Pubblicato in: Giustizia, Trump

Usa. NY Supreme Court sentenzia vittoria di Mr Trump contro Hawaii et Al.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-07-21.

Osprey 001

Grande vittoria legale di Mr Trump alla Corte Suprema di New York per un riferito “racist baby” video.

Ci son voluti quattro anni di battaglie legali intentate dai giudici liberal per stabilire alla fine che la satira è satira, e che quindi non è perseguibile.

Ma se all’epoca i media liberal avevano inscenato una colossale macchina del fango, adesso che il fatto che la Suprema Corte abbia sentenziato che quanto addotto non costituisce reato, lo stanno semplicemente ignorando.

Non ci si stupisca quindi di quanto stia accadendo in Arizona.

Usa. Maricopa. Arizona Audit. Si evidenziano severe ‘discrepanze’ nello scrutinio del 2020.

* * * * * * *

Supreme Court. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Hawaii, et al. (Case Number 17-17168).

Questa causa era stata iniziata il 22 dicembre 2017.

*


New York Supreme Court dismisses ‘racist baby’ lawsuit against Trump, conservative meme maker

«The judge declared the video a work of satire, rendering the case “not actionable.”

A lawsuit filed by the parents of two toddlers featured in a manipulated “racist baby” video was dismissed by the New York Supreme Court on Friday. 

The video at the center of the lawsuit showed a doctored clip of the plaintiffs’ children with a fake CNN chyron that read, “Terrified todler [sic] runs from racist baby.” Then, the chyron changed to say: “Racist baby probably a Trump voter.” The video changes to show the original and ends with the words: “America is not the problem. Fake news is.” It was created by pro-Trump meme maker Logan Cook, better known as Carpe Donktum online, and shared by the former president on Twitter last June.» 

* * * * * * *


WIN: New York Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Trump Over Meme

President Trump last week received a First Amendment victory when New York Supreme Court Judge David Benjamin Cohen dismissed a privacy lawsuit against Trump and Logan Cook, also known as “CarpeDonktum” on social media, over a meme Cook created.

According to court documents, in September 2019, the plaintiffs recorded a video of their two-year-old toddlers, one black and the other white, “hugging each other on a New York City sidewalk,” which went viral as “a symbol of racial unity.”

Cook allegedly “shared the video with Trump, who was then President of the United States, as well as Trump’s campaign, TFP, and misappropriated the video by altering it and intentionally using it out of context to create ‘an extremely distorted and false message.’”

The Hollywood Reporter described the alleged “altering” Cook did to the video in question.

Cook found a video of a white toddler running after a black toddler and stuck a chyron reading “breaking news” over it. The captions read, “Terrified Todler [sic] Runs From Racist Baby” and “Racist Baby Probably A Trump Voter.”

The video then fades to black, and reads, “What actually happened.” The toddlers run at each other and embrace. A new caption: “AMERICA IS NOT THE PROBLEM…FAKE NEWS IS. IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING. ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT FAKE NEWS DUMPSTER FIRES.”

The court document also states that on June 18, 2020, Trump tweeted Cook’s video on his personal account, which gained over 20 million views. The next day Facebook and Twitter removed the video from Trump’s account due to several reasons including: violation of copyright laws, lack of approval from the plaintiffs, and what Twitter says is “likely to cause harm” to the plaintiffs. Cook was reportedly permanently banned from Twitter, but still shared the video on his Instagram account.

The plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit against Trump and Cook over the claim that the video violated “New York privacy and publicity rights law (N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§50 and 51) and was both an intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.

On June 9, Judge Cohen decided to dismiss the case because the video was “newsworthy” and clearly satire.

“Initially, as defendants assert, the video was newsworthy,” Cohen stated. “To promote freedom of expression, the meaning of ‘newsworthiness’ has been broadly construed and includes ‘not only descriptions of actual events … but also articles concerning political happenings, social trends, or any subject of public interest.’”

“It is common knowledge that one of the principal tactics of Trump’s presidential campaigns, as well as his presidency, was to incessantly attack the mainstream media as purveyors of ‘fake news,’ including his claim that the media exaggerates the extent of racial division in this country. Thus, the video’s references to ‘fake news’ and its depiction of race relations, however distorted, are clearly newsworthy,” Cohen said in his decision. “Since the video is therefore a satire, albeit one which some may consider to be rather distasteful, this Court is constrained to find that it is not actionable.”

Although the judge ruled in favor of Trump and Cook, he denied Trump’s SLAPP claim to cover his legal fees.

“Although this Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument, it finds that they set forth a good faith basis for the extension of existing law and, thus, plaintiffs should not be penalized by the draconian language set forth in CRL §§ 70-a and 76-a,” Cohen’s decision clarifies.

After securing this win, President Trump set out to challenge Facebook, Google, and Twitter over censorship in a major class-action lawsuit, RSBN previously reported.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Usa. Trump ha guadagnato molti consensi dalle minoranze.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-11-26.

2020-11-24__Trump Minoranze 013

«Despite his election defeat, President Donald Trump can boast a success that has intrigued pollsters – he was more popular with ethnic minority voters than in 2016»

«Some might find this surprising given that his political critics so often accused him of racism and Islamophobia»

«The Republican president gained a 6% vote share among black men, and a 5% increase among Hispanic women»

«It means some voters changed their minds and decided to cast their vote his way, after either not voting or voting for another candidate in 2016»

«It’s hard for people who aren’t from here in Texas, people forget that Texas used to be a blue state ….The blue here wasn’t like the ideological progressives that we think of now, they were more the old school ‘southern Democrats’ – very racist, very intolerant. So, it was a totally different party, and I had experiences growing up on both sides [of my heritage] of a lot of racism»

«Mateo’s wife Lily, a teacher, first-generation Mexican-American and also a Trump supporter, adds that she voted for him for economic reasons»

«since Trump has been in office our lives have improved»

«The way I’ve been seeing him attacked, the lies»

«But when it came to casting her vote, she felt the Republican party best reflected her socially conservative, Catholic beliefs – particularly on abortion»

«I do love that he’s pro-life and pro-God, and for me that’s very important»

«Even on issues such as immigration, on which President Trump has been notoriously hardline, the Latino community is less monolithic than some assume»

«A 2017 Gallup poll, for example, found that 67% of Hispanic people said they worried a great deal or fair amount about illegal immigration – higher than the proportion of non-Hispanic white people (59%) who answered the same way»

«The group that saw the biggest increase in support for Mr Trump compared to 2016, however, was black men»

«According to a Pew Research Center study from January 2020, a quarter of black Democrats identify as conservative, and 43% as moderate»

«black Americans are more in favour of reducing legal immigration than any other demographic – 85% said they wanted immigration to be reduced from its current level, and 54% chose the strictest options available»

«Organisations such as Blexit, headed up by right-wing personality Candace Owens, gained increasing prominence too»

«I think black Americans are getting a little bit tired of delivering huge votes for the Democrats, and seeing minimal return in terms of economic wealth and closing the wealth gap, job creation and job opportunities… Joe Biden was not an inspiring candidate for many black Americans»

«Americans are fiercely independent, they like strong leadership, and Trump projects the image of being a strong leader»

«Hello Stephanie, I have given you this money, I’m looking out for you. Sincerely, Trump»

«He has a strong nationalist stance, and they try to portray that as racist, …. Protecting your borders and building up your economy is something most Americans want… I don’t see how that’s racist or some kind of dog whistle»

* * * * * * *


I dati del sondaggio sono evidenti ed auto esplicativi.

