Il Presidente Trump ha emanato un Ordine in cui dichiara emergenza al confine con il Messico ed ordina la costruzione di un muro. Questo tipo di provvedimento si era reso necessario dopo che il Congresso aveva più volte negato al Presidente i fondi per la costruzione.
La risposta dei liberal democratici è stata molto rapida.
California, New York are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon e Virginia, tutti stati americani con governatori democratici hanno presentato istanza alla Corte Federale del Distretto di San Francisco per bloccare lo stato di emergenza dichiarato dal presidente Trump al confine con il Messico, con la seguente motivazione:
«Contrary to the will of Congress, the president has used the pretext of a manufactured ‘crisis’ of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction, military construction and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-Mexico border»
L’istanza è stata nominalmente presentata da Xavier Becerra, un politico e avvocato statunitense di origini messicane, membro del Partito Democratico e deputato al Congresso per lo stato della California dal 1993 al 2017. È Procuratore generale della California dal 2017.
Manco a dirlo, questa istanza è stata presentata alla Federal District Court in San Francisco.Tale Corte dispone di 21 giudici, dei quali diciotto sono liberal democratici e solo tre sono repubblicani: in poche parole la sentenza è già scritta ed alla fine ne verrà investita la Corte Suprema.
* * * * * * *
Prosegue spietata la guerra civile americana che contrappone i liberal democratici alla Amministrazione Trump.
Siamo arrivati, finalmente si potrebbe dire, allo scontro finale.
Mr Trump ha già un contenzioso in attesa di giudizio presso la Suprema Corte:
Ricordiamo che tale ricorso verte in buona sostanza sulla possibilità di voto che negli stati a governatorato democratico è concessa agli immigrati clandestini illegali, cui si oppone l’Amministrazione Trump. Nei fatti, il potere politico dei democratici affonda le sue radici proprio negli immigrati illegali, stimati essere, in via del tutto riduttiva, almeno 6.5 milioni.
Nessuno potrebbe al momento predire come evolveranno le cose: possiamo solo dire che una vittoria del Presidente Trump annienterebbe il potere politico ed economico dei liberal democratici.
Si resta tuttavia con la bocca amara, molto amara, al dover constatare quanto i liberal democratici siano determinati ad usare la giustizia come un gruppo di fuoco politico.
Il giudizio se costruire o meno il muro è di natura politica.
Ci si pensi bene. Giudici nominati non eletti saranno chiamati ad esprimere un giudizio politico che almeno pro tempore potrebbe essere vincolante per l’intera nazione. Questa è dittatura, non certo democrazia.
La tanto millantata divisione dei poteri è disattesa proprio da coloro che ogni giorno se ne sciacquano la bocca e vorrebbero tener lezione a tutto il mondo.
* * *
«The States of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Attorney General Dana Nessel on behalf of the People of Michigan (collectively, “Plaintiff States”), bring this action to protect their residents, natural resources, and economic interests from President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution. Contrary to the will of Congress, the President has used the pretext of a manufactured “crisis” of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction, military construction, and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-Mexico border. This includes the diversion of funding that each of the Plaintiff States receive. Defendants must be enjoined from carrying out President Trump’s unconstitutional and unlawful scheme. ….
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff States respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor, and grant the following relief:
Issue a judicial declaration that the Executive Actions’ diversion of federal funds toward construction of a border wall is unconstitutional and/or unlawful because it: (a) violates the separation of powers doctrine; (b) violates the Appropriations Clause; and (c) exceeds congressional authority conferred to the Executive Branch and is ultra vires;
The States of California and New Mexico seek a judicial declaration that Defendants violated NEPA and the APA and further seek an order enjoining DHS, requiring it to comply with NEPA and the APA—including preparing an EIS—before taking any further action pursuant to the Executive Actions;
Permanently enjoin Defendants from constructing a border wall without an appropriation by Congress for that purpose;
Permanently enjoin Defendants from diverting federal funding toward construction of a border wall; and
Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.»
WASHINGTON — A coalition of 16 states, including California and New York, on Monday challenged President Trump in court over his plan to use emergency powers to spend billions of dollars on his border wall.
The lawsuit is part of a constitutional confrontation that Mr. Trump set off on Friday when he declared that he would spend billions of dollars more on border barriers than Congress had granted him. The clash raises questions over congressional control of spending, the scope of emergency powers granted to the president, and how far the courts are willing to go to settle such a dispute.
The suit, filed in Federal District Court in San Francisco, argues that the president does not have the power to divert funds for constructing a wall along the Mexican border because it is Congress that controls spending.
Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, said in an interview that the president himself had undercut his argument that there was an emergency on the border.
The lawsuit, California et al. v. Trump et al., says that the plaintiff states are going to court to protect their residents, natural resources and economic interests. “Contrary to the will of Congress, the president has used the pretext of a manufactured ‘crisis’ of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction, military construction and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-Mexico border,” the lawsuit says.
Congress is on its own separate track to challenge the president’s declaration. The House of Representatives, now controlled by Democrats, may take a two-prong approach when it returns from a recess. One would be to bring a lawsuit of its own.
Lawmakers could also vote to override the declaration that an emergency exists, but it is doubtful that Congress has the votes to override Mr. Trump’s certain veto, leaving the courts a more likely venue.
Joining California and New York are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Virginia. All have Democratic governors but one — Maryland, whose attorney general is a Democrat — and most have legislatures controlled by Democrats.
Una consolidata regola diplomatica impone di mandare un telegramma di augurio ad un nuovo eletto entro il giorno stesso della elezione. Nel caso di Mr Trump, Francia e Germania provvidero ben oltre dopo una settimana. Questo fu uno sgarro del quale ben difficilmente ci si potrebbe dimenticare.
Francia e Germania avevano fatto attive campagne elettorali a favore di Mrs Hillay Clinton. Nulla da eccepire, tranne il fatto che una potenza straniera mai dovrebbe ingerirsi negli affari interni di un’altra potenza.
Mr Macron e Frau Merkel furono tra gli ultimi ad essere ricevuti alla White House, e non per invito, ma a loro richiesta. Mr Trump concesse a Mr Macron un’accoglienza trionfale durata svariati giorni, mentre Frau Merkel fu ricevuta prima da un addetto di quarta categoria, e poi poté vedere per 17 minuti il presidente Trump.
Questo linguaggio diplomatico è molto chiaro.
Ci si domanda quindi come si sia potuto deteriorare un rapporto Trump – Macron che, apparentemente, era iniziato abbastanza bene.
* * * * * * *
«After 18 months of frustrating efforts to sustain a partnership with America’s president, the “special relationship” is over.»
«On a damp Tuesday evening in December, most of France was focused on the Yellow-Vest crisis that had seen demonstrators smashing up Paris. But holed up in his Elysee palace, President Emmanuel Macron and his team were dealing with a greater threat to the status quo not just in France, but across the western world.»
«Donald Trump was about to announce the pullout of U.S. troops from Syria …. Such a decision would be a body-blow to U.S. allies in the European Union»
«EU leaders can no longer rely on the U.S. to help underpin European security»
«On the call that night in December, the 41-year-old president reminded Trump of his pledge to stand alongside his allies in the fight against terrorism and urged him to consider his responsibilities to Europe. Less than 24 hours later, Trump announced the withdrawal in a tweet.»
«“Both of us are probably mavericks,” Macron said in April during a state visit to Washington. “We have a very special relationship.”»
«Call logs from both presidents’ offices, which can sometimes be incomplete, indicate the two men held at least 19 phone calls last year. Trump spoke to Merkel just three times»
«By the time Trump returned to France to commemorate the centenary of the end of World War I, any pretense at a rapport was gone.»
«Macron lectured Trump in front of dozens of world leaders, saying nations that put their own interests first had lost their moral compass. Trump responded by mocking France for its military defeats to Germany.»
«Behind the scenes, French aides insisted Macron’s attacks on nationalism were not directed at Trump. But they also signaled that the French leader was deliberately taking a more assertive posture in diplomatic relations»
«Trump though has frequently shown tepid support for the alliance, complaining that U.S. allies don’t spend enough on defense and raising questions about Article V. An actual U.S. withdrawal would mean a tectonic shift in the global order and hand Putin the biggest victory of his career.»
«allies should consider buying American missiles.»
«The two men aren’t due to meet again until the G-20 summit in Japan in June. Then Macron himself will host the G-7 leaders in France in August.»
«Macron’s team …. are leaning toward not even attempting a joint statement at the end of the meeting»
* * * * * * * *
Per cercare di comprendere la dinamica del sistema, sarebbe necessario razionalizzare alcuni concetti che, essendo semplici, suscitano una quasi naturale repulsa: tutto qua?
