Usa. La Suprema Corte sentenzia a favore del pipeline della PennEast.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-07-04.

Vita dura per la Harris-Biden Administration, che i repubblicani stanno arrostendo a fuoco lento, sfruttando tutti i loro errori.

In Senato sono bloccati da una filibustering ottimamente orchestrata e le stanno piovendo addosso anche sentenze su sentenze.

Usa. Dopo quello di Milwaukee anche un giudice della Florida blocca una legge di Biden.

Il giudice della Florida li ha bollati come “razzisiti”.

Adesso l’Administration riceve un altro ed ancora più duro colpo, questa volta dalla Corte Suprema.

* * * * * * *

«The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of a consortium of energy companies including Enbridge Inc seeking to seize land owned by New Jersey to build a federally approved natural gas pipeline despite the state’s objections, though hurdles remain for the $1 billion project.»

«The 5-4 ruling, authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, handed a victory to PennEast Pipeline Company LLC, a joint venture seeking to build the 116-mile (187-km) pipeline from Pennsylvania to New Jersey. The justices overturned a lower court ruling in favor of New Jersey’s government»

«The decision enables interstate pipelines to move forward with efforts to seize state-owned lands without a state’s consent as long as federal regulators have approved the project»

«PennEast wants the land to build a pipeline designed to deliver 1.1 billion cubic feet per day of gas – enough to supply about 5 million homes – from the Marcellus shale formation in Pennsylvania to customers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey»

«The court ruled that a 1938 U.S. law called the Natural Gas Act that lets private energy companies seize “necessary” parcels of land for a project if they have obtained a certificate from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) can be applied to state-owned land»

«Specifically, we are asked to decide whether the federal government can constitutionally confer on pipeline companies the authority to condemn necessary rights-of-way in which a state has an interest»

«Roberts was joined in the majority by two conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, and two liberals, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor»

«FERC in 2018 approved PennEast’s request to build the pipeline»

«After a federal judge approved the property seizure, the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2019 that PennEast could not use federal eminent domain to condemn land controlled by the state, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court»

* * * * * * *

Così la Corte Suprema rovescia la sentenza della Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, e la bacchetta anche per benino sulle dita,

La PennEast è ora autorizzata a costruire il proprio pipeline nel New Jersey.

*

---

U.S. Supreme Court backs pipeline companies in New Jersey land dispute

WASHINGTON, June 29 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of a consortium of energy companies including Enbridge Inc (ENB.TO) seeking to seize land owned by New Jersey to build a federally approved natural gas pipeline despite the state’s objections, though hurdles remain for the $1 billion project.

The 5-4 ruling, authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, handed a victory to PennEast Pipeline Company LLC, a joint venture seeking to build the 116-mile (187-km) pipeline from Pennsylvania to New Jersey. The justices overturned a lower court ruling in favor of New Jersey’s government.

Other companies joining Enbridge in the consortium include South Jersey Industries Inc (SJI.N), New Jersey Resources Corp (NJR.N) (NJR), Southern Co (SO.N) and UGI Corp (UGI.N).

The decision enables interstate pipelines to move forward with efforts to seize state-owned lands without a state’s consent as long as federal regulators have approved the project. But New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal said the ruling does not bring an end to the state’s fight against the PennEast project.

“We still have other, ongoing legal challenges to this proposed pipeline, which is unnecessary and would be destructive to New Jersey lands. I am proud to continue this fight on behalf of our residents, and I urge the federal government to take another look at this harmful proposal,” Grewal added.

PennEast wants the land to build a pipeline designed to deliver 1.1 billion cubic feet per day of gas – enough to supply about 5 million homes – from the Marcellus shale formation in Pennsylvania to customers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court kept intact more than seven decades of legal precedent for the families and businesses who benefit from more affordable, reliable energy. This decision is about more than just the PennEast project,” said Anthony Cox, chair of the PennEast board of managers.

The court ruled that a 1938 U.S. law called the Natural Gas Act that lets private energy companies seize “necessary” parcels of land for a project if they have obtained a certificate from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) can be applied to state-owned land. The law effectively gives private companies the power of eminent domain in which government entities can take property in return for compensation.

“Specifically, we are asked to decide whether the federal government can constitutionally confer on pipeline companies the authority to condemn necessary rights-of-way in which a state has an interest. We hold that it can,” Roberts wrote for the court.

The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, was divided on non-ideological lines. Roberts was joined in the majority by two conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, and two liberals, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Roberts wrote that the U.S. Constitution’s 11th Amendment, which prevents courts from hearing certain lawsuits against states, does not bar the lawsuit, as the state had argued.

FERC in 2018 approved PennEast’s request to build the pipeline. The company then sued to gain access to properties along the route.

New Jersey did not consent to PennEast’s seizure of properties that the state owns or in which it has an interest.

After a federal judge approved the property seizure, the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2019 that PennEast could not use federal eminent domain to condemn land controlled by the state, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. read more

U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone said the ruling set a dangerous precedent and vowed to work to preserve state property rights.