Come al solito, ci riserviamo di commentare a quando saranno disponibili i dati ufficiali definitivi.

*


US election 2020: Why Trump gained support among minorities.

Despite his election defeat, President Donald Trump can boast a success that has intrigued pollsters – he was more popular with ethnic minority voters than in 2016.

Some might find this surprising given that his political critics so often accused him of racism and Islamophobia. Mr Trump denies being a racist and has accused Democrats of taking African Americans voters for granted.

The Republican president gained a 6% vote share among black men, and a 5% increase among Hispanic women.

It means some voters changed their minds and decided to cast their vote his way, after either not voting or voting for another candidate in 2016.

But it tells us something about Mr Trump’s unique appeal.

“I was definitely more liberal growing up – my grandmother was big in the civil rights movement here in Texas during the 60s, and I grew up with that ideology.”

Mateo Mokarzel, 40, is a graduate student from Houston, Texas and is of mixed heritage, Mexican and Lebanese. He didn’t vote in 2016, and he isn’t loyal to either major party – but this time around he decided to cast his vote for the Republicans.

“The first time Trump ran I really wasn’t convinced. I just thought, here’s this celebrity talk-show host guy that wants to run for president, I didn’t take him seriously – so I was not a Trump supporter the first time he ran. To be honest, I thought he was a ringer for Hillary, so I just wasn’t interested,” he tells BBC News.

But Mateo says his upbringing in Texas coloured his view of both political parties.

“It’s hard for people who aren’t from here in Texas, people forget that Texas used to be a blue state,” he says. “The blue here wasn’t like the ideological progressives that we think of now, they were more the old school ‘southern Democrats’ – very racist, very intolerant. So, it was a totally different party, and I had experiences growing up on both sides [of my heritage] of a lot of racism.”

Mateo has brushed off accusations of racism levelled against the president. Instead, he says he was attracted by Mr Trump’s isolationist foreign policy and economic policies.

“He really delivered on his anti-globalisation policy,” he says. “Neo-liberal expansion has really hurt both Mexico and the US, and when you have family that live there, and you can see how it’s hurt people living, their jobs, their wages, it really has increased the narco-war, and this is one of the things Trump came in saying – ‘hey, we’re going to tear apart these trade deals’ – and then he actually did it. That was for me the first sign that he actually meant some of the things he was saying.”

Mateo’s wife Lily, a teacher, first-generation Mexican-American and also a Trump supporter, adds that she voted for him for economic reasons – “our salaries have increased since Trump became president” – and because she likes his “genuine self”, despite her colleagues and her union supporting Mr Biden.

“The way I’ve been seeing him attacked, the lies,” she says. “I never used to vote, because I never felt my vote counted… And I feel like, since Trump has been in office our lives have improved.”

Elizabeth, 27, also changed her mind about the president over the course of his four years in office. She’s a Mexican-American voter from Laredo, one of Texas’s majority-Latino border cities in which Mr Trump over-performed with voters this year. She didn’t vote in 2016, and initially wasn’t convinced by Mr Trump.

But when it came to casting her vote, she felt the Republican party best reflected her socially conservative, Catholic beliefs – particularly on abortion. President Trump recently nominated anti-abortion judge Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court, and said it was “certainly possible” they could revisit Roe v Wade, the law that legalised abortion nationwide in 1973.

“My family were all Democrats, it was a huge line of Democrats in my family – but this time I did see a difference,” Elizabeth says. “A lot of presidents make promises but they never keep them, including [former President Barack] Obama. With Trump, when he came into office he came in promising, and at first I was like, ‘oh yeah more empty promises’ – but then I started seeing the results… I do love that he’s pro-life and pro-God, and for me that’s very important.”

In 2020 Latinos overtook the black community to become the largest minority voting bloc in the country – and are therefore a politically powerful group. But it is also diverse, made up of people from very different political and cultural backgrounds.

Even on issues such as immigration, on which President Trump has been notoriously hardline, the Latino community is less monolithic than some assume. A 2017 Gallup poll, for example, found that 67% of Hispanic people said they worried a great deal or fair amount about illegal immigration – higher than the proportion of non-Hispanic white people (59%) who answered the same way.

When the first results were called on election night, there was surprise when it was announced that Miami-Dade had lost a chunk of the Democratic support it had in 2016. Democratic analysts wondered whether the party had done enough to appeal to Cuban-Americans, who make up a large proportion of that county’s voters.

The Trump campaign’s painting of Mr Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris as socialists would have also been successful among Cuban-Americans and Venezuelan-Americans.

Writing in Vogue, Paola Ramos – herself Cuban-American – says: “I come from a family of Cuban exiles and grew up around dinner tables that discussed the crumbling of Fidel Castro’s regime – among family discussion that plotted the awaited return to an island that was overtaken by communism in the early ’60s. Like many young Cuban Americans in Florida, we knew the meaning of Castro, socialismo, and comunismo before we even learned how to add or subtract.”

The group that saw the biggest increase in support for Mr Trump compared to 2016, however, was black men.

The black community has long been seen as the most solidly blue voting bloc, consistently lending its support to the Democrats in large numbers each election. This year was no different – in fact, according to exit polls, white voters were the only group in which a majority voted for Mr Trump.

For this reason Sam Fulwood III, who conducted the Black Swing Voter Project this year, tells BBC News that the increase in support for Trump among black voters shouldn’t be overstated:

“I think it’s more hyped than reality,” said Mr Fulwood, who has been highly critical of Mr Trump. “No other demographic in US society voted for Joe Biden in higher numbers than black men, except black women.”

But although black voters tend to overwhelmingly vote Democrat, they are not a monolith. According to a Pew Research Center study from January 2020, a quarter of black Democrats identify as conservative, and 43% as moderate.

