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

Corte Appello del 9th Circuit sentenzia costituzionale l’operato di Mr Trump.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-04-16.

Pollo allo Spiedo

In America è in corso una guerra civile che si combatte all’ultimo sangue.

Il terreno di scontro è la composizione delle Corti Federali di Appello, i giudici delle quali sono di nomina presidenziale ma devono essere approvate dal senato, con diverse modalità a seconda del grado. Al momento attuale, gran parte di queste Corti è composta da giudici liberal democratici, ed emette sentenze di conseguenza.

Questo potere giudiziario ha la potestà di annullare le decisioni presidenziali, anche se in via transitoria, perché poi la Corte Suprema ristabilisce lo stato di diritto. Ma quanto sia interesse di Mr Trump di prendere il controllo delle Corti Federali è fuori discussione: è semplicemente evidente.

Mr Trump ha avviato un lavoro sottile ma deciso di nomine di giudici, per riequilibrare la situazione. È già riuscito a far nominare Sua Giustizia Gorsuch e Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh nella Corte Suprema, ed ha già ribaltato la composizione della Corte di Appello del 3th Circuit. Il lavoro prosegue operoso anche nei confronti del 9th Circuit, ove i liberal democratici avevano una schiacciante maggioranza.

White House plans to send 50 judicial nominees to new Congress

White House names 3 nominees for 9th Circuit after conservative attacks

«After a day of attacks from commentators on the right, the White House announced Wednesday night that it planned to nominate three judges for the California seats on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

The left-leaning 9th Circuit has been a frequent target of President Donald Trump, but when the White House last week announced its plans to renominate dozens of judges who had not received a hearing during the last Congress, those who had been previously nominated for the 9th Circuit weren’t on the list.»

*

White House nominations to 9th Circuit set off firestorm

«While President Donald Trump has had unprecedented success in reshaping the judiciary by placing two justices on the Supreme Court and a record breaking 29 judges on federal appeals courts, he believes he has been stymied by what he considers the liberal bent of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. It’s a powerful court headquartered in San Francisco that has jurisdiction over nine West Coast states and two territories. ….

….

Now the President is taking the gloves off, hoping to eventually flip that court.»

* * *

In una sintesi supersemplificata, Mr Trump sta sia nominando ai posti vacanti nel 9th Circuit dei giudici repubblicani, sia sta tentando un colpo che, se riuscisse, sarebbe magistrale.

«the White House last week announced its plans to renominate dozens of judges who had not received a hearing during the last Congress»

A soldoni: i giudici nominati dalla pregressa Amministrazione Obama senza audizione in Senato potrebbero essere rimpiazzati.

* * * * * * *

I giudici liberal democratici del 9th Circuit stanno sentendo già le mani di Mr Trump attorno alla loro gola.

Se Mr Trump riuscisse nel suo piano, l’intero sistema delle Corti di Appello Federale finirebbe in mano ai repubblicani, che si assicurerebbero il governo per molte decine di anni.

Il coltello alla gola, ed in mano ad uno che lo sa usare, ha determinato un ribaltone insperato ed insperabile nei Giudici del 9th Circuit.

*


Il The New York Times ha tenuto questa notizia in evidenza per ventitre minuti, poi la ha rimossa disperdendola nell’ambiente.

«A federal appeals court said Friday that the Trump administration could temporarily continue to force migrants seeking asylum in the United States to wait in Mexico while their cases are decided.»

*

«A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of a lower-court ruling four days earlier that blocked the administration’s protocol. The appeals court will consider next week whether to extend that stay — and allow the Trump administration policy to remain in effect for longer.»

*

«The administration in December announced its new policy, called the migration protection protocols, arguing that it would help stop people from using the asylum process to enter the country and remain there illegally. President Trump has long been angered by so-called catch and release policies, under which asylum seekers are temporarily allowed in the United States while they wait for their court hearings»

*

«On Monday, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an injunction against Mr. Trump’s new protocols, saying that the president did not have the power to enforce them and that they violated immigration laws»

*

«Judge Seeborg said in his ruling that the protocols did not include “sufficient safeguards” to comply with the Department of Homeland Security’s obligation against returning migrants to places where their “life or freedom would be threatened.” …. On Friday, as Judge Seeborg’s injunction was set to go into effect, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit issued the temporary stay»

*

«In a tweet late Friday night, President Trump wrote: “Finally, great news at the Border!” He has previously criticized the Ninth Circuit, which is based in San Francisco, saying that the court always ruled against him. While that is not always true, the administration’s track record in the circuit has been poor.»