“States like New Jersey should be able to retain their right to do what they wish with the lands they own, and no private actor – including pipeline companies – should be able to usurp that right,” the New Jersey Democrat said.

Usa. Supreme Court. La nuova maggioranza incute rispetto e timori.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-12-02.

Il 25 novembre 2020 la Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti ha emesso sentenza sulla causa Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (20A87).

*

«But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten»

«The re­strictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty»

«For these reasons, we hold that enforcement of the Gov­ernor’s severe restrictions on the applicants’ religious ser­vices must be enjoined»

*

«The U.S. Supreme Court issued an injunction late Wednesday blocking New York’s governor from enforcing 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on religious institutions, granting a request from the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel»

«The state had told the court there was no need to act because the restrictions, which were adopted as a way to try to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, had recently been dialed back»

«The court apparently divided 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissenting»

«In an unsigned majority opinion, the court said the restrictions would violate religious freedom and are not neutral because they “single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.”»

«While religious institutions were affected, businesses categorized as essential could admit as many people as they wish, the court said, and the list of such businesses included acupuncture facilities and others the court said were not essential»

* * * * * * *

«The U.S. Supreme Court issued an injunction late Wednesday blocking New York’s governor from enforcing 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on religious institutions, granting a request from the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel.»

«The court apparently divided 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissenting»

«In an unsigned majority opinion, the court said the restrictions would violate religious freedom and are not neutral because they “single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.”»

“a corte ha detto che le restrizioni violerebbero la libertà religiosa e non sono neutrali perché “individuano i luoghi di culto per un trattamento particolarmente duro””

«In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court sided with religious organizations in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions put in place by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo limiting the number of people attending religious services.»

«The case is the latest pitting religious groups against city and state officials seeking to stop the spread of Covid-19, and it highlights the impact of Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the Court»

«In the late-night decision, Barrett sided with her conservative colleagues in the dispute, while Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent»

«The majority said that the regulations are “far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the Court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus” at the religious services in question»

«But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten»

«the houses of worship “remain under a constant threat” because the restrictions could always be reinstated»

* * * * * * *

Fino a tanto che le Corti di Giustizia americane erano costituite con maggioranze di giudici liberal nessuna azione legale intentata per istanze religiose aveva la minima possibilità di essere accolta. L’ideologia prevaleva sul diritto.

Negli ultimi anni Sua Giustizia Roberts, pur essendo di nomina repubblicana, si era costantemente unito alle decisioni prese dai liberal.

Con la presa in servizio di Sua Giustizia Amy Coney Barrett adesso gli schieramenti sono con cinque giudici conservatori contro i rimanenti quattro liberal. I liberal democratici iniziano ad essere davvero preoccupati: forse più dai silenzi che dalle sentenze.

*

---

Cnbc. Supreme Court blocks NY from enforcing Covid limits on churches.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an injunction late Wednesday blocking New York’s governor from enforcing 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on religious institutions, granting a request from the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel.

The state had told the court there was no need to act because the restrictions, which were adopted as a way to try to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, had recently been dialed back.

The court apparently divided 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissenting.

In an unsigned majority opinion, the court said the restrictions would violate religious freedom and are not neutral because they “single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.”

While religious institutions were affected, businesses categorized as essential could admit as many people as they wish, the court said, and the list of such businesses included acupuncture facilities and others the court said were not essential.

The court said there’s no evidence that the organizations that brought the lawsuit have contributed to the spread of Covid-19.

In his dissent, Roberts said he saw no need to take this action, because the state has revised the designations of the affected areas, and none of the houses of worship that sought relief now face numerical restrictions and can hold services up to 50 percent capacity.

Breyer said if the state seeks to reimpose the limits, the plaintiffs can come back to the court. Sotomayor and Kagan said granting the injunction “will only exacerbate the nation’s suffering.”

Both Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh filed concurrences. Neither Amy Coney Barrett nor Samuel Alito filed separate opinions.

*

Cnn. In a 5-4 ruling, Supreme Court sides with religious groups in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions in New York.

In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court sided with religious organizations in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions put in place by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo limiting the number of people attending religious services.

The case is the latest pitting religious groups against city and state officials seeking to stop the spread of Covid-19, and it highlights the impact of Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the Court. The decision comes as coronavirus cases surge across the country.

In the late-night decision, Barrett sided with her conservative colleagues in the dispute, while Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent. The ruling underscores Barrett’s impact on the bench, reflecting the Court’s rightward shift.

Last spring and summer, before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court split 5-4 on similar cases out of California and Nevada, with Roberts and the liberals in the majority siding against houses of worship. Barrett was confirmed in October to take Ginsburg’s seat.

Ruling says houses of worship face ‘far more restrictive’ regulations

The ruling, released just before midnight on Thanksgiving eve, contains several separate opinions and some unusually critical language.