A 2018 Harvard-Harris poll also found that black Americans are more in favour of reducing legal immigration than any other demographic – 85% said they wanted immigration to be reduced from its current level, and 54% chose the strictest options available – allowing fewer than 250,000 immigrants into the country per year, or even saying they would want to allow no immigrants at all. In an article in the LA Times that same year, former diplomat Dave Seminara suggests this is because young black men in the US “often compete with recent immigrants for low-skilled jobs”.

In their book Steadfast Democrats, published in February this year, Ismail White and Chryl Laird suggested the reason black voters have so consistently voted Democrat in the past was not because of a unified ideology, but because of “social pressure from other black voters”. Organisations such as Blexit, headed up by right-wing personality Candace Owens, gained increasing prominence too. And this year, several black celebrities appeared to voice their support for Mr Trump, including rappers Curtis Jackson (aka “50 Cent”) and Ice Cube – although 50 Cent later rowed back his endorsement, and Ice Cube, who had backed Mr Trump’s Platinum Plan, distanced himself from the president’s actual campaign.

Black Entertainment Television (BET) founder Robert Johnson also voiced many black voters’ frustrations with the Democratic party, when he told US broadcaster CNBC: “I think black Americans are getting a little bit tired of delivering huge votes for the Democrats, and seeing minimal return in terms of economic wealth and closing the wealth gap, job creation and job opportunities… Joe Biden was not an inspiring candidate for many black Americans.”

Mr Fulwood tells BBC News that although most black voters he spoke to for the Black Swing Voters Project overwhelmingly believed President Trump was “racist” and “incompetent”, they also admired how he “shows strength and defies the establishment”.

“Because Americans are fiercely independent, they like strong leadership, and Trump projects the image of being a strong leader,” he says.

The president seems to defy authority, he adds. “I think that resonates with a great number of, particularly young, African-Americans, who already feel that the establishment is weighted against them. So his rhetoric taps into their antipathy… They don’t like him, they don’t like his policies, but they like the idea that he sticks it to the establishment.”

Stephanie Muravchik, author of Trump’s Democrats, also suggests President Trump’s appeal to some voters was down to his image as a “boss politician” – an old style of local politician whom she says would be personally familiar with their town’s residents.

“It’s a culture where men are absolutely required to defend themselves against any kind of insult,” she tells BBC News. “Trump really intuitively understands that culture and adopts it as his own. He says things like, ‘never show fear, it’s all about strength’ – when he got Covid and then recovered, he whipped off his mask. That may seem absurd and childish to some, but it reads differently in these communities.”

The Covid-19 stimulus cheque sent to US citizens, with a letter personally signed by President Trump, was an example of so-called “boss politics” in action.

“Trump really wanted to sign the cheques,” she adds. “As mine was automatically deposited, I got a letter from the US government signed by Trump, saying ‘Hello Stephanie, I have given you this money, I’m looking out for you. Sincerely, Trump’. It was really absurd, but it was brilliant, because it was invoking that model of politician as protector.”

But even with all of this in mind, are the racism accusations off-putting for minority voters?

For Mateo, these claims have only strengthened his resolve to support Mr Trump – and to push back against what he calls “media bias”.

“He has a strong nationalist stance, and they try to portray that as racist,” Mateo says. “Protecting your borders and building up your economy is something most Americans want… I don’t see how that’s racist or some kind of dog whistle.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Usa. Elezioni. La Suprema Corte. Intreccio di politica e giurisprudenza. SG Roberts.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-11-10.

Suprema Corte

Al momento in cui si scrive questo articolo i risultati elettorali non sono ancora definitivi, per cui scriviamo sulla base di soli dati provvisori, soggetti anche a significative variazioni.

Inoltre, i media internazionali sono tutti schierati per i liberal democratici, motivo per cui quanto a seguito riportato è da considerarsi essere partigiano.

Tuttavia il problema del ruolo che potrebbe assumere la Suprema Corte è reale.

* * * * * * *



«Trump’s road to the Supreme Court isn’t as fast as he wants»

«President didn’t lay out any grounds for a possible challenge »

«President Donald Trump said he will go to the U.S. Supreme Court because he wants “all voting to stop,” as he tries to hold on to early leads in key battleground states»

«He won’t be able to go there immediately and it’s not clear he has a legal argument that could affect the outcome of the election»

«Cases typically work their way to the nation’s highest court after a ruling by a local judge and then other appeals courts»

«If the president makes good on his threat to go to court to try to prevent the proper tabulation of votes, we have legal teams standing by ready to deploy to resist that effort, and they will prevail»

«Of course before it went to the Supreme Court, it would have to go to local courts anyway so this talk of taking it straight to the Supreme Court is an exaggeration that couldn’t be done»

«The Pennsylvania Supreme Court previously ordered a three-day extension for ballots to arrive, saying it was required by the state constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily left the ruling intact on a 4-4 vote»

«The justices may revisit the question, and ballots received after Tuesday are set to be kept separate, pending further litigation»

«Four conservative justices have already declared that they are willing to review the case after the election. They left open the door»

«The only time the Supreme Court has resolved a disputed presidential election was 2000, when the court sealed the election for Republican George W. Bush by stopping Florida ballot recounts that could have swung that state for Democrat Al Gore»

«The high court said the different standards for counting ballots around the state violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause»

 

* * * * * * *


 

Se nelle elezioni del 2016 i risultati erano fuori di ogni dubbio, oggi al contrario assistiamo ad un serrato testa a testa, realtà questa foriera di consistenti diatribe legali.

Il nodo della Suprema Corte ha un nome ed un cognome: Sua Giustizia Roberts.

Pur essendo di nomina repubblicana, Sua Giustizia Roberts negli ultimi anni si è costantemente schierato con i liberal.

«The Pennsylvania Supreme Court previously ordered a three-day extension for ballots to arrive, saying it was required by the state constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily left the ruling intact on a 4-4 vote»

*

«Republicans in Pennsylvania on Tuesday filed a lawsuit in one one county in the Philadelphia suburbs, alleging that officials illegally allowed mail-in ballots to be counted before Election Day. A hearing is scheduled for Wednesday at 9 a.m.»

 

Sua Giustizia Roberts è l’uomo che ha deciso il risultato di queste elezioni.

Con la nomina di Sua Giustizia Barrett lo schieramento nella Suprema Corte dovrebbe essere adesso di quattro liberal contro cinque repubblicani.

Ma usiamo il modo condizionale ed il verbo ausiliare di potenzialità.

La situazione è tuttora fluida ed al momento impredicibile.