* * * * * * *

«The 9th Circuit Court has been a frequent target for Trump’s criticisms of the judicial system, which has blocked his immigration policies on numerous occasions» [Reuters]

*

La maggioranza dei giudici della Corte di Appello del Nono Circuito sono in grande maggioranza liberal democratici. La cosa non sarebbe fastidio a nessuno se codesti giudici non fossero prima liberal democratici e dopo, solo dopo, anche giudici che applicano le leggi in ossequio alla Costituzione.

«At the end of 2016, the court was authorized 29 judgeships, with four of those seats vacant. Of those 25, 18 were appointees of Democratic presidents and seven were appointees of Republicans. Currently, there are six vacancies. Sixteen judges are appointees of Democratic presidents and seven are appointees of Republican presidents.»

Come correttamente fa notare Reuters:

«The 9th Circuit Court has been a frequent target for Trump’s criticisms of the judicial system, which has blocked his immigration policies on numerous occasions»

Quando poi la causa è portata davanti la Suprema Corte, invariabilmente, con deprimente regolarità, l’augusto consesso annulla la sentenza emessa dai giudici del Nono Circuito.

Ma sono passati dei mesi di blocco dell’attività governativa, e tutti i media controllati dai liberal democratici sbandierano quella sentenza come se fosse definitiva.

Se è vero che la politica non dovrebbe interferire con i procedimenti giudiziari, sarebbe altrettanto vero constatare che i poteri giudiziari non dovrebbero interferire con la politica. Nel caso in oggetto, bloccare in tutta la Unione gli atti governativi dell’Amministrazione Trump con argomenti così speciosi da lasciare perplessi anche gli studenti di una scuola di giurisprudenza (sono parole della Suprema Corte).

* * * * * * *

Adesso le cose sembrerebbero essere cambiate.

Judge Seeborg aveva emesso una sentenza che pareva un manifesto politico, privo di un ubi consistat giuridico: si era allargato fin troppo. Fino al punto che persino la Corte di Appello Federale del Nono Circuito ha rigettato quella sentenza emessa. E si pensi che il tutto si è consumato in meno di una settimana ….


The New York Times. 2019-04-13. Rule Keeping Asylum Seekers in Mexico Can Temporarily Proceed, Court Says

Migrants seeking asylum at the United States’ southwestern border have to stay in Mexico while their asylum cases are decided, under a Trump administration policy that was temporarily allowed to remain in effect Friday.

*

A federal appeals court said Friday that the Trump administration could temporarily continue to force migrants seeking asylum in the United States to wait in Mexico while their cases are decided.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of a lower-court ruling four days earlier that blocked the administration’s protocol. The appeals court will consider next week whether to extend that stay — and allow the Trump administration policy to remain in effect for longer.

The administration in December announced its new policy, called the migration protection protocols, arguing that it would help stop people from using the asylum process to enter the country and remain there illegally. President Trump has long been angered by so-called catch and release policies, under which asylum seekers are temporarily allowed in the United States while they wait for their court hearings.

On Monday, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an injunction against Mr. Trump’s new protocols, saying that the president did not have the power to enforce them and that they violated immigration laws.

Judge Seeborg said in his ruling that the protocols did not include “sufficient safeguards” to comply with the Department of Homeland Security’s obligation against returning migrants to places where their “life or freedom would be threatened.”

On Friday, as Judge Seeborg’s injunction was set to go into effect, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit issued the temporary stay.

In a tweet late Friday night, President Trump wrote: “Finally, great news at the Border!” He has previously criticized the Ninth Circuit, which is based in San Francisco, saying that the court always ruled against him. While that is not always true, the administration’s track record in the circuit has been poor.

The Justice Department, which appealed Judge Seeborg’s decision, argued that the injunction would “impose immediate, substantial harm on the United States, including by diminishing the executive branch’s ability to work effectively with Mexico to manage the crisis on our shared border.”

The Ninth Circuit will consider next week whether to keep the stay — and Mr. Trump’s protocols — in place during the appeal.

Judy Rabinovitz, the deputy director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case, said she expected that decision to come next week.

“The question will be, can the government continue to implement the policy while it appeals it to the Ninth Circuit,” she said. “Obviously, we don’t think it should be able to.”

She called the policy unlawful and cruel.

“We think it should be stopped,” she said.

Lawyers for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The appeals court’s decision comes as the nation’s immigration system may have reached a breaking point as migrants increasingly arrive at the country’s southwestern border with Mexico.

The flow of migrant families has reached record levels, with February totals 560 percent above those for the same period last year. Many are seeking asylum, in which they have the burden to show evidence of past persecution or testimony that establishes the “well-founded” fear that they would face danger if they return home.