«Da oggi ci liberiamo dal socialismo e dal politicamente corretto»
Questa frase detta da Mr Jair Bolsonaro, Presidente del Brasile di fresca elezione, sintetizza ciò che Mr Trump vuole e sta facendo negli Stati Uniti e nel mondo.
È un outsider, Macron lo ha definito un ‘maverick’: nei fatti non è espressione propria dei repubblicani, molti dei quali abituati da lunga pezza a trovare in loggia accordi con i democratici, per poi spartirsi i ruoli sul palcoscenico, recitando però lo stesso copione.
Obiettivo primario, strategico, di Mr Trump è l’annientamento dei liberal democratici negli Stati Uniti e dei loro alleati all’interno dell’Occidente. Lo scacchiere estero è giocato tutto in funzione del conseguimento dell’obiettivo primario.
Compreso questo banale concetto, Mr Trump si rivela essere facilmente capibile e prevedibile.
In patria sta sistematicamente tagliando tutte le fonti di finanziamento dei liberal, nonché delle enclavi di posti politicamente donati tramite sussidi statali. Sta bonificando il parastato americano, giustizia compresa. Li sta semplicemente strozzando economicamente. Un caso eclamptico, il suo comportamento nei confronti del ‘clima’ e dell’Epa.
All’estero, la Francia di Mr Macron e la Germania di Frau Merkel sono le realtà da ridimensionare.
Del tutto sequenziale la attuale posizione americana nei confronti di Polonia, Ungheria ed Italia.
Del tutto logico il suo appoggio ai Gilets Jaunes che hanno imbottigliato Mr Macron in un vicolo cieco, così come il suo comportamento nei confronti della residua industria tedesca: senza produzione industriale la Germania è kaptt, così come sarebbe finita senza l’approvvigionamento del gas russo.
Mr Trump sa che il tempo lavora per lui: ancora una decina di anni e la Germania inizierà a spopolarsi della sua popolazione autoctona, e saranno forti dolori. Tollera ancora Frau Merkel solo perché è l’unica persona al momento in grado di distruggere la Germania.
Infine, Mr Trump sa benissimo come gli europei siano impantanati in un welfare non più a lungo sostenibile, Ma sa anche benissimo come senza forze armate sia impossibile concepire ed attuare una politica estera.
Se Mr Macron si fosse dichiarato suddito leale lo avrebbe anche sopportato: ma dal momento che si è dimostrato superbo lo annienta.
Mr Macron si era semplicemente illuso di poter trattare Mr Trump in via paritetica.
After 18 months of frustrating efforts to sustain a partnership with America’s president, the “special relationship” is over.
On a damp Tuesday evening in December, most of France was focused on the Yellow-Vest crisis that had seen demonstrators smashing up Paris.
But holed up in his Elysee palace, President Emmanuel Macron and his team were dealing with a greater threat to the status quo not just in France, but across the western world. A White House contact had warned Macron that Donald Trump was about to announce the pullout of U.S. troops from Syria.
Such a decision would be a body-blow to U.S. allies in the European Union. It risked releasing hundreds of Islamic State veterans and giving Russia’s Vladimir Putin influence over the flow of refugees which has fueled a populist backlash in the EU. For Macron, it heightened his concerns that the U.S. might back away from another, more sacred commitment: the NATO defense alliance.
As Macron prepared for a call with the White House that evening, his view on Syria was informed by a broader realization after 18 months of frustrating efforts to woo Trump: EU leaders can no longer rely on the U.S. to help underpin European security.
This account of how Macron was forced to rethink his entire relationship with Trump is based on conversations over several months with three people who have detailed knowledge of the president’s thinking.
On the call that night in December, the 41-year-old president reminded Trump of his pledge to stand alongside his allies in the fight against terrorism and urged him to consider his responsibilities to Europe. Less than 24 hours later, Trump announced the withdrawal in a tweet.
The decision came as a shock even in Washington, and triggered the resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. For Macron and his inner circle, it was a watershed moment.
Though in public, Macron still maintains that the historical alliance between France and the U.S. runs too deep to be jeopardized by disagreements between two presidents, something in him snapped.
The previous month Trump had offered Macron assurances both on Syria and on NATO during a visit to Paris. A few weeks later, the Syria commitment was history. From now on, the French leader will assume that Trump is liable to ditch any commitment he might have made if he decides it serves his interests.
The French leader had invested significant amounts of time and political capital in trying to establish a relationship with Trump since coming to power in Paris in May 2017.
Early last year, people close to him were keen to play up the symmetry between the two presidents. They argued that both were political outsiders who’d shaken up the establishment with their election victories, and their straight-talking style made them a good match personally.
They shared macho handshake games and private talks, watched military parades and had dinner at the Eiffel Tower with a special, meat-heavy menu, to appeal to the U.S. leader’s taste.
“Both of us are probably mavericks,” Macron said in April during a state visit to Washington. “We have a very special relationship.”
That effort succeeded in making Macron the guy you call when you want to speak to Europe.
Call logs from both presidents’ offices, which can sometimes be incomplete, indicate the two men held at least 19 phone calls last year. Trump spoke to Merkel just three times and dished out public humiliations to Britain’s Theresa May—in July he trashed her Brexit plans—making it clear where she stood in the White House spheres of influence.
But Trump’s America First policy was always likely to become a problem and that became clear as Europe was drawn into the U.S. trade offensive. Macron’s lobbying effort during his April trip to the White House failed to avert tariffs on European steel and aluminum. Just as he failed to keep the U.S. in the Iran nuclear deal or the Paris Climate Accord.
The phone records suggest that the relationship started to cool after that visit, with their recorded conversations becoming less frequent. Before that they spoke as many as six times a month. Since then the contact has dwindled.
By the time Trump returned to France to commemorate the centenary of the end of World War I, any pretense at a rapport was gone.
Macron lectured Trump in front of dozens of world leaders, saying nations that put their own interests first had lost their moral compass. Trump responded by mocking France for its military defeats to Germany.
Behind the scenes, French aides insisted Macron’s attacks on nationalism were not directed at Trump. But they also signaled that the French leader was deliberately taking a more assertive posture in diplomatic relations.
Talking to people close to the president around the turn of the year, their confidence in his ability to do business with Trump has evaporated. One described the Elysee’s attitude to Trump as “clear-eyed.” Asked about reports in January that Trump had considered pulling out of NATO officially, the person said nothing the U.S. could do now would surprise the French leader.
Macron’s approach to Trump at this point is more about managing the U.S. president’s impulsiveness rather than genuine engagement. His advisers plot their response to different scenarios, they seek intel on his state of mind and his personal agenda, and try to work out how that might affect the post-war alliance with Europe.
But the Syria withdrawal still stung.
“An ally must be reliable, and coordinate with other allies,” Macron said from a military base in Mali, where French troops are involved in anti-terrorism operations. Macron said he “very deeply regretted” Trump’s decision.
After the December announcement, Macron kept up the pressure on Trump for a time with several subsequent calls, trying to persuade the U.S. leader to change his mind, or at least allow an orderly withdrawal.
He urged Trump to stay on the battle field. He told him the U.S. army was the backbone of the coalition forces and warned of the message it would send to Iran and Syria’s Bashar al Assad if he left with the job half done. It made little difference.
The final U.S. pullout may still be some weeks away as U.S.-backed Syrian forces launch an offensive against Islamic State in the east of the country. Macron hasn’t spoken to Trump for over a month.
Macron’s discussions about French security strategy are now framed by question marks over all joint French-U.S. operations. The two countries are currently fighting together against Islamists in Africa and the Middle East and combating piracy in the Indian Ocean. France is also supporting U.S. efforts to contain China’s expansionary instincts in the South China Sea.
America’s commitment to NATO, though, is the elephant in the room. Under Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s founding text of 1949, all are obliged to come to the defense of any members that come under attack.
That was the foundation of the western bulwark against the Soviet bloc during the Cold War and has served to deter Russian efforts to extend its influence in eastern Europe since then.
Trump though has frequently shown tepid support for the alliance, complaining that U.S. allies don’t spend enough on defense and raising questions about Article V.
An actual U.S. withdrawal would mean a tectonic shift in the global order and hand Putin the biggest victory of his career.
More recently, however, Trump has switched from criticism to claiming credit for getting European allies to bolster their defense spending. At the armistice commemoration in Paris in November, the U.S. leader told Macron he was committed to NATO. On Jan. 17 Trump said he was backing NATO “100 percent” and then added a rider: allies should consider buying American missiles.