Sarebbe comunque auspicabile che la Suprema Corte sentenziasse sul Census, sulla legalità dell’iscrizione alle liste elettorali e, quindi, di concorrere a determinare i risultati elettorali, ed infine sul voto per corrispondenza: senza chiarezza su questi temi giuridici le manfrine odierne sarebbero perpetuate nel tempo.

*


Trump’s Road to the Supreme Court Isn’t as Fast as He Wants.

– President didn’t lay out any grounds for a possible challenge

– Republican lawyer says Trump may have hard time blocking votes

*

President Donald Trump said he will go to the U.S. Supreme Court because he wants “all voting to stop,” as he tries to hold on to early leads in key battleground states.

He won’t be able to go there immediately and it’s not clear he has a legal argument that could affect the outcome of the election.

Cases typically work their way to the nation’s highest court after a ruling by a local judge and then other appeals courts. In 2000, it took more than a month before the Supreme Court issued the landmark Bush v. Gore ruling that ultimately decided that year’s election.

As counting continues in states including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, Trump said in an early morning speech — in which he also falsely claimed victory — that the tabulation delays were an “an embarrassment to our country.”

“This is a major fraud on our nation,” Trump said. “We want the law to be used in a proper manner.”

Biden’s campaign said it had legal teams ready to counter any lawsuits.

“If the president makes good on his threat to go to court to try to prevent the proper tabulation of votes, we have legal teams standing by ready to deploy to resist that effort, and they will prevail,” Biden’s campaign manager, Jen O’Malley Dillon, said in a statement.

Trump didn’t lay out any grounds for a possible challenge, and it’s not clear what irregularities his lawyers would target, said Nicholas Whyte, who runs an election blog for APCO Worldwide, a consulting firm in Brussels.

Exaggeration

“Of course before it went to the Supreme Court, it would have to go to local courts anyway so this talk of taking it straight to the Supreme Court is an exaggeration that couldn’t be done,” Whyte said.

One longtime Republican lawyer said Trump will have difficulty stopping votes that came in on or before Election Day from being counted.

There are “recount laws if the margins are close enough,” but the bar to stop or reject an ongoing vote is much higher, Ben Ginsberg, who advised George W. Bush in 2000, said on CNN. “I don’t know how to a large extent he’d be able justify a law to just bypass the state procedures and disenfranchise people who’ve legally cast their ballots.”

Other lawsuits on various issues, however, are already in the works that could wind their way through the appellate process quickly.

Republicans in Pennsylvania on Tuesday filed a lawsuit in one one county in the Philadelphia suburbs, alleging that officials illegally allowed mail-in ballots to be counted before Election Day. A hearing is scheduled for Wednesday at 9 a.m.

Key State

And Republicans are already asking the Supreme Court to block mail-in ballots from being counted in Pennsylvania if they arrive after Tuesday. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court previously ordered a three-day extension for ballots to arrive, saying it was required by the state constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily left the ruling intact on a 4-4 vote.

The justices may revisit the question, and ballots received after Tuesday are set to be kept separate, pending further litigation.

“Four conservative justices have already declared that they are willing to review the case after the election. They left open the door,” said Ilaria Di Gioia, Associate Director of the Centre for American Legal Studies at Birmingham City University in the U.K. “The issue is whether it should be up to the state legislature or up to the Supreme Court to decide how to count votes.”

Republicans are banking on newly confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett to make the difference. But they also would need to persuade the court’s other conservatives to invalidate ballots from voters who might have been relying on the extension.

The only time the Supreme Court has resolved a disputed presidential election was 2000, when the court sealed the election for Republican George W. Bush by stopping Florida ballot recounts that could have swung that state for Democrat Al Gore. The high court said the different standards for counting ballots around the state violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Bush won the state by 537 votes.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Usa. StatesPoll prevede una vittoria di Mr Trump.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-11-02.

2020-10-26__ Usa Polls 013

Voce fuori dal coro, StatesPoll preconizza una vittoria di Mr Trump su Mr Biden 290 a 216.

«My analysis is neutral, not biased. Based on 2012/2016/2018 Exit Polls + Voter registration +Trends + Party ID %.»

* * * * * * *


Riportiamo anche questa analisi preelettorale per completezza dell’informazione.

A nostro sommesso parere, tutte le prospezioni elettorali al momento disponibili sono fortemente inquinate da una certa quale manipolazione politica, fatto questo che impone di prenderne atto usando molto sano buon senso.

Sempre dal nostro punto di vista, opinabile quindi, i due candidati alla presidenza sono al momento testa a testa, e le decine di milioni di voti per corrispondenza potrebbero decidere la situazione.

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

Usa. 2020Q3. Pil +33.1% trimestre su trimestre.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-10-29.

2020-10-29__ Bea 013


Questo è un risultato stupefacente, di cui non si trova riscontro nella storia.

Diamo atto al Presidente Trump di essere stato estremamente abile, pur dovendo agire in ambiente ostile. Mr Biden non ha commentato.

«Gross domestic product rebounded at a 33.1% annualized rate last quarter, the Commerce Department said in its advance estimate on Thursday. That was the fastest pace since the government started keeping records in 1947 and followed a historic shrinkage rate of 31.4% in the second quarter.»

*


Il Bureau of Economic Analysis ha rilasciato il Report Gross Domestic Product, Third Quarter 2020. (Advance Estimate).

Technical Note

Key source data and assumptions

*

Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 33.1 percent in the third quarter of 2020 (table 1), according to the “advance” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP decreased 31.4 percent.

The GDP estimate released today is based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see “Source Data for the Advance Estimate” on page 2). The “second” estimate for the third quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on November 25, 2020.

The increase in third quarter GDP reflected continued efforts to reopen businesses and resume activities that were postponed or restricted due to COVID-19. The full economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be quantified in the GDP estimate for the third quarter of 2020 because the impacts are generally embedded in source data and cannot be separately identified.

The increase in real GDP reflected increases in personal consumption expenditures (PCE), private inventory investment, exports, nonresidential fixed investment, and residential fixed investment that were partly offset by decreases in federal government spending (reflecting fewer fees paid to administer the Paycheck Protection Program loans) and state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased (table 2).

The increase in PCE reflected increases in services (led by health care as well as food services and accommodations) and goods (led by motor vehicles and parts as well as clothing and footwear). The increase in private inventory investment primarily reflected an increase in retail trade (led by motor vehicle dealers). The increase in exports primarily reflected an increase in goods (led by automotive vehicles, engines, and parts as well as capital goods). The increase in nonresidential fixed investment primarily reflected an increase in equipment (led by transportation equipment). The increase in residential fixed investment primarily reflected an increase in brokers’ commissions and other ownership transfer costs.