The Trump administration’s migration protection protocols were an attempt to deter migrants. Mexico’s government reluctantly agreed to house the migrants in December.

*


The New York Times. 2018-12-20. U.S. Will Send Migrants Back to Mexico as They Wait on Asylum Claims

The Trump administration announced a new migration policy Thursday that will require asylum seekers who cross the Mexican border illegally to return to Mexico while their cases are decided.

The United States has been trying for months to get Mexico’s leaders to agree to house those migrants, and on Thursday Mexico’s new government reluctantly agreed.

The American secretary of homeland security, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, said the move would prevent people from using the asylum process as a way of slipping into the United States and remaining in the country illegally.

“Today we are announcing historic measures to bring the illegal immigration crisis under control,” she said. “Aliens trying to game the system to get into our country illegally will no longer be able to disappear into the United States, where many skip their court dates.”

In a statement, she said, “‘Catch and release’ will be replaced with ‘catch and return.’”

The new policy, announced as the president and Congress were at odds over funding for a border wall, amounts to the boldest effort yet by the Trump administration to discourage people from seeking refuge in the United States. It follows a series of other curbs that had been introduced, including the separation of migrant families, which was later reversed in an executive order after a public outcry.

The migrant issue has put considerable pressure on the United States’ relationship with Mexico as Trump administration restrictions have left thousands of asylum seekers stranded in Mexican border towns, overwhelming local shelters and resources.

The new policy would also alleviate pressure on American border agents, who for months have argued that they are overwhelmed by the record-breaking number of migrant families seeking asylum.

Mexican officials say they were told of the latest American decision on Thursday morning in letters from the Department of Homeland Security and the United States chargé d’affaires in Mexico, John S. Creamer. The letters stated that the returns would begin immediately under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Mexican Foreign Ministry has essentially agreed to accept the decision by the United States, and will be forced to house thousands of people from other countries, particularly from Central America, as they await their asylum decisions.

A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Roberto Velasco, said the move did not represent an agreement between the two countries, but rather “a unilateral move by the United States that we have to respond to.”

Mr. Velasco said the rules would apply only to new asylum applicants, not to individuals who have already entered the United States with processes underway. The United States did not initially make clear if the policy applied only to new applicants.

The administration’s move is a sharp departure from decades of American asylum practice, according to legal experts and advocates. The United States has long accepted individuals from across the world fleeing harm or persecution in their home countries.

The program is almost certain to be challenged in the United States courts by human rights groups and advocates. Many have already claimed that sending persecuted individuals to Mexico, one of the most violent countries in the world, places them in harm’s way.

“This deal is a stark violation of international law, flies in the face of U.S. laws passed by Congress, and is a callous response to the families and individuals running for their lives,” said Margaret Huang, the executive director of Amnesty International.

While the individuals would be allowed to return to the United States for court hearings, they would remain in Mexico under a humanitarian visa until their process is completed.

Mexico’s decision to accept the asylum seekers is likely to be seen as a capitulation by the new government to President Trump, who proclaimed over Twitter two weeks ago that Mexico would house asylum applicants to the United States on its soil.

The decision to turn Mexico into a waiting room for migrants seeking entry to the United States is likely to stir anger in Mexico.

Mexico has found itself in the center of Mr. Trump’s ire over migration policy, with the American president lambasting the country for not doing enough to inhibit the passage of Central Americans and others through its territory.

But while Mr. Trump has proposed building walls along the border, Mexico’s new president. Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has taken a different approach.

He and his foreign minister announced a new development plan for southern Mexico and Central America that would require some $30 billion in aid to address the root causes of the migration.

This week, the United States applauded the proposal, and promised to work with the Mexicans to realize that plan with more than $5 billion. But that money did not reflect a new commitment of funds — for the most part, the United States government was already spending it in the region.

“This is total capitulation in exchange for the fig leaf of a nonexistent development plan with no financial commitments by the U.S. and no timetable,” said Jorge Castañeda, a former Mexican foreign minister.

Shelters for asylum seekers in Mexico have already been overwhelmed by people who would previously have been quickly processed into the United States, but now have to wait weeks or months to be allowed in under curbs put in place by the Trump administration.

As with many of the administration’s harshest immigration plans that have been introduced with little notice, it was unclear on Thursday how exactly the new policy would be carried out.

A senior Department of Homeland Security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the announcement on Thursday came as a surprise to many people in the agency’s leadership, as well as the rank and file who would be charged with carrying it out.

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

California. Ninth Circuit. Mr Trump al contrattacco.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-02-07.

2019-02-07__Nono Circuito__001

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.