But doubts remain. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo put international organizations on notice that they shouldn’t take U.S. support for granted during a December speech in Brussels, where NATO has its headquarters. Organizations such as the EU and the United Nations, Pompeo said, “must be reformed or eliminated.”
For Macron, the doubts are enough to shift his outlook: a security guarantee you can’t depend on is no longer a guarantee.
“Trump’s attitude and statements affect the credibility of NATO as a deterrent and a defense instrument,” said Bruno Tertrais, deputy director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. “The question is whether this is a transitory crisis for the European-U.S. post-war alliance, or something deeper.”
The two men aren’t due to meet again until the G-20 summit in Japan in June. Then Macron himself will host the G-7 leaders in France in August.
Welcoming the G-7 to the Atlantic resort of Biarritz will give the French some control of the choreography. Macron’s team has observed the drama Trump caused at recent international gatherings in Canada and Argentina and they are leaning toward not even attempting a joint statement at the end of the meeting.
Such a departure from protocol offers a bleak view of the state of relations between the U.S. and its allies. But it’s one less opportunity for Trump to cause trouble.
Premessa. Certiorari è l’infinito presente passivo del verbo latino certioro, certiorare, che significa informare. Nel linguaggio giuridico americano indica il documento con cui una corte superiore notifica ad una inferiore tutta la giurisprudenza relativa ad una determinata questione. Il certiorari è propedeutico e forma la base di ogni sentenza.
L’importanza dell’argomento di interesse è stata ben evidenziata dalla Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti.
«Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census would—according to the government’s own “conservative” analysis—cause “approximately 6.5 additional million people” not to respond, Pet. App. 145a, 152a, more people than the population of Missouri, the 18th-most populous state. The district court found that, as a result, California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, New York, and Illinois face a “certainly impending” or “substantial risk of losing a seat” in the House of Representatives, Pet. App. 175a, and that numerous states would “lose funds from several federal programs.” Pet. App. 205a. Secretary Ross’s purported justification was to collect data that the Department of Justice admitted “is not necessary” for any purpose. Pet. App. 94a. ….
The Constitution requires a Decennial Census to count the total number of “persons”—regardless of citizenship status—in each state, “in such a manner as [Congress] shall by law direct.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl.3. The census is a “mainstay of our democracy,” governing the apportionment of the House of Representatives and the allocation of votes in the Electoral College. Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 818 (1992) (Stevens, J., concurring). Census data are also the “linchpin of the federal statistical system,” Dep’t of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999) (quotation marks omitted), determining the allocation of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds annually, Pet. App. 178a. ….
the Census Bureau’s ability to conduct the only count the Constitution expressly requires: determining the whole number of persons in each state in order to apportion House seats»
* * * * * * *
Cerchiamo di ricapitolare le oltre ottantamila pagine di istanze e sentenze in quattro righe: saranno riduttive, ma almeno si potrà comprendere la posta in gioco.
– La costituzione americana impone che ogni dieci anni il Census esegua un censimento della popolazione, ossia conti il numero di ‘persone’ presenti in ogni stato degli Stati Uniti.
– I numeri raccolti dal Census sono utilizzati per calcolare il numero dei rappresentati al Congresso che spettano ad ogni stato e sono inoltre utilizzati nella ripartizione del budget federale: un giro di migliaia di miliardi.
– Negli Stati Uniti non esiste un documento di identità corredato di fotografia recente che abbia valore a livello federale.
– Per votare, le persone devono ad ogni tornata elettorale iscriversi alle liste elettorali: basta soltanto il presentarsi.
– Alle elezioni politiche dovrebbero poter votare solo quanti siano cittadini dello stato.
Le possibilità di abuso sono evidenti.
Il primo ad approfittarne fu Al Capone, che fece eleggere un suo sindaco ed una sua giunta nella cittadina di Cicero, vicino a Chicago, facendola diventare il tempio del gioco di azzardo clandestino, della prostituzione, della fabbricazione e spaccio di alcolici durante il proibizionismo, ed infine impiantandoci una sua banca in grado di fare ogni più spigliata operazione, dal lavaggio del denaro sporco in su. Essendosi ostinato a lavorare in proprio senza condividere cotanto benessere con i politici, Al Capone fu arrestato e condannato a dieci anni per evasione fiscale.
I liberal democratici hanno ripreso in grande stile, a livello federale, la simpatica e disinvolta iniziativa di Al Capone, erigendosi a paladini di un’immigrazione clandestina illegale che ha ingigantito la popolazione di stati quali la California, Arizona, Florida, New York, Illinois. Il numero dei seggi al Congresso ripartiti a questi stati è salito in modo vertiginoso rispetto a quanto sarebbe loro spettato. I migranti poi si sono iscritti in massa alle liste elettorali, spesso con nomi fantasia, ed hanno votato compatti per i loro benefattori, che li gratificano anche economicamente.
Dovrebbe essere evidente l’estremo interesse politico ed economico che verte sui migranti: i liberal democratici che li patrocinano in ogni modo e maniera ed i repubblicani che li vedono come il fumo negli occhi, per gli stessi identici motivi. Dei migranti come persone umane non interessa nulla a nessuno.
Se la Suprema Corte sentenziasse che il Census possa includere la domanda sulla nazionalità, si censirebbe chi sia o meno cittadino americano, e quindi ammissibile al voto. Le liste elettorali subirebbero diete dimagranti stupefacenti.
Difficile stimare le ripercussioni, in carenza di dati certi.
Una riduzione dei votanti di 6.5 milioni è cifra minimale prudenziale: molto verosimilmente si tratterebbe di almeno tre volte tanto. I liberal democratici ne uscirebbero con le ossa rotte.
Questo è il vero oggetto del contendere.
L’articolo che segue, parte integrante di questo testo, è smaccatamente liberal.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether the Trump administration may add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census questionnaire that will be sent to every household in the nation.
The court’s move added a highly charged and consequential blockbuster to what had been a fairly sleepy term. The justices have mostly avoided controversy while they adjusted to the new conservative majority created by the arrival in the fall of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.
The federal government has long gathered information about citizenship, but since 1950, it has not included a question on it in the forms sent once a decade to each household. Last month, a federal trial judge blocked the Commerce Department from adding the question, saying that the process that led to the decision was deeply flawed.
The Supreme Court stepped in before any appeals court had ruled on the matter, and it put the case on an unusually fast track. The Supreme Court’s speed was almost certainly a result of a looming deadline — the census forms are set to be printed in June.
Without immediate action from the court, the solicitor general, Noel J. Francisco, told the justices, “the government will be disabled for a decade from obtaining citizenship data through an enumeration of the entire population.”
The Supreme Court scheduled arguments for late April, and it is expected to rule before the end of June.
The case — United States Department of Commerce v. New York, No. 18-966 — is the latest test of the scope of executive power in the Trump era. Last year, the justices upheld President Trump’s authority to restrict travel from several predominantly Muslim countries. More recently, the court rejected the administration’s request to reinstate a ban on asylum claims by immigrants who cross the southern border illegally.
On Friday, Mr. Trump said he expected his declaration of a national emergency to build a border wall to be challenged in court. He predicted that the administration would lose in the lower courts but prevail in the Supreme Court.
The census case has its roots in the text of the Constitution, which requires an “actual enumeration” every 10 years, with the House of Representatives to be apportioned based on “the whole number of persons in each state.”
“By its terms, therefore, the Constitution mandates that every 10 years the federal government endeavor to count every single person residing in the United States, whether citizen or noncitizen, whether living here with legal status or without,” Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Federal District Court in Manhattan wrote last month in his decision, setting out the consensus view.
Critics say that adding the question on citizenship would undermine the accuracy of the census because both legal and unauthorized immigrants might refuse to fill out the forms. By one government estimate, about 6.5 million people might decide not to participate.
That could reduce Democratic representation when congressional districts are drawn in 2021 and affect the distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending. Judge Furman found that were the question added, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas would risk losing seats in the House and that several states could lose federal money.
Dale Ho, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the addition of the citizenship question, said that it “would cause incalculable damage to our democracy.”
“The evidence presented at trial exposed this was the Trump administration’s plan from the get-go,” Mr. Ho said.
Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, has said that he ordered the question to be added in response to a December 2017 request from the Justice Department, which said that data about citizenship would help it enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In a detailed decision after an eight-day trial, Judge Furman concluded that Mr. Ross had dissembled, saying that “the evidence is clear that Secretary Ross’s rationale was pretextual.”