Current-dollar GDP increased 38.0 percent, or $1.64 trillion, in the third quarter to a level of $21.16 trillion. In the second quarter, GDP decreased 32.8 percent, or $2.04 trillion (tables 1 and 3).

The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 3.4 percent in the third quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 1.4 percent in the second quarter (table 4). The PCE price index increased 3.7 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 1.6 percent. Excluding food and energy prices, the PCE price index increased 3.5 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 0.8 percent.

Personal Income

Current-dollar personal income decreased $540.6 billion in the third quarter, in contrast to an increase of $1.45 trillion in the second quarter. The decrease in personal income was more than accounted for by a decrease in personal current transfer receipts (notably, government social benefits related to pandemic relief programs) that was partly offset by increases in compensation and proprietors’ income (table 8). Additional information on several factors impacting personal income can be found in “Effects of Selected Federal Pandemic Response Programs on Personal Income.”

Disposable personal income decreased $636.7 billion, or 13.2 percent, in the third quarter, in contrast to an increase of $1.60 trillion, or 44.3 percent, in the second quarter. Real disposable personal income decreased 16.3 percent, in contrast to an increase of 46.6 percent.

Personal saving was $2.78 trillion in the third quarter, compared with $4.71 trillion in the second quarter. The personal saving rate—personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income—was 15.8 percent in the third quarter, compared with 25.7 percent in the second quarter.

*


U.S. economy notches record growth in third quarter.

The U.S. economy grew at an unrivaled pace in the third quarter as the government poured out more than $3 trillion worth of pandemic relief which fueled consumer spending, but the deep scars from the COVID-19 recession could take a year or more to heal.

Gross domestic product rebounded at a 33.1% annualized rate last quarter, the Commerce Department said in its advance estimate on Thursday. That was the fastest pace since the government started keeping records in 1947 and followed a historic shrinkage rate of 31.4% in the second quarter.

The GDP report – one of the last major economic scorecards before next week’s presidential election – will do little to mitigate the human tragedy inflicted by the coronavirus pandemic, with tens of millions Americans still unemployed and more than 222,000 dead.

With five days remaining to Election Day President Donald Trump, trailing in most national opinion polls, will probably seize on the stunning rebound in GDP as a sign of recovery. But U.S. output remains below its level in the fourth quarter of 2019, a fact Trump’s Democratic challenger Joe Biden is almost certain to highlight along with signs that the growth spurt is fast petering out.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast the economy expanding at a 31% rate in the July-September quarter. The economy slipped into recession in February.

The government’s rescue package provided a lifeline for many businesses and the unemployed, juicing up consumer spending, which on its own powered the surge in GDP. But government funding has been depleted with no deal in sight for another round of relief. New COVID-19 cases are spiraling across the country, forcing restrictions on businesses like restaurants and bars.

Just over half of the 22.2 million jobs lost during the pandemic have been recouped, and layoffs persist.

A separate report from the Labor Department on Thursday showed 751,000 people filed for state unemployment benefits in the week ending Oct. 24, compared to 791,000 in the previous period. Though claims have dropped from a record 6.867 million in March, they remain above their 665,000 peak seen during the 2007-09 Great Recession.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Usa. Suprema Corte. Il punto di vista dei liberal democratici.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-10-03.

Suprema Corte

In maniera coordinata come un banco di sardine, i media internazionali liberal hanno abbassato i toni e si astengono da articoli troppo astiosi. Non attaccano più nemmeno Bolsonaro, il che è tutto dire. E quasi non parlano degli incendi in California. Sembrerebbero essere stati anestetizzati. Di certo il colpo è stato destruente. E la svolta è epocale.

«The Supreme Court hasn’t been this conservative since the 1930s»

Era da novanta lunghi anni che la Suprema Corte era in mano ai democratici: a quei tempi che i lib dem avessero la maggioranza era considerata essere cosa buona e giusta, ma una alternanza democratica è per loro un numquam sanabile vulnus.

* * * * * * *


«Amy Coney Barrett’s debut shows she will be a tough adversary for Democrats»

«By nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, President Donald Trump took the first step Saturday toward solidifying a 6-3 conservative majority on the high court, a shift that could usher in sweeping changes to health care, as well as abortion, voting and gun rights»

«As Barrett spoke in the Rose Garden before an audience that included her seven children — as a nominee, Trump noted, who could become the first mother of school-aged children to serve on the high court — she showed how challenging it will be for Democrats to vilify her as a frightening figure who would join the court’s conservative majority in rolling back abortion rights and stripping Americans of their health care protections»

«In her own speech, Barrett skillfully conveyed the attributes of her judicial philosophy that have endeared her to conservatives»

«But she also touched on elements of her own biography as a “room parent, carpool driver and birthday party planner” that seemed intended to make her a relatable figure to the key voting bloc of suburban independent and Republican-leaning women who could be unnerved by her conservative views on abortion and health care.»

«In a tacit plea for bipartisanship before the contentious confirmation hearings that will begin on October 12 and that Republicans hope to have wrapped by Election Day, Barrett spoke of her admiration for how the friendship between Scalia, who she called her mentor»

«But Barrett also unequivocally cast herself as an acolyte of Scalia, a conservative firebrand who was defined by his “originalist” approach to interpreting the Constitution, stating that he had “an incalculable influence” on her life.»

«Democrats quickly sought to re-center the conversation Saturday evening on the threats that a 6-3 conservative court could pose to the Affordable Care Act and abortion rights»

«But polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has tracked public opinion on the health care law since its passage in 2010, shows that the country is still divided over the Obama-era healthcare law. Their survey earlier this month found that only about half of Americans (49%) hold a favorable opinion of the Affordable Care Act — with more than 80% of Democrats backing the law, compared with 48% of independents and 16% of Republicans»

«This selection would move the court further right for a generation & harm millions of Americans.»

«They are also hoping to avoid the mistakes their party made during the 2017 hearing, when Feinstein’s probing questions about how Barrett’s Catholic faith might affect her judicial opinions made the Notre Dame professor a hero to religious conservatives who argued that Democrats had showed anti-Catholic bias»

* * * * * * *


A quanto sembrerebbe, le udienze in senato comincerebbero il 12 ottobre e ci si aspetterebbe la votazione finale il 22.

*


Amy Coney Barrett’s debut shows she will be a tough adversary for Democrats.

By nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, President Donald Trump took the first step Saturday toward solidifying a 6-3 conservative majority on the high court, a shift that could usher in sweeping changes to health care, as well as abortion, voting and gun rights. But the moment also served as an overture to female voters as Trump tries to address a historic gender gap in the polls.

