the Trump administration will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to bar federal district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — the court orders that make the entire government stop enforcing a law or policy that one district judge finds is likely to be unconstitutional.

Such injunctions are always bad for the administration that’s in office, so you can understand why this Republican administration might think the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would be sympathetic to its request.

But in the long run, nationwide injunctions are a powerful judicial tool to check the president and Congress, regardless of party. So you can expect the justices to think hard before taking that power away from lower courts — and effectively transferring it to themselves.

Until Pence’s comments on Wednesday in a speech before the Federalist Society, the whole topic of nationwide injunctions was one that only law professors could really love. And love it we did. An important article appeared in the Harvard Law Review in 2017 arguing for reform of the practice. That led to commentary and discussion, including another important 2018 article in the New York University Law Review in defense of nationwide injunctions.

Law professors care about the structure of the whole legal system, and that emphasis shaped the legal analysis on both sides. Such injunctions didn’t appear in the U.S. until the 1960s, and even then were not widely accepted. They have become increasingly common in the past decade. Pence said in his speech that the Trump administration has been blocked by more nationwide injunctions than the previous presidents combined.

The law professors against the injunctions (also sometimes called “universal” injunctions because they bind the government universally) point out that the decisions of individual federal district courts aren’t supposed to be binding on other jurisdictions. It’s anomalous for one judge in one place to issue a ruling that affects the whole country. The critics add that allowing nationwide injunctions leads litigants to cherry-pick judges whom they expect to be sympathetic to their cause. That’s why conservatives went to Texas to get the Affordable Care Act blocked nationwide, and why liberals went to northern California and Washington State to go after President Donald Trump’s Muslim travel ban.

The leading legal defense of the injunctions is that there are some policies where it would simply make no sense for the law to be different in areas that happen to fall under the jurisdiction of different federal courts. Immigration is an obvious one. It would be very strange if different legal standards for admission applied at border crossings in Texas than in California.

What’s more, sometimes blocking a policy in one place effectively means blocking it everywhere. If Trump’s travel ban had been blocked in some places but not others, that presumably would have allowed people covered by the ban to travel to different ports of entry to get into the country.

The thing about this serious and earnest law professor debate is that it has a tendency to downplay the brutal power politics that infuse the question of nationwide injunctions. The real-world political question raised by the injunctions is who will win and who will lose if such injunctions are disallowed.

The answer is a little tricky. For one thing, nationwide injunctions are a tool used to go after the president and Congress. They are attractive to whichever party is out of power — to Republicans who lost the Obamacare fight in Congress to Democrats, and to Democrats who lost the presidential election to Trump.

That’s probably the reason that Congress hasn’t passed proposals to outlaw the injunctions. Members of Congress are pretty good at remembering that they won’t be the majority party forever. It’s a little risky to pass a law prohibiting a legal tool your side might need in the future.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, the conventional wisdom is that the justices are perfectly happy with the injunctions. Admittedly, their use has increased rapidly in recent years. But if the Supreme Court wants to overturn a given nationwide injunction, it can do so, provided there are five votes.

Under the current structure, then, the justices can leave nationwide injunctions in place and avoid taking responsibility for them. But they have a failsafe for injunctions they really don’t like; they can overturn them.

If the justices were to hold that the lower courts lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions, then there would be only one way for the courts to block a law nationwide: The Supreme Court would have to issue the injunction itself. After all, it’s the only court with a truly national jurisdiction.

That wouldn’t give the justices any extra power, because they can already issue nationwide injunctions. But it would give the justices more work.

They would have to field requests constantly for nationwide injunctions in cases that haven’t yet been resolved by the lower courts. (They are now asked to overturn nationwide injunctions when those are issued by lower courts, but aren’t plagued by ceaseless requests to issue such injunctions in the first place.)

The upshot is that, if they prohibit nationwide injunctions by the lower courts, the justices will be agreeing to place themselves more in the spotlight, without the plausible deniability that allows them to leave injunctions in place.

It’s conceivable that the current Supreme Court would be willing to take on that even more prominent role, in the expectation that the five conservative justices will be prepared to grant their own nationwide injunctions against Democratic presidents and deny them when it comes to Republican presidents.

Yet it isn’t totally clear that, from the court’s perspective, this higher profile role actually is worth the effort. Nationwide injunctions may survive the Trump administration’s hopes of getting the Supreme Court to do away with them.

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.

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, 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.