“While the court is unable to determine — based on the existing record, at least — what Secretary Ross’s real reasons for adding the citizenship question were, it does find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that promoting enforcement of the” Voting Rights Act, or V.R.A., “was not his real reason for the decision,” Judge Furman wrote. “Instead, the court finds that the V.R.A. was a post hoc rationale for a decision that the secretary had already made for other reasons.”
Judge Furman had called for Mr. Ross to be questioned under oath, but the Supreme Court blocked that order in October. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the court should have gone further, shutting down all pretrial fact-gathering in the census case. Justice Gorsuch added that there was no indication of bad faith in Mr. Ross’s conduct.
“There’s nothing unusual about a new cabinet secretary coming to office inclined to favor a different policy direction, soliciting support from other agencies to bolster his views, disagreeing with staff or cutting through red tape,” Justice Gorsuch wrote at the time. “Of course, some people may disagree with the policy and process. But until now, at least, this much has never been thought enough to justify a claim of bad faith and launch an inquisition into a cabinet secretary’s motives.”
In November, the Supreme Court rejected a request from the Trump administration to halt the trial, over the dissents of Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
In his ruling last month, Judge Furman relied on evidence in the so-called administrative record, meaning the materials the government said Mr. Ross had considered before making his decision.
Evidence presented at the trial showed that Mr. Ross had wanted to add the question long before the request from the Justice Department. The letter from the Justice Department, Judge Furman wrote, was an attempt “to launder their request through another agency — that is, to obtain cover for a decision that they had already made.”
Documents disclosed in the case showed that Mr. Ross had discussed the citizenship issue early in his tenure with Stephen K. Bannon, the former White House chief strategist and an architect of the Trump administration’s tough policies against immigrants, and that Mr. Ross had met at Mr. Bannon’s direction with Kris Kobach, the former Kansas secretary of state and a vehement opponent of unlawful immigration.
“In a startling number of ways,” Judge Furman wrote, “Secretary Ross’s explanations for his decision were unsupported by, or even counter to, the evidence before the agency.”
Judge Furman ruled that the administration had violated federal statutes. But he rejected a constitutional challenge based on equal protection principles, saying that there was not enough evidence in the record to conclude that Mr. Ross had intended to discriminate against minorities and unauthorized immigrants.
The lawsuit challenging the addition of the question was filed by New York, other states, localities and advocacy groups. They said that asking the question was a calculated effort by the administration to discriminate against immigrants.
“Adding a question about citizenship to the census would incite widespread fear in immigrant communities and greatly impair the accuracy of population counts,” Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, said on Friday after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
In urging the Supreme Court to review Judge Furman’s decision, Mr. Francisco, representing the Trump administration, wrote that Mr. Ross had wide discretion over the census that could not be second-guessed by courts. He added that questions about citizenship have often been asked of at least a sample of the population in many earlier censuses and are commonplace in ones conducted by other developed democracies.
The mountain of new data generated by the decennial census question will assist private litigants and the Department of Justice in their efforts to enforce the NVRA [National Voter Registration Act] … and will overcome limitations identified by a federal court concerning the current data on citizenship’
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it joined with the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) on February 11, 2019 in filing an amici curiae brief in the United States Supreme Court, urging it to overturn the ruling of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York blocking the Secretary of Commerce from adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 census. The brief argues that including a citizenship question would help Judicial Watch and the government make sure only eligible citizens are on the voting rolls:
Adding a citizenship question to the decennial census would generate a massive amount of new data concerning the numbers of citizens and noncitizens in U.S. states and counties. To quibble about potential limitations in the data that would be collected is to miss the point. It cannot be the case that we are somehow better off with less
information. The mountain of new data generated by the decennial census question will assist private litigants and the Department of Justice in their efforts to enforce the National Voter Registration Act. Indeed, this data will overcome limitations identified by a federal court concerning the current data on citizenship
The Judicial Watch/AEF brief cites a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Bellitto v. Snipes (No. 16-cv-61474), which criticized the current source for citizenship information, a limited survey called the American Community Survey. Judicial Watch argued that getting more data about the citizen voting-age population (CVAP) is critical to enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Voting Rights Act.
The brief also joins the Commerce Department in arguing that the lower court overstepped its bounds in blocking the Secretary of Commerce’s decision about what to include:
[A] determination about what to include on a census questionnaire is committed to agency discretion and is unreviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) [and] a court determining whether an agency action is arbitrary and capricious under the APA may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency.
This Judicial Watch/AEF filing comes in the case U.S. Department of Commerce, et al. v. State of New York, et al. (18-966), which is on emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. The New York district court decision under appeal was a consolidation of two cases (State of New York, et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, et al. (18-cv-2921) and New York Immigration Coalition, et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, et al. (18-cv-5025)) challenging the decision of the Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire. The district court held that Ross’s decision failed to “comply with the policy decisions that Congress — to which the Constitution gives authority over the census — has made and enshrined in statute, including but not limited to the preference for obtaining data through administrative records rather than through direct inquiries.”
The Judicial Watch/AEF brief responds:
[T]he Department of Justice stated that citizenship data was “critical” to its efforts to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that the decennial census was “the most appropriate vehicle” for asking a question about citizenship. The Secretary of Commerce agreed. In so acting, the Secretary rejected the argument that including a citizenship question would reduce the response rate for noncitizens. The Secretary found that the available data did not support this suggestion and added that the value of “more complete and accurate” citizenship data outweighed the disadvantages that might arise from a lower response rate.
Judicial Watch is the national leader in enforcing the provisions of the NVRA. In early January, Judicial Watch announced that it signed a settlement agreement with the State of California and County of Los Angeles under which they will begin the process of removing from their voter registration rolls as many as 1.5 million inactive registered names that may be invalid. This was only the third statewide settlement achieved by private plaintiffs under the NVRA – and Judicial Watch was the plaintiff in each of those cases. The other statewide settlements were with Ohio (in 2014) and with Kentucky (2018), which agreed to a court-ordered consent decree.
“Leftists hate the idea of the American people knowing more about the number of foreign nationals present in the United States, which is why they oppose a census question about citizenship,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Supreme Court should reject the lower court judicial power grab that would unlawfully restrict the Trump administration from getting more information about the residents of the United States.”
«The US president described the situation at the Mexico border as a national security crisis that requires a wall, saying “it’s a great thing to do, because we have an invasion.” He said he is ready for legal challenges.»
«US President Donald Trump said on Friday he would declare a national emergency at the US border with Mexico in a bid to appropriate money to build his so-called border wall.»
«In a lengthy address from the Rose Garden that also touched on trade with China, Trump said the emergency declaration was a response to “the national security crisis on our southern border.”»
* * * * * * * *
The White House.
«President Trump is taking Executive action to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border.»
«President Trump is using his legal authority to take Executive action to secure additional resources, just as he promised. In part, he is declaring a national emergency that makes available additional troops and funding for military construction.»
«Including funding in Homeland Security appropriations, the Administration has so far identified up to $8.1 billion that will be available to build the border wall once a national emergency is declared and additional funds have been reprogrammed, including:
– About $601 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund
– Up to $2.5 billion under the Department of Defense funds transferred for Support for Counterdrug Activities (Title 10 United States Code, section 284)
– Up to $3.6 billion reallocated from Department of Defense military construction projects under the President’s declaration of a national emergency (Title 10 United States Code, section 2808) ….»
«The Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and the Army Corps of Engineers are working to create a prioritized list of segments and a work plan for the remainder of FY 2019 and beyond.»
«Donald Trump announces emergency at US border to build wall»
* * * * * * * *
Qualcuno dovrebbe spiegare ai liberal democratici, con tanta pazienza, che gli Stati Uniti sono una Federazione presidenziale: è il Presidente ad assumersi l’onere del Governo, non i media, non le piazze.
Nella politica muro contro muro, alla fine è il Presidente che ha gli strumenti legali per agire.
A seguito riportiamo anche il lacrimoso editoriale del The New York Times.
Ma come al solito, la vera notizia, quella che conta, è riportata tra gli annunci pubblicitari.
«The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether the Trump administration may add a question about citizenship to the next census questionnaire.
Critics say that adding the question would undermine the accuracy of the census, because both legal and unauthorized immigrants might refuse to fill out the form. By one government estimate, about 6.5 million people might decide not to participate.
That could reduce Democratic representation when congressional districts are drawn in 2021 and affect the distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending.
The Supreme Court stepped in before any appeals court had ruled on the matter, and it put the case on an unusually fast track, scheduling arguments for April so that it can issue a decision before census forms are printed in June.»
* * * * * * *
Ovviamente nessuno può al momento sapere cosa deciderà la Suprema Corte.