As Barrett spoke in the Rose Garden before an audience that included her seven children — as a nominee, Trump noted, who could become the first mother of school-aged children to serve on the high court — she showed how challenging it will be for Democrats to vilify her as a frightening figure who would join the court’s conservative majority in rolling back abortion rights and stripping Americans of their health care protections.

The federal appellate judge, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in the late 1990s, was introduced Saturday evening by Trump as a woman with a “towering intellect” and “unyielding loyalty to the Constitution” whom he chose because she is one of the “nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds.”

In her own speech, Barrett skillfully conveyed the attributes of her judicial philosophy that have endeared her to conservatives. But she also touched on elements of her own biography as a “room parent, carpool driver and birthday party planner” that seemed intended to make her a relatable figure to the key voting bloc of suburban independent and Republican-leaning women who could be unnerved by her conservative views on abortion and health care.

At a ceremony that the White House choreographed as a near replica of the 1993 event where then-President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the 48-year-old judge spoke in reverent terms of the liberal icon she would replace, stating that she would be “mindful of who came before me.” Barrett noted that Ginsburg began her career “at a time when women were not welcome in the legal profession,” yet “she not only broke glass ceilings, she smashed them.”

In a tacit plea for bipartisanship before the contentious confirmation hearings that will begin on October 12 and that Republicans hope to have wrapped by Election Day, Barrett spoke of her admiration for how the friendship between Scalia, who she called her mentor, and Ginsburg showed “that arguments — even about matters of great consequence — need not destroy affection,” a standard she said she has applied in her own personal and professional relationships.

But Barrett also unequivocally cast herself as an acolyte of Scalia, a conservative firebrand who was defined by his “originalist” approach to interpreting the Constitution, stating that he had “an incalculable influence” on her life.

“His judicial philosophy is mine too — a judge must apply the law as written,” Barrett said of Scalia. “Judges are not policymakers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.”

Trump and his allies hope that the nomination, and the President’s recognition of Barrett’s balancing act as an accomplished jurist and working mother, could help the President win back some of the conservative women who he has alienated with his leadership style and handling of the pandemic.

But it is difficult to predict whether Trump’s pick will have a definitive impact on the presidential race because Americans hold such firmly defined opinions of Trump and there are few persuadable voters left. Barrett’s conservative credentials and the rightward swerve of the high court, however, could hurt the reelection prospects of vulnerable Senate Republicans, who are struggling to solidify their hold on the GOP base without alienating independent-minded, socially-liberal voters.

Democrats focus on health care

Democrats quickly sought to re-center the conversation Saturday evening on the threats that a 6-3 conservative court could pose to the Affordable Care Act and abortion rights, while Republicans tried to keep the focus on Barrett’s compelling personal story, as a woman who is balancing her duties on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals with the care of her young children, including two children she and her husband adopted from Haiti and one born with Down syndrome.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, along with many other Democratic leaders, focused on the most immediate challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Oral arguments are scheduled one week after the election in a case brought by a coalition of Republican attorneys general and the Trump administration, who argue that the law’s individual mandate is unconstitutional and there are legal grounds for striking down the law in its entirety.

“President Trump has been trying to throw out the Affordable Care Act for four years. Republicans have been trying to end it for a decade. Twice, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional,” Biden said in a statement. Barrett, he said, “has a written track record of disagreeing with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act. She critiqued Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion upholding the law in 2012.”

View Trump and Biden head-to-head polling

The former vice president argued that the Senate should not act on Trump’s nomination of Barrett until “after the American people select their next president and the next Congress,” claiming that the American people are currently voting “because their health care hangs in the balance.” Biden noted that medical complications from Covid-19 have created a new set of pre-existing conditions, protections for which could disappear if the ACA is struck down.

But polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has tracked public opinion on the health care law since its passage in 2010, shows that the country is still divided over the Obama-era healthcare law. Their survey earlier this month found that only about half of Americans (49%) hold a favorable opinion of the Affordable Care Act — with more than 80% of Democrats backing the law, compared with 48% of independents and 16% of Republicans.

California Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential nominee who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold Barrett’s confirmation hearings, said Barrett would “undo (Ginsburg’s) legacy and erase everything she did for our country.”

“Trump’s hand-picked successor to Justice Ginsburg’s seat makes it clear: they intend to destroy the Affordable Care Act & overturn Roe,” Harris said on Twitter, referring to the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that affirmed the right to an abortion. “This selection would move the court further right for a generation & harm millions of Americans.”

Trump favors overturning Roe vs. Wade. Barrett has suggested opposition to abortion rights, but like most conservative judicial nominees, has been cautious in her answers about the case.

During a 2013 lecture at Notre Dame, she said she thought it was “very unlikely at this point that the court is going to overturn (Roe v. Wade),” adding that “the fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand.”

Notable dissents from Judge Amy Coney Barrett

In an extended back-and-forth on Roe with California Sen. Dianne Feinstein in 2017 during her confirmation hearings for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett told the Democratic senator she did not want to comment about her agreement or disagreement with any one Supreme Court precedent, because she said she would commit, if confirmed to the appellate court, to “follow unflinchingly all Supreme Court precedent.”

When pressed on how she evaluated the precedents related to Roe, she offered a narrow answer about how she viewed her role as an appellate judge: “Roe has been affirmed many times and survived many challenges in the court,” Barrett said during that 2017 hearing. “And it’s more than 40 years old, and it’s clearly binding on all Courts of Appeals. And so it’s not open to me or up to me, and I would have no interest in, as a Court of Appeals judge, challenging that precedent. It would bind.”

But for now, Democrats seem most focused on Barrett’s potential impact on health care coverage as an issue that could animate a broader group of voters, at a time when many are already casting their ballots by mail.

They are also hoping to avoid the mistakes their party made during the 2017 hearing, when Feinstein’s probing questions about how Barrett’s Catholic faith might affect her judicial opinions made the Notre Dame professor a hero to religious conservatives who argued that Democrats had showed anti-Catholic bias.

A polarizing new element in fast-approaching election

The highly-charged policy debates that will emerge during Barrett’s upcoming confirmation hearings — which are also expected to focus on how she would handle election disputes as the President makes his baseless claims about voter fraud — carry the most potential damage for endangered GOP senators like Susan Collins of Maine, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Cory Gardner of Colorado and Martha McSally of Arizona, who are trying to shore up their support within Trump’s base while also appealing to suburban moms, many of whom favor abortion rights.