The Washington Times. 2019-02-06. Trump heads off conservative rebellion with new slate of California judicial nominees

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.

“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.

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

Trump. Correggere l’anomalia del Nono Circuito.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-25.

Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg

Negli Stati Uniti ha un potere maggiore un giudice di una Corte di Appello Federale oppure della Corte Suprema dello stesso Presidente degli Stati Uniti. Il giudice ha infatti la possibilità di emettere una sentenza che blocchi od infici una disposizione presidenziale in via autoritativa ed inappellabile.

Chi controllasse la Magistratura americana avrebbe in mano il vero potere. Nessuno quindi si stupisca se la vera lotta tra liberal democratici e repubblicani si snoda sulla Magistratura.

Giudici onesti esercitano un simile potere in modo onesto, giudici schierati politicamente invece diventano l’opzione nucleare del partito di appartenenza. I giudici liberal democratici del Nono Circuito fanno sembrare i giudici dell’Unione Sovietica di Stalin dei galantuomini, retti e probi.

I giudici della Suprema Corte e quelli delle Corti di Appello federali sono nominati dal Presidente, ma tale nomina deve essere approvata dal Senato. Le nomine sono a vita, quindi la decisione del Presidente si estende per decine di anni dopo che abbia concluso i suoi mandati.

Ciò premesso, entriamo nel vivo del problema.

*

Il sistema giudiziario americano è complesso perché gli Stati Uniti di America sono una realtà complessa.

*

«Gli Stati Uniti sono una Repubblica federale di tipo presidenziale. Nell’esperienza statunitense, Federazione e Stati mantengono diverse sfere di competenze, i cui confini, tuttavia, non sono mai stati fissati in maniera rigida ed assoluta. La miglior sintesi della divisione dei poteri fra Stati e Federazione è probabilmente contenuta nel decimo emendamento alla Costituzione, in base al quale i poteri che non sono espressamente attribuiti al Governo federale e che non sono dalla stessa Costituzione sottratti alla competenza dei singoli Stati, sono riservati a questi ultimi.

In particolare, tra i poteri sottratti alla competenza degli Stati e attribuiti espressamente al Congresso, così come previsto all’articolo 1, sezione 8 della Costituzione, vale la pena menzionare, tra gli altri, quello di imporre e percepire le tasse, di regolare il commercio internazionale e tra i vari Stati della federazione, di legiferare in materia fallimentare, di gestire il sistema postale, di costituire tribunali di grado inferiore rispetto alla Corte Suprema e di legiferare in materia di proprietà intellettuale.

I singoli Stati, tuttavia, con il consenso espresso del Governo e nei limiti posti da quest’ultimo, godono di una autonoma potestà legislativa. In linea di principio, può dirsi, per concludere, che nel sistema federale statunitense gran parte del diritto privato è di competenza statale. La Costituzione degli Stati Uniti adottata nel 1789 ed emendata solo raramente da allora, è la legge suprema del Paese» [Fonte]

*

«Il potere giudiziario federale è un ramo completamente separato ed autonomo. Il potere giudiziario ha il compito di interpretare e stabilire la costituzionalità delle leggi federali e di risolvere le controversie riguardanti tali norme.

La Costituzione garantisce l’indipendenza del potere giudiziario stabilendo che:

– i giudici federali, nominati secondo l’art. III della Costituzione, possono restare in carica a vita e possono essere destituiti solo in seguito a “impeachment” e solo qualora il Congresso abbia accertato atti di tradimento, corruzione, o altri gravi reati a loro carico;

– la retribuzione dei giudici federali nominati secondo l’art. III della Costituzione non può essere ridotta durante la loro permanenza in carica: dunque, né il Presidente, né il Congresso hanno alcuna facoltà di ridurre lo stipendio dei giudici federali. Queste due salvaguardie consentono ad un organo giudiziario indipendente di deliberare senza vincoli imposti da influenze politiche o passioni popolari.

L’art. III della Costituzione stabilisce, altresì, che il potere giudiziario degli Stati Uniti è affidato ad una Corte Suprema ed a tanti tribunali di ordine inferiore quanti il Congresso stabilirà all’occorrenza.» [Fonte]

*

«The federal courts are composed of three levels of courts.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the court of last resort. It is generally an appellate court that operates under discretionary review, which means that the Court can choose which cases to hear, by granting writs of certiorari. There is therefore generally no basic right of appeal that extends automatically all the way to the Supreme Court. In a few situations (like lawsuits between state governments or some cases between the federal government and a state) it sits as a court of original jurisdiction.