Nel caso però che desse parere favorevole, i liberal democratici avrebbero perso in un sol colpo decine di milioni di voti che ottenevano facendo votare gli immigrati clandestini come se fossero stati cittadini americani. Esattamente come faceva Al Capone a Cicero.
«I will never waver from my sacred duty to defend this Nation and its people. We will get the job done» .
President Donald J. Trump
SECURING OUR BORDER: President Donald J. Trump is following through on his promise to secure the border with legislation and Executive action.
– President Trump was elected partly on his promise to secure the Southern Border with a barrier and, since his first day in office, he has been following through on that promise.
– As the President has said, sections of the border wall are already being built, and legislation and Executive actions are building on that progress.
– Executive action being taken by the President makes available additional funding to secure our border that is essential to our national security.
LEGISLATIVE WINS: President Trump secured a number of significant legislative victories in the Homeland Security appropriations bill that further his effort to secure the Southern Border and protect our country.
– The funding bill contains robust resources and additional provisions to secure the border and strengthen immigration enforcement.
– The bill provides $1.375 billion for approximately 55 miles of border barrier in highly dangerous and drug smuggling areas in the Rio Grande Valley, where it is desperately needed.
— More than 40 percent of all border apprehensions occurred in the Rio Grande Valley sector in fiscal year (FY) 2018.
The Rio Grande Valley was the border sector with the most known deaths of illegal border crossers in FY 2018.
– $415 million will go toward addressing the humanitarian crisis at the border by providing medical care, transportation, processing centers, and consumables.
– President Trump successfully rejected efforts by some to undercut Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) ability to uphold our laws and detain illegal aliens, including criminals.
ICE funding supports nearly 5,000 additional beds to detain illegal aliens and keep criminals off our streets.
Customs and Border Protection will receive funding for 600 additional officers.
This bill will help keep deadly drugs out of our communities by increasing drug detection at ports of entry, including opioid detection staffing, labs, and equipment.
A PROMISE TO ACT: President Trump is taking Executive action to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border.
President Trump is using his legal authority to take Executive action to secure additional resources, just as he promised. In part, he is declaring a national emergency that makes available additional troops and funding for military construction.
Including funding in Homeland Security appropriations, the Administration has so far identified up to $8.1 billion that will be available to build the border wall once a national emergency is declared and additional funds have been reprogrammed, including:
About $601 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund
Up to $2.5 billion under the Department of Defense funds transferred for Support for Counterdrug Activities (Title 10 United States Code, section 284)
Up to $3.6 billion reallocated from Department of Defense military construction projects under the President’s declaration of a national emergency (Title 10 United States Code, section 2808)
These funding sources will be used sequentially and as needed.
The Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and the Army Corps of Engineers are working to create a prioritized list of segments and a work plan for the remainder of FY 2019 and beyond.
New projects could include: new levee wall, new and replacement primary pedestrian barrier, new vehicle-to-pedestrian barrier, and new secondary barrier.
NATIONAL EMERGENCY ON OUR BORDER: The President is using his clear authority to declare a national emergency as allowed under the National Emergencies Act.
Since 1976, presidents have declared nearly 60 national emergencies.
Most of the previously declared national emergencies have been continually renewed and are still in effect, after being continually renewed.
Multiple Governors have declared states of emergency along the border in the past.
Former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, who became President Obama’s DHS Secretary, declared a state of emergency along the border in 2005.
Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson also declared a state of emergency at the border in 2005.
Former President George W. Bush and former President Obama both directed the use of the military to assist DHS in securing and managing the Southern Border.
Former President Bush declared a national emergency in 2001, which invoked reprogramming authority granted by Title 10 United States Code, section 2808, and both he and former President Obama used that authority a total of 18 times to fund projects between 2001 and 2014.
ADDRESSING THE CRISIS AT HAND: President Trump is taking the necessary steps to address the crisis at our Southern Border and stop crime and drugs from flooding into our Nation.
Cartels, traffickers, and gangs, like the vile MS-13 gang, have taken advantage of our weak borders for their own gain.
Immigration officers have made 266,000 arrests of criminal aliens in the last two fiscal years.
This includes aliens charged or convicted of approximately 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 killings.
Tons of deadly drugs have flooded across the border and into our communities, taking countless American lives.
Methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl all flow across our Southern Border and destroy our communities.
More than 70,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2017 alone.
Human traffickers exploit our borders to traffic young girls and women into our country and sell them into prostitution and slavery.
Massive caravans of migrants view our unsecure border as a way to gain illegal entry into our country and take advantage of our nonsensical immigration loopholes.
After declaring a national emergency to build a border wall, President Trump said he “didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.” The move bypasses Congress.
WASHINGTON — President Trump declared a national emergency at the border on Friday to access billions of dollars to build a border wall that Congress refused to give him, transforming a highly charged policy dispute into a fundamental confrontation over separation of powers.
In a televised announcement in the Rose Garden, Mr. Trump said he would sign the declaration to protect the country from the flow of drugs, criminals and illegal immigrants coming across the border from Mexico, which he characterized as a profound threat to national security.
“We’re going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border and we’re going to do it one way or the other,” he said. “It’s an invasion,” he added. “We have an invasion of drugs and criminals coming into our country.”
But as he sought to deny that he was taking action because he could not persuade Congress to give him the money, he may have undercut his own argument that the border situation required urgent unilateral action. “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it faster,” he said. “I want to get it done faster, that’s all.”
The announcement came during a freewheeling appearance in which Mr. Trump ping-ponged from topic to topic, touching on the economy, China trade talks and his coming summit meeting with North Korea’s leader. He again suggested that he should win the Nobel Peace Prize and reviewed which conservative commentators had been supportive of him, dismissing Ann Coulter, who has not.
Sounding alternately defensive and aggrieved, Mr. Trump refused to accept that he lost his two-month drive to press Congress to give him the border wall money he demanded even as he criticized former Speaker Paul D. Ryan, without naming him, for failing to provide the funding when Republicans controlled the House. Mr. Trump’s speech and answers to questions were replete with misinformation and, when challenged by reporters, he refused to accept statistics produced by his own government that conflicted with his narrative.
“The numbers you gave are wrong,” he told one reporter. “It’s a fake question.”
On point after point, he insisted that he would be proved correct and his doubters proved wrong. “People said, ‘Trump is crazy,’” he said at one point, discussing his outreach to Kim Jong-un of North Korea, “and you know what? It ended up being a very good relationship.”
The border emergency declaration, which Mr. Trump signed later in the day, enables Mr. Trump to divert $3.6 billion budgeted for military construction projects to the border wall, White House officials said. Mr. Trump will also use more traditional presidential budgetary discretion to tap $2.5 billion from counternarcotics programs and $600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund.
Combined with the $1.375 billion authorized for fencing in a spending package passed by Congress on Thursday night, Mr. Trump would then have about $8 billion in all to advance construction of new barriers and repairs or replacement of existing barriers along the border this year, significantly more than the $5.7 billion that Congress refused to give him.
The president’s decision, previewed on Thursday, incited instant condemnation from Democrats and some Republicans, who called it an unconstitutional abuse of his authority.
“This is plainly a power grab by a disappointed president, who has gone outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, said in a joint statement.
The two vowed to try to overturn the decision, appealing to Republicans to join them. “The president is not above the law,” they said. “The Congress cannot let the president shred the Constitution.”
House Democrats plan to introduce legislation to block the president’s move, which could pass both houses if it wins the votes of the half-dozen Republican senators who had criticized the planned declaration. That would put the president in the position of issuing the first veto of his presidency.
In addition to a legislative effort to stop Mr. Trump, the issue will almost certainly be taken to court, either by congressional Democrats, liberal advocacy groups or both. Legal experts have said the administration can make serious arguments to justify its move, but added that courts may decide that it is stretching the intent of the law. The Supreme Court is controlled by a five-member conservative bloc but in recent years has reined in Republican and Democratic presidents who were judged to be exceeding their authority.
White House officials rejected critics who said Mr. Trump was creating a precedent that future presidents could use to ignore the will of Congress. Republicans have expressed concern that a Democratic commander in chief could cite Mr. Trump’s move to declare a national emergency over gun violence or climate change without legislation from Congress.
“It actually creates zero precedent,” Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, told reporters on Friday morning. “This is authority given to the president in law already. It’s not as if he didn’t get what he wanted and waved a magic wand to get some money.”
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.
Presidents have declared national emergencies under a 1970s-era law about five dozen times and 31 of those emergencies remain active, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. But most of them dealt with foreign crises and involved freezing property, blocking trade or exports or taking other actions against national adversaries, not redirecting money without explicit congressional authorization.