On the flip side, some in the GOP have argued that the nomination process could help Republican senators in red states like Alaska, Kansas and South Carolina who are being targeted by Democrats this year.

2020 Senate race ratings

While CNN polling has shown that nearly six in 10 Americans believe that the winner of the presidential election in November should choose the justice who replaces Ginsburg on the high court, there is no definitive data yet to show whether Trump’s choice has been more animating to conservatives or progressives — and whether it will actually move votes at the margins.

But much of politics is about perception. And in the case of judicial nominees, their bearing and demeanor in these high-pressure appearances can often influence voters’ opinions as much as their writings and opinions. With her adroitly tailored speech and her promise to serve all Americans during her debut on Saturday, Barrett proved that she will be a formidable adversary for Democrats in the weeks to come.

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

Trump e Suprema Corte. Clima da guerra civile. Il potere vero, quello che decide lo fa.


Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-09-27.

Suprema Corte

Negli Stati Uniti la Suprema Corte è una istituzione atipica.

Composta di nove membri nominati a vita, questa Corte può emettere sentenze inappellabili, bloccando anche i provvedimenti politici presi dagli organi democraticamente eletti, presidente degli Stati Uniti incluso.

In altri termini, nove funzionari, ripetiamo, nominati ma non eletti, costituiscono il sinedrio che nei fatti governa l’America.

Non solo.

Lo schieramento prevalente nel suo interno potrà contare anche su di un esercito di giudici di minor livello, che potranno scatenarsi nel loro furor politico ben sicuri che la Suprema Corte avvallerà sempre le loro decisioni.

Gli accadimenti degli ultimi quattro anni hanno ben evidenziato l’uso politico della magistratura fatta dai liberal democratici.

È un potere smisurato, che in mani smaliziate diventa una vera e propria dittatura.

*

«Trump and the GOP spent the weekend rolling out a way to try to solidify an unassailable and generational majority on the nation’s top bench»

«President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans spent the weekend rolling out an aggressive power play to try to solidify an unassailable and generational majority on the nation’s top bench possibly even before an election that is only 43 days away»

«The GOP will not care, however, since this pick will likely enshrine a decades-long conservative majority with the capacity to shape vast areas of American life — from voting and gender rights to environmental regulation and big business matters»

«But I think that the President’s obligation is to make the nomination. We will leave the timetable to Leader McConnell»

* * * * * * *


Non sappiamo come andranno a finire le cose.

Sicuramente il problema trascende la contingenza elettorale: se anche assassinassero Mr Trump, una Corte Suprema sei a tre per i repubblicani condizionerebbe l’America per almeno trenta anni.

«decades-long conservative majority with the capacity to shape vast areas of American life — from voting and gender rights to environmental regulation and big business matters»

*


Trump and the GOP spent the weekend rolling out a way to try to solidify an unassailable and generational majority on the nation’s top bench.

Supreme Court fight adds stunning new twist to a crisis election.

The United States is barreling into the ultimate political stress test, with the most divisive partisan collisions — a Supreme Court battle and a presidential election — occurring in the middle of an again-worsening pandemic that is about to claim its 200,000th American life.

President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans spent the weekend rolling out an aggressive power play to try to solidify an unassailable and generational majority on the nation’s top bench possibly even before an election that is only 43 days away.

Democrats are meanwhile mobilizing to maximize what they see as possible benefits of the nomination struggle for Joe Biden’s campaign and to prevent the President from using the sudden confirmation fight to turn the focus away from his disastrous mismanagement of the coronavirus emergency. The confrontation is heating up with some Americans already taking part in early and absentee voting, and only a week before the first critical presidential debate between the President and the former vice president in Ohio.

The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday injected an extraordinary new dimension into what was already shaping up as the most contentious election in decades. Her passing also unleashed an even more divisive than normal battle for a replacement since Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pressing ahead to confirm a late-term Trump pick despite refusing to move on then-President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, many months before the 2016 election. Trump said on “Fox & Friends” Monday morning that he will likely announce his nominee on Friday or Saturday.

Back in 2016, McConnell said voters should decide the destiny of the court in choosing a new President. But McConnell turned his back on his own made-up rule with a Republican in the White House. This Republican hypocrisy led to an absurd spectacle on Sunday talk shows of lawmakers and officials trying to explain away their own disingenuousness. The GOP will not care, however, since this pick will likely enshrine a decades-long conservative majority with the capacity to shape vast areas of American life — from voting and gender rights to environmental regulation and big business matters. The court could also become a thorn in the side of future Democratic presidents.

Trump reveled in his opportunity to nominate his third Supreme Court Justice at a rally in North Carolina on Saturday night. “It will be a woman, a very talented, very brilliant woman,” Trump said. “I haven’t chosen yet, but we have numerous women on the list.”

Among the President’s top choices, according to CNN reporting, are Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump previously nominated to sit on the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals, and Barbara Lagoa, whom he appointed to the 11th US Circuit of Appeals in 2019. Lagoa is Hispanic and from Florida and could fit well with Trump’s reelection strategy, which depends on him winning the vital swing state.

Biden seized on McConnell’s gall in an effort to make the case that Republicans who won the presidency despite losing the popular vote are embarked on an extreme power grab and must be reined in.

“Don’t go there,” Biden said Sunday, directly appealing to GOP senators. “Uphold your constitutional duty, your conscience, let the people speak. Cool the flames that have been engulfing our country. We can’t keep rewriting history.”

Two Republicans, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Sen. Susan Collins, who is locked in a tight reelection fight in Maine, have already said that they oppose taking up Trump’s nomination before the election, leaving McConnell almost no margin for error if he is to fulfill Trump’s wish for a vote before the election. He can only afford to lose one more Republican senator and still confirm the pick before November 3 with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence.

The exact dynamics inside the Senate GOP will become more clear later this week as the chamber returns to work and members gather for their policy lunch.

Worsening pandemic complicates Trump’s reelection push

Biden plans to make the Supreme Court duel into a new platform for his assault on the President on health care, sources told CNN. The approach will allow him to also leverage criticism of Trump’s performance on the pandemic.

The court is already scheduled to hear oral arguments in the administration’s latest attempt to kill off Obamacare the week after the election, and Democrats will argue that the new nominee could help finally seal the law’s fate and crush popular provisions like a ban on denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

The President pivoted forcefully to the new Supreme Court battle after a week when he became increasingly desperate to deflect from the pandemic, which included misleading and often false accounts, for example, of the speed with which Americans can expect to see a vaccine needed to end the disaster.