The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate federal appellate courts. They operate under a system of mandatory review which means they must hear all appeals of right from the lower courts. In some cases, Congress has diverted appellate jurisdiction to specialized courts, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.

The United States district courts (one in each of the 94 federal judicial districts, as well three territorial courts) are general federal trial courts, although in many cases Congress has diverted original jurisdiction to specialized courts, such as the Court of International Trade, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, or to Article I or Article IV tribunals. The district courts usually have jurisdiction to hear appeals from such tribunals (unless, for example, appeals are to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.)» [Fonte]

*

«I distretti giudiziari sono organizzati in circuiti regionali, in ciascuno dei quali è presente una Corte d’Appello. Ognuna di esse giudica i ricorsi provenienti dai tribunali distrettuali appartenenti al proprio circuito e da alcuni enti amministrativi federali. Inoltre, la Corte d’Appello federale ha competenza su tutto il territorio nazionale in merito ad alcuni casi specifici, tra i quali quelli relativi alle leggi sui brevetti e quelli sui quali si sono pronunciati i Tribunali per il Commercio Internazionale e il Tribunale per i Ricorsi Federali.

Il diritto all’appello si applica a tutti i procedimenti sui quali si è pronunciato un tribunale distrettuale con una decisione definitiva. Le Corti d’Appello sono di regola composte da tre giudici.»  [Fonte]

*

«Federal judges, like Supreme Court Justices, are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate to serve until they resign, are impeached and convicted, retire, or die. » [Fonte]

* * * * * * *

Riassumendo solo gli aspetti discussi in questo articolo:

– Le Corti di Appello Federali sono composte da giudici nominati a vita dal Presidente degli Stati Uniti e confermati nella nomina dal Senato. Di qui la importanza strategica di codesto consesso.

– Le sentenze delle Corti di Appello Federali hanno valore su tutti i territori della Federazione: possono essere appellate davanti la Suprema Corte di Giustizia, sotto la condizione che questa deliberi di esaminare quel caso specifico.

– I Giudici federali sono dichiaratamente schierati sia politicamente (repubblicani oppure democratici) sia secondo la scuola giurisprudenziale (una favorevole alla “interpretazione” di Costituzione e Leggi, l’altra invece fautrice dell’applicazione testuale del corpo giurisprudenziale).

– Se usualmente i giudici esprimono sentenze ragionevoli, al momento opportuno emerge chiaramente chi sia il “giudice di Trump” oppure il “giudice di Obama”. Questo non dovrebbe accadere, ma nei fatti invece accade.

^ ^ ^

L’America è suddivisa in tredici Circuiti federali. Il nome deriva dal fatto che in altri tempi le Corti di Appello si movevano nell’ambito del loro territorio, toccando tutte le città di rilievo, per evitare ai ricorrenti lunghi e costosi viaggi.

* * * * * * *

2018-11-25__Nono_Circuito__001

Il Nono Circuito esercita la sua giurisdizione su 61,403,307 cittadini americani, ossia il 19.72% della popolazione. È dotato di ventinove giudici.

Di questi, nove sono stati nominati da Mr Clinton, cinque da Mr Bush, sette da Mr Obama, e due da Mr Trump.

Al momento attuale vi sono sedici giudici democratici e sette repubblicani.

Sei seggi sono al momento vacanti.

Avendo alle elezioni di midterm conservato il controllo del Senato, Mr Trump sarà in grado di procedere a breve termine alle sei nomine ancora rimanenti, portando cos’ il rapporto democratici / repubblicani 16 /13.

I democratici restano al controllo della Corte di Appello del Nono Circuito, ma con una maggioranza risicata. Si tenga inoltre presente come tale Corte si articoli in sottosezioni: al termine delle nomine i repubblicani potrebbero controllarne almeno quattro.

* * * * * * *

Con Mr Clinton prima, e Mr Obama dopo, i liberal democratici hanno nominato al Nono Circuito persone che prima erano membri fedeli del partito, poi erano giudici: costoro amministravano la giustizia nel nome dei liberal democratici.

Non è un caso che quasi tutte le sentenze volte ad impugnare e bloccare ancorché temporaneamente gli Ordini Esecutivi del Presidente Trump siano stati emesse in gran parte da Corti di Appello del Nono Circuito. Solo perdita di tempo, perché poi la Suprema Corte le annulla, ma sono ottimo alimento del fuoco mediatico.

Se infine si considerano tutte le altre nomine a giudice in Corti Federali  che il Presidente Trump si appresta a fare, emergerebbe molto chiaro il suo piano di bonificare la Magistratura federale dai partigiani liberal democratici, rendendo loro la figura propria di organi che amministrano la giustizia e non la faziosità politica.