White House officials cited only two times that such emergency declarations were used by presidents to spend money without legislative approval — once by President George Bush in 1990 during the run-up to the Persian Gulf War and again by his son, President George W. Bush, in 2001 after the terrorist attacks on New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
In both of those cases, the presidents were responding to new events — the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and Al Qaeda’s assault on America — and were moving military money around to use for military purposes. Neither was taking action specifically rejected by Congress.
In Mr. Trump’s case, he is defining a longstanding problem at the border as an emergency even though illegal crossings have actually fallen in recent years. And unlike either of the Bushes, he is taking action after failing to persuade lawmakers to go along with his plans through the regular process.
The spending package passed by Congress on Thursday after a two-month showdown with the president included none of the $5.7 billion that Mr. Trump demanded for 234 miles of steel wall. Instead, it provided $1.375 billion for about 55 miles of fencing. Mr. Trump agreed to sign the package into law anyway to avoid a second government shutdown after the impasse over border wall funding closed the doors of many federal agencies for 35 days and left 800,000 workers without pay.
White House officials said Mr. Trump signed that spending package later on Friday. Mr. Trump plans to leave Washington on Friday afternoon for a long holiday weekend at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.
For weeks, Republicans led by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, urged Mr. Trump not to declare a national emergency, but the president opted to go ahead anyway to find a way out of the political corner he had put himself in with the failed effort to force Congress to finance the wall.
Mr. McConnell privately told the president he would support the move despite his own reservations, but warned Mr. Trump that he had about two weeks to win over critical Republicans to avoid having Congress vote to reject the declaration.
Mr. Trump was among those Republicans who criticized President Barack Obama for what they saw as overstepping his executive authority after failing to win policy fights with Congress. “Repubs must not allow Pres Obama to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress,” Mr. Trump wrote in 2014.
Il Nono Circuito giudiziario federale amministra la giustizia su tutti gli stati dell’ovest degli Stati Uniti, ossia su oltre sessantun milione di persone, il 19.3% degli americani.
Dispone di 29 giudici, articolati in 13 Distretti.
Questi 29 giudici hanno la potestà di bloccare leggi federali e di imporre sentenze valide su tutta la federazione. Solo la Corte Suprema può controllarne l’operato, ma soltanto emettendo sentenza avversa, procedura che richiede solitamente almeno un anno di tempo.
Se gestita politicamente, la magistratura del Nono Circuito può diventare un’arma micidiale.
E nei fatti lo è, anche perché nel tempo è stata formata quasi per la sua interezza da liberal democratici imprestati alla magistratura. Le sentenza sono quasi esclusivamente politiche. Poi smentite ed anche mal modo dalla Corte Suprema, ma pur sempre dirompenti, specie poi tenendo conto della cassa di risonanza dei media.
Al momento in cui Mr Trump si insediava alla White House, in quel Circuito 16 giudici erano di nomina liberal democratica e 5 repubblicana. 8 posizioni erano vacanti. Lo strapotere democratico in questo Circuito era evidente.
Lo scorso anno Mr Trump aveva nominato due giudici, Mr Bennett ad Honolulu e Mr Nelson ad Idaho Falls, portando il conto 16 a 7.
Restano da nominare sette giudici e, se Mr Trump procedesse, il rapporto di forze sarebbe 16 a 14. Sarebbe sempre una maggioranza liberal democratica, ma non sarebbe più un dominio assoluto.
«President Trump announced a new slate of judicial picks from California, moving Wednesday to head off a brewing conservative rebellion over reports the White House was considering striking a deal with Democratic senators to water down his list.»
«The new list includes three nominees for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the liberal-leaning court that oversees the West Coast, Alaska and Hawaii, and which has been a frequent target of Mr. Trump’s ire. The president also named four picks for district judgeships in California.»
«The announcement came after conservatives said they feared the president was working on a deal with Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala D. Harris, California’s two Democrats, to submit a consensus list that wouldn’t dramatically shift the court’s ideological balance»
«Mr. Trump’s list should put those fears to rest.»
«Two of the appeals court nominees — Daniel P. Collins and Kenneth Kiyul Lee — were names he’d submitted last year, while a third, Daniel A. Bress, is considered a rising star»
«The president also nominated Mark C. Scarsi, Jeremy B. Rosen and Stanley Blumenfeld to judgeships in the Central District of California.»
Le senatrici Dianne Fernstein e Kamala D. Harris hanno sollevato altissimi lai, meglio di qualsiasi altra prefica. Più che lai erano rantoli di infernale rabbia impotente.
«In a letter sent to the White House in November, they suggested names the two Democrats would be willing to accept for the three circuit court seats designated for Californians»
Mr Trump ha la incredibile fortuna che i suoi avversari liberal democratici sono talmente presuntuosi da non accorgersi nemmeno di essere ridicoli.
Se a novembre le senatrici Dianne Fernstein e Kamala D. Harris avessero proposto alla White House due e nomine neutre, forse Mr Trump avrebbe anche potuto accogliere la loro proposta. Ma che accogliesse due nomine partigiane di altro campo ci voleva la loro tracotanza per immaginarselo.
President Trump announced a new slate of judicial picks from California, moving Wednesday to head off a brewing conservative rebellion over reports the White House was considering striking a deal with Democratic senators to water down his list.
The new list includes three nominees for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the liberal-leaning court that oversees the West Coast, Alaska and Hawaii, and which has been a frequent target of Mr. Trump’s ire. The president also named four picks for district judgeships in California.
The announcement came after conservatives said they feared the president was working on a deal with Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala D. Harris, California’s two Democrats, to submit a consensus list that wouldn’t dramatically shift the court’s ideological balance.
Two of the appeals court nominees — Daniel P. Collins and Kenneth Kiyul Lee — were names he’d submitted last year, while a third, Daniel A. Bress, is considered a rising star.
“We are relieved to see that the White House has decided to move forward with a list of extraordinarily qualified nominees,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the conservative Judicial Crisis Network.
The White House did appear to have made one concession to the Democrats, demoting Patrick J. Bumatay, who had been nominated to the appeals court last year, and instead slotting him for a district court seat.
Mr. Bumatay, a federal prosecutor, is Filipino and would have been the first openly gay judge on the 9th Circuit. He’d also been a particular target for Ms. Feinstein and Ms. Harris, though.
Now Mr. Trump wants him to sit on the Southern District of California, a trial court seat.
The president also nominated Mark C. Scarsi, Jeremy B. Rosen and Stanley Blumenfeld to judgeships in the Central District of California.
Ms. Feinstein and Ms. Harris said they were disappointed in the White House’s selection for the 9th Circuit.
“The White House is moving forward with three nominees to a circuit court who have no judicial experience,” they said in a joint statement.
They also said Mr. Lee has controversial views on affirmative action and voting rights, while raising concerns with Mr. Collins’ temperament. The two senators also took issue with Mr. Bress, who lives in D.C. — not California.
The two lawmakers had been angling for more of a say in the president’s decision-making.
In a letter sent to the White House in November, they suggested names the two Democrats would be willing to accept for the three circuit court seats designated for Californians. They named California Supreme Court Judge James Rogan, appointed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, appointed by President Obama. They said a third candidate could “be further agreed upon.”
The senators said the White House had struck a similar deal with Democratic Sens. Richard J. Durbin and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, where the senators got to pick one judge and Mr. Trump got to pick one judge to fill a couple of vacancies on an appeals court.
“For the Ninth Circuit where there are three vacancies, this would involve our selecting a candidate from the White House list; the White House selecting a candidate form our list for the Ninth Circuit; and further discussions on a third nominee that both parties would agree on,” the letter added.
Word of the deal-making roiled conservative circles this week.
Sen. David Perdue, a Georgia Republican close to Mr. Trump, said he would call and try to scuttle the negotiations.
“Why do we need to do a deal? This is totally within our purview. We can do this with 51 votes, and we’ve shown that we can do that. We stuck together as a Republican caucus in the Senate and delivered results for the president. And he has sent up really good candidates,” Mr. Perdue told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday morning.
Conservatives see the 85 federal court judges confirmed during the president’s first two years as Mr. Trump’s most important accomplishment.
They’ve also been eagerly anticipating reshaping the 9th Circuit, regularly rated the most liberal circuit in the country. The circuit has been the home of numerous anti-Trump rulings on everything from the president’s travel ban to his crackdown on sanctuary cities to his attempt to phase out the Obama-era DACA deportation amnesty.