Trump’s claims that the country has been turning the corner on the virus are being comprehensively refuted by data, which shows a rising number of cases and daily coronavirus deaths averaging around 800. The number of Covid-19 deaths in the United States is about to top the staggering barrier of 200,000 after it emerged in Bob Woodward’s new book that the President understood the seriousness of the disease back in February but refused to level with the country. Some experts say this may have potentially caused tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. On Monday, Trump once again gave himself an A+ in his handling of the pandemic despite the rising number of infections throughout the country.

Trump’s hopes of talking about anything but the pandemic look slim given the worsening situation. The number of new Covid-19 cases has increased by at least 10% in 28 states over the last week, according to data from Johns Hopkins University. The test positivity rate — the percentage of new test results that are positive — is rising in 25 states, according to the Covid Tracking Project, fulfilling the fears of experts who warned of a post-Labor Day spike.

Republicans deny claims of hypocrisy

While large crowds of mourners gathered at the Supreme Court to pay tribute to Ginsburg, the White House was embarking on an aggressive plan to put her replacement — and a 6-3 conservative majority — in place.

“Justice Ginsburg was confirmed within 43 days of her nomination,” Pence’s Chief of Staff Marc Short told Jake Tapper on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, though it actually took 50 days from the presidential announcement.

“Today, we sit here 44 days out from election, so it’s certainly possible,” he said, referring to the chances of getting a new justice on the bench by November 3.”But I think that the President’s obligation is to make the nomination. We will leave the timetable to Leader McConnell.”

Republican senators blew past accusations of hypocrisy when asked about the tactics of McConnell, who has made reshaping the federal judiciary the priority of his leadership of the Senate.

Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso laid out his expectations for a swift confirmation on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. “The President is going to make a nomination. I believe it’s going to be this week. And Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we will hold hearings. And there will be a vote on the floor of the United States Senate this year.”

If the Republicans cannot ram through a vote before the election, it could lead to a massive political conflagration should Democrats win the presidency and take back the Senate, then have to watch as a new justice is confirmed in a lame duck session by McConnell.

Such possibilities are making for some treacherous politics for both sides ahead of the election.

Trump, for example, is clearly hoping that a Supreme Court fight will supercharge his political base and send an overwhelming wave of conservatives into polling places. But there is also the chance that the Supreme Court battle could backfire on the President. It could boost liberal turnout among voters who fear, for example, that the new conservative majority will seek to limit or even outlaw the right to an abortion. A prolonged fight over this issue ahead of the election may further weaken Trump’s already compromised position among suburban women voters.

A new Reuters-Ipsos poll conducted on Saturday and Sunday found 62% of Americans agreed that the winner of the election should appoint Ginsburg’s replacement. But the poll also pointed to partisan divides and public uncertainty since 46% of those asked agreed that Trump should nominate a replacement before his term ends.

The audacity of the President and McConnell is also fueling Democratic intensity over what many in the party will view as two stolen Supreme Court seats. Former President Bill Clinton said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that for “Senator McConnell and President Trump, their first value is power. And they’re trying to jam the court with as many ideological judges as they can.”

“You can’t keep a democracy if there’s one set of rules for one group and another set for everybody else,” Clinton said.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Usa. Trump nominerebbe la Judge Amy Coney Barrett alla Corte Suprema. – Bloomberg

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-09-26.

Suprema Corte

«Barrett would be third justice to be appointed by Trump»

«Announcement on nomination set for Saturday at White House»

«President Donald Trump has told associates he’ll nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, according to people familiar with the matter»

«If confirmed by the Senate, Barrett, 48, would become the third justice appointed to the nine-member high court by Trump»

«An Indiana-based federal appeals court judge, Barrett is known to be a devout Catholic with fervent anti-abortion views»

«The plan has angered Democrats»

«McConnell says his precedent shouldn’t apply when the same party controls both the Senate and White House»

«There’s little Democrats can do to delay a vote on Barrett, an acolyte and former clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was once the high court’s conservative standard-bearer»

«And her appointment, which could solidify the court’s rightward shift for a generation, will undoubtedly play a dominant role in the final weeks of the presidential election»

* * * * * * *


«There’s little Democrats can do»

Se, come potrebbe sembrare essere verosimile, il Senato approvasse la nomina del Judge Amy Coney Barrett alla Suprema Corte, la maggioranza repubblicana si consoliderebbe sia per il rapporto di sei contro tre, sia per il fatto che la giudice è cattolica e «fervent anti-abortion».

Avendo 48 anni, Judge Amy Coney Barrett potrebbe restare in carica per almeno trenta anni consecutivi.

È facile comprendere la sorda rabbia dei liberal democratici.

*


Trump Plans to Name Barrett to Replace Ginsburg on High Court.

– Barrett would be third justice to be appointed by Trump

– Announcement on nomination set for Saturday at White House

*

President Donald Trump has told associates he’ll nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, according to people familiar with the matter, a move that could cement conservative control of the judiciary just weeks before Election Day.

If confirmed by the Senate, Barrett, 48, would become the third justice appointed to the nine-member high court by Trump. An Indiana-based federal appeals court judge, Barrett is known to be a devout Catholic with fervent anti-abortion views.

Trump plans to announce Barrett’s nomination at a White House ceremony on Saturday, though he could yet change his mind, the people cautioned. A bitter clash will follow in the Senate, where Republicans have vowed to use their majority to rapidly push through a confirmation vote before the Nov. 3 election.

The people familiar with Trump’s decision asked not to be identified because he hasn’t announced it himself.

The plan has angered Democrats, who have called Republicans hypocrites. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to consider Barack Obama’s nomination to fill a vacant seat in the 2016 election year, saying voters first deserved the chance to select the next president.

McConnell says his precedent shouldn’t apply when the same party controls both the Senate and White House.

There’s little Democrats can do to delay a vote on Barrett, an acolyte and former clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was once the high court’s conservative standard-bearer. And her appointment, which could solidify the court’s rightward shift for a generation, will undoubtedly play a dominant role in the final weeks of the presidential election.

Democratic candidate Joe Biden has said the winner of the presidential contest should fill Ginsburg’s seat.

Meanwhile, the White House has been preparing for the nomination fight. Officials are leaning against assigning a so-called “sherpa” for Barrett’s nomination — often a former senator who shepherds the nominee through the confirmation process, including private meetings with senators.

Having managed two successful nominations already, senior White House officials feel they’re experienced enough that a sherpa won’t be necessary, according to two people familiar with internal deliberations.

Aides believe White House Counsel Pat Cipollone can lean on Senate relationships built during Trump’s impeachment earlier this year and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows is a former congressman who maintains friendships on the Hill.

Former Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire was sherpa for Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, and former Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona served in the role for Brett Kavanaugh.