There are currently six vacancies on the 9th Circuit, with three designated for California picks, and the others for Arizona, Oregon and Washington.
Getting the California judges confirmed puts the president on a collision course with Ms. Feinstein, who is the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and who has repeatedly voiced concerns about the need for the panel to defer to home-state senators on judicial picks.
Under a Senate tradition, senators are given a chance to show whether they approve of a judge picked from their state by returning a “blue slip” signifying acquiescence.
Some, though not all, past committee chairmen have declined to advance nominees without both home-state senators’ blue slips in hand.
GOP lawmakers, though, say that gives anti-Trump senators an unfair veto over his picks, and the Republican-led Senate has been processing federal appeals court nominees without deferring to blue-slip objections.
Se non fossero i liberal democratici farebbero pena.
La Cnn ha pubblicato in un angolo recondito della propria testata la notizia dell’indice di gradimento del discorso del Presidente Trump. È servita una buona mezz’ora per scovare l’informazione. Ma se si sommassero i ‘very positive’ con i ‘positive’, si salirebbe al 76%.
«(CNN)President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address drew a deeply Republican audience, which largely gave the President strong reviews for his address from the House chamber, according to a CNN poll conducted by SSRS immediately following the speech.
About 6 in 10 speech-watchers had very positive reactions to the President’s speech, better than the 48% who reacted that well last year and around the same as the 57% very positive mark in 2017. Those positive marks cut across demographic lines — with majorities of men (60%) and women (58%), under age 50 (54%) and those 50 or older (61%), and those with (52%) and without (63%) college degrees rating it “very positive.”»
* * * * * * *
Sono due anni e qualche mese che i liberal democratici vanno ripetendo ‘not my president’, che i sondaggi darebbero la popolarità di Mr Trump nei pressi dello zero assoluto, che femminismo ed lgbt trionferanno alla luce del sol dell’avvenire nascente. Poi, manco a dirlo, gridano da ogni tetto che alla fine dimostreranno che Mr Trump è colluso con la Russia, ma intanto son passati due anni e mezzo e non è uscita una prova che fosse una.
Grondano e schiumano laghi di bile eruttata da un’immensa rabbia impotente.
Verrebbero vederlo morto, un presidente che ha nominato nella Corte Suprema già due giudici repubblicani.
Un presidente cha ha ridotto le tasse alla gente comune ed alle imprese.
Un Presidente che alle elezioni di midterm ha retto talmente bene da aver vinto, sia per quanto riguarda i governatori, sia per quanto riguarda il senato, ove da 51 senatori è passato a 54.
Un presidente che dalla sua elezione ha generato 5.3 milioni di posti di lavoro. Un presidente che ha rimesso in moto il sistema economico statunitense.
Ai liberal democratici brucia come la nevrite tabetica che Mr Trump stia sistematicamente demolendo tutte le loro fonti di sostentamento togliendo le sovvenzioni federali alle iniziative costose, inutili e dannose, quali quelle legate al clima e che bloccavano l’intero comparto minerario estrattivo.
Infine, altro elemento di crampo clitorideo è il massacro che Mr Trump sta facendo dei liberal socialisti europei: basterebbe guardare la fine che hanno fatto Mr Macron e Frau Merkel.
Inviperiti, ma soprattutto assatanati dal fatto di non poterci far nulla.
Hanno avuto la chance di midterm ed hanno fatto un buco nell’acqua. A dir loro avrebbero dovuto conquistare il 90% dei seggi al Congresso: delirio schizofrenico.
Adesso, la beffa. Il 59% dell’audience ha giudicato ‘very positive’ il discorso di Mr Trump.
Il popolo bue, quello che loro si illudevano di guidare tirandolo per l’anello conficcato nel naso, ha optato per Mr Trump, l’arcinemico dei liberal. Uno sfregio da lavare nel sangue.
L’articolo citato della Cnn è un capolavoro di sfogo satanico. Di furor omicida.
È evidente come la SSRS abbia intervistato solo repubblicani, almeno lo sparuto manipolo sopravissuto. Il popolo avrebbe votato compatto contro.
Questo 59% è segno evidente della malizia con cui Mr Trump abbindola l’elettorato democratico, candido come un colombella, tutto dedito al sesso trasgressivo ed alla dieta vegana.
* * * * * * * *
Questa è una tragedia che sta degenerando in una farsa.
Dal momento in cui è stato eletto, Mr Trump ha generato 5.3 milioni di posti di lavoro.
«average hourly pay for workers rose 3.2 percent from a year earlier, to $27.56 from $26.71.»
«The Bureau of Labor Statistics, in its first monthly Employment Situation Report of 2019, revealed nonfarm payroll employment rose by 304,000 jobs in January»
«The figure was far in excess of expectations of 165,000, and well above the previous 12-month average gain of 223,000»
«Numerous sectors experienced job growth in January, including mining and logging (7,000), transportation and warehousing (27,000), and construction (52,000)»
«January 2019 marked the 100thstraight month of positive job growth and the sixteenth consecutive month of employment growth of at least 100,000 new jobs»
* * * * * * * *
Prendiamo atto che mentre l’economica dell’Unione Europea e dell’Eurozona langue e la fascia dei miseri e dei poveri sta salendo al 20% della popolazione totale, in due soli anni Mr Trump ha fatto generare 5.3 milioni di posti di lavoro, unitamente ad un incremento del 3.2% dei salari.
L’unica vera lotta alla miseria ed alla povertà è la generazione di posti di lavoro degnamente remunerati. Tutto il resto è aria fritta.
Questi dati dovrebbero farci porre molte domande.
La prima è se il modello economico propugnato ed applicato da Mr Trump non sia più efficiente di quello europeo. Le teorie economiche l’applicazione delle quali non generi posti di lavoro e ricchezza dovrebbero essere rimosse senza tanti complimenti.
La seconda è se la litigiosità interna degli Stati Uniti verta argomenti effettivamente utili ai Cittadini Contribuenti, ovvero non ne ostacoli la crescita economica.
A nostro personale parere, ciò che conta sono i fatti.
– The Bureau of Labor Statistics, in its first monthly Employment Situation Report of 2019, revealed nonfarm payroll employment rose by 304,000 jobs in January
– The figure was far in excess of expectations of 165,000, and well above the previous 12-month average gain of 223,000
– Numerous sectors experienced job growth in January, including mining and logging (7,000), transportation and warehousing (27,000), and construction (52,000)
WASHINGTON DC – The White House was delighted with the employment figures for January announced on Friday.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, in its first monthly Employment Situation Report of 2019, revealed nonfarm payroll employment rose by 304,000 jobs in January, far exceeding market expectations of 165,000, and well above the previous 12-month average gain of 223,000.
January 2019 marked the 100thstraight month of positive job growth and the sixteenth consecutive month of employment growth of at least 100,000 new jobs.
Job gains in December were revised down by 90,000 and November jobs were revised up by 20,000 for a cumulative loss to total employment of 70,000 jobs in the previous months. Nevertheless, despite these downward revisions, the 223,000 average monthly jobs created in 2018 remains well above the pace of monthly job creation in 2016 (193,000) and 2017 (179,000).
Numerous sectors experienced job growth in January, including mining and logging (7,000), transportation and warehousing (27,000), construction (52,000), education and health services (55,000), and leisure and hospitality (74,000).
“The economy has added 4.9 million jobs since January 2017 and 5.3 million jobs since President Donald J. Trump was elected in November 2016, the White House said in a statement released on Friday.
“The report also indicates that wages are continuing to rise. Nominal average hourly earnings rose by 3.2 percent over the past 12 months, marking the 6th straight month that year-over-year wage gains were at or above 3 percent. Prior to 2018, nominal average hourly wage gains had not reached 3 percent since April 2009. Taking inflation into account, real wages are also growing. Based on the most recent Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index data from November, inflation in the past year was 1.8 percent, and based on the most recent Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) price data from December, the inflation in the past year was 1.9 percent (the most recently available data).”
[Questo articolo è molto lungo e riporta numerosi grafici]
U.S. employers added 304,000 jobs in January, and the nation’s unemployment rate ticked up to 4 percent, according to data released Friday by the Labor Department. Meanwhile, average hourly pay for workers rose 3.2 percent from a year earlier, to $27.56 from $26.71.
In una Unione Europea deprivata del Regno Unito e con personaggi quali Mr Macron in Francia e Frau Merkel in Germania, Mr Salvini è diventato per forza di cose il potenziale referente di Mr Trump in Europa.
Sicuramente vi è una grande comunanza di idee, ma ambedue sono uniti dalla strenua lotta che loro riservano i liberal socialisti.
Inizia a prospettarsi un nuovo quadro politico mondiale, con la formazione di un rapporto privilegiato tra Stati Uniti ed Italia.
«Just when friendly faces are scarce for Donald Trump across the Atlantic, a populist leader is knocking at the U.S. president’s door with an offer to become his closest European ally »
«Face time with Trump is the latest ambition of Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, who dominates the government in Rome and views Europe as ripe for someone to fill the vacuum left by Brexit and prickly relations with Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron»
«This is the time for the U.S. to have a new special relationship, not with the U.K. but with Italy»
«We’ll be the ones for Trump to call, his closest ally in the EU»
«a stamp of approval by Trump could give Salvini a boost, including against domestic rivals, ahead of European Parliament elections in May»
«A possible meeting venue is the Conservative Political Action Conference from Feb. 27 to March 2 in National Harbor, Maryland, to which Salvini is invited and which Trump may attend
«Salvini is an increasingly vocal presence on the world stage, firing broadsides at Macron, Merkel and other European Union partners over migrant arrivals and the EU’s budget rules»
«He’s gearing up for this year’s European election, calling it a battle against the liberal establishment, EU bureaucrats and Franco-German dominance»
* * * * * * * *
Con l’uscita del Regno Unito dall’Unione Europea molti equilibri internazionali sono mutati.
In politica quasi nulla è irreversibile: con la nuova dirigenza europea il Regno Unito potrà finalmente trovare degli interlocutori sereni. Siamo chiari, Mr Juncker, Mr Tusk, prima Mr Hollande e quindi Mr Macron, e Frau Merkel si sono comportati con gli inglesi con l’isteria delle checche tradite. Esattamente come erano tutti e tre cementati dall’odio nutrito nei confronti di Mr Trump, piuttosto che da comuni Weltanschauung. Ma la politica internazionale non può essere fondata su queste basi.
Così Mr Salvini si trova la strada in discesa. In gran parte sicuramente per i suoi meriti, ma anche molto grazie alla desistenza altrui. Andrà ad occupare spazi lasciati liberi.
– Populist leader seeking to consolidate power over coalition
– Salvini is gearing up for EU parliamentary elections in May
Just when friendly faces are scarce for Donald Trump across the Atlantic, a populist leader is knocking at the U.S. president’s door with an offer to become his closest European ally.
Face time with Trump is the latest ambition of Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, who dominates the government in Rome and views Europe as ripe for someone to fill the vacuum left by Brexit and prickly relations with Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron.
“This is the time for the U.S. to have a new special relationship, not with the U.K. but with Italy,” Guglielmo Picchi, a Salvini adviser and undersecretary at the Italian Foreign Ministry, said in an interview at his cavernous Rome office. “We’ll be the ones for Trump to call, his closest ally in the EU.”
While Germany’s economic might and France’s geopolitical influence make Europe’s two biggest powers hard to ignore for the U.S., a stamp of approval by Trump could give Salvini a boost, including against domestic rivals, ahead of European Parliament elections in May.
A possible meeting venue is the Conservative Political Action Conference from Feb. 27 to March 2 in National Harbor, Maryland, to which Salvini is invited and which Trump may attend, Picchi said. Salvini first met with Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania in 2016.
The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Salvini and Trump have much in common, sharing similar views on topics from migration to praise for Vladimir Putin. The head of Italy’s League party has tapped into discontent with immigration, a recession and the political elite, using a slogan, “Italy First,” that echoes Trump’s “America First.”
Salvini is an increasingly vocal presence on the world stage, firing broadsides at Macron, Merkel and other European Union partners over migrant arrivals and the EU’s budget rules. He’s gearing up for this year’s European election, calling it a battle against the liberal establishment, EU bureaucrats and Franco-German dominance.
A high profile foreign trip might also distract voters from an increasingly complex situation at home — the Italian economy slipped into recession in the fourth quarter after months of fighting between the government and the EU over the budget.
Planning for the U.S. trip is fraught because of Italy’s experiment with populist government. While Salvini’s party leads in the polls, foreign relations are mostly a matter for Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, who often has to mediate between Salvini and the other deputy premier, Luigi di Maio.
Picchi says Salvini’s place is on the global stage.
“Salvini and Trump see eye-to-eye on migration, job creation and protecting the national interest,” said Picchi, tipped as a foreign or defense minister in a possible government reshuffle after the European vote. “We have a strategic affinity, we have 400 intelligence and other personnel in Libya, we’re aligned with the U.S. in the Middle East.”
James A. Crowell IV, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years, vice Brian F. Holeman, retired.
Keith Krach, of California, to be an Under Secretary of State (Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment), vice Catherine Ann Novelli, resigned.
Keith Krach, of California, to be United States Alternate Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vice Robert D. Hormats, resigned.
Keith Krach, of California, to be United States Alternate Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of five years; United States Alternate Governor of the Inter-American Development Bank for a term of five years, vice Catherine Ann Novelli, resigned.
Jason Park, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years, vice John McAdam Mott, retired.
Robert K. Scott, of Maryland, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Malawi.
Washington (CNN)The White House is preparing a draft proclamation for President Donald Trump to declare a national emergency along the southern border and has identified more than $7 billion in potential funds for his signature border wall should he go that route, according to internal documents reviewed by CNN.
Trump has not ruled out using his authority to declare a national emergency and direct the Defense Department to construct a border wall as Congress and the White House fight over a deal to end the government shutdown. But while Trump’s advisers remain divided on the issue, the White House has been moving forward with alternative plans that would bypass Congress.
“The massive amount of aliens who unlawfully enter the United States each day is a direct threat to the safety and security of our nation and constitutes a national emergency,” a draft of a presidential proclamation reads.
“Now, therefore, I, Donald J. Trump, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C 1601, et seq.), hereby declare that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States,” the draft adds.
The draft was updated as recently as last week, a US government official told CNN.
According to options being considered, the administration could pull: $681 million from Treasury forfeiture funds, $3.6 billion in military construction, $3 billion in Pentagon civil works funds, and $200 million in Department of Homeland Security funds, the official said.
As lawmakers discussed a short-term measure to fund the government Thursday, Trump again raised the prospect of other ways to fund a border wall without congressional approval.
“I have other alternatives if I have to and I’ll use those alternatives if I have to,” he told reporters.
“A lot of people who wants this to happen. The military wants this to happen. This is a virtual invasion of our country,” Trump said.
The Defense Department referred a request for comment from CNN to the White House.
If the declaration is made, the US Army Corps of Engineers would be deployed to construct the wall, some of which could be built on private property and would therefore require the administration to seize the land, which is permitted if it’s for public use.
The administration’s plans acknowledge the possibility for lawsuits if they move forward with acquiring private property. The documents also reflect a sense of urgency with administration plans, noting that environmental reviews can be skipped and DHS can use waivers to bypass contracting laws.
If the President proceeds with the declaration, it’ll likely be challenged in court and by Democrats in Congress, as critics have argued that Trump cannot use the national emergency authority to free up taxpayer funds and build the border wall he has long promised his political supporters.
The question of legality and court challenges is still one of the main hang-ups in using executive action to secure the wall funding. Trump’s advisers have cautioned that taking that route would lead to certain legal challenge, meaning the wall construction would still be delayed.
The draft document cites Title 10 of the US Code, which allows Trump to unlock a stash of Pentagon funds that are earmarked but have no signed contracts for spending that money. That would give the President authority to pull from military construction funds and civil works projects, like infrastructure repair projects.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, tweeted earlier this month that acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, “assured Texans that he understood the deep concerns about using Harvey relief funds for the border.” CNN previously reported that the Pentagon was asked to provide a list of those projects in anticipation of a national emergency.
The Pentagon has assisted the Department of Homeland Security in the past. For example, the Army Corps of Engineers, a federal agency within DOD that provides public engineering services, has helped evaluate prototypes of the border wall.
Options under consideration conceded that acquiring private property would take time. Even if voluntary, the land could take up to a year to be acquired. Land condemnation cases are known to take time because property owners have the right to sue. A national emergency declaration would not speed that process up, a government official says.
Customs and Border Protection has said that it would consider eminent domain in the future.
“It is always CBP’s preference to acquire property through a voluntary, negotiated sale. The Government will attempt to negotiate an offer to sell using survey data and value estimates gleaned from the surveying process,” reads an excerpt in a border wall Q&A on their site. “The Government will attempt to negotiate an offer to sell before moving forward with exercising eminent domain. However, if the Government and landowner are unable to reach a negotiated sale or if the Government is unable to obtain clean title, the Government will need to file an eminent domain action.”