In the main, unsigned opinion, the majority ruled in favor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America that argued that the restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because the regulations treated the houses of worship more harshly than comparable secular facilities.

The majority said that the regulations are “far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the Court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus” at the religious services in question.

The restrictions on attendance are divided up by geographic zones in areas classified as “red” or “orange” zones.

In court papers, lawyers for Cuomo argued that the restrictions were necessary to help stop the spread of Covid-19 and that houses of worship weren’t being treated differently than similar secular businesses. They also said that while the dispute was pending, Cuomo had already lifted any restrictions that applied to the organizations.

“Not only is there no evidence that the applicants have contributed to the spread of COVID-19 but there are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services,” the Court held.

“Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area,” the Court said. “But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.”

The Court said that even though Cuomo had lifted some restrictions, the houses of worship “remain under a constant threat” because the restrictions could always be reinstated.

Lower courts had sided with Cuomo.

Lawyers for the diocese had told the justices in court papers that the “pandemic alone cannot justify overbroad, untailored closure orders of indefinite duration directed at all houses of worship, that in another time would plainly be found to violate the Constitution.”

And lawyers for the Agudath Israel of America said that the governor has specifically targeted Orthodox Jews who have “violated his prior rules.”

“The Governor’s guilt-by-religious-association restrictions have made it impossible for Applicants and their members to exercise their religious faith,” they argued.

6 opinions in the late-night ruling

In all, the late-night ruling consisted of six different opinions.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote his own concurrence — joined by no other justice — to explain his vote.

He said that other businesses such as bicycle repair shops, did not have similar restrictions.

“So, at least according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine” or “shop for a new bike,” Gorsuch wrote.

He was critical of the reasoning of a decision penned by Roberts in May rejecting a request from a church in California to block limitations on the number of people who could attend religious services during the pandemic.

Gorsuch said the Court precedent Roberts cited in that decision “hardly supports cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic.”

For his part, Roberts said he was in dissent because while “it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause,” Cuomo had revised the restrictions after the religious organizations had filed their challenge.

“It is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic,” Roberts wrote, and said that the houses of worship could have returned to court if Cuomo had reversed himself.

But Roberts — who often works to keep the Court out of the political fray and divisive atmosphere that has dominated the other branches of government — had stern words for Gorsuch’s criticism of the dissenters’ reasoning.

“They simply view the matter differently after careful study and analysis reflecting their best efforts to fulfill their responsibility under the Constitution,” he said.

He also pointedly defended his own reasoning in the case from May.

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, said that the regulations were designed to “fight the rapidly spreading — and, in many cases, fatal — COVID-19 virus,” and that they allowed the governor to identity hot spots where the virus had spiked. Breyer noted the grisly statistics concerning the virus that has infected more than 12 million Americans and is currently surging. “The Constitution principally entrusts the safety and the health of the people to the politically accountable officials of the States,” Breyer wrote.

Usa. Suprema Corte. Assegnazione dei Circuiti alle Loro Giustizie.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-11-24.

Queste sono le attribuzioni dei Circuiti di competenza alle Loro Giustizie, i Giudici della Corte Suprema, con decorrenza 20 novembre 2020.

*

---

Supreme Court of the United States. Circuit Assignments.

It is ordered that the following allotment be made of The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of this Court among the circuits, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42 and that such allotment be entered of record, effective November 20, 2020.

• For the District of Columbia Circuit – John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice

• For the First Circuit – Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice

  (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island)

• For the Second Circuit – Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice (Connecticut, New York, Vermont)

• For the Third Circuit – Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Island)

• For the Fourth Circuit – John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia)

• For the Fifth Circuit – Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice (Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas)

• For the Sixth Circuit – Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee)

• For the Seventh Circuit – Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin)

• For the Eighth Circuit – Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota)

• For the Ninth Circuit – Elena Kagan, Associate Justice (Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Washington)

• For the Tenth Circuit – Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming)

• For the Eleventh Circuit – Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice (Alabama, Florida, Georgia)

• For the Federal Circuit – John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice.

Usa. Corte Suprema. L’incognita di Sua Giustizia Robert.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-10-31.

«John Roberts sides with the liberals on mail-in voting but things may change once Barrett arrives»

«Roberts’ vote on Monday night, in a ballot dispute in the battleground state of Pennsylvania critical to President Donald Trump’s reelection bid, led to a 4-4 Supreme Court deadlock»

«That left in place a Pennsylvania court decision allowing mailed ballots to be counted up to three days after Election Day, despite familiar yet unfounded claims from Republicans regarding “the taint of” illegal ballots»

«It was not the first time Roberts, a 2005 appointee of Republican George W. Bush, has moved left in a highly charged partisan case to cinch the outcome, but it may be one of the last.»

«The Supreme Court is on the cusp of a transformation»

«Amy Coney Barrett, and two weeks before a presidential election. Barrett, 48, has a record and approach to the law that puts her to the far right of the 65-year-old Roberts»

«The President has said he wants Barrett on the court in time to resolve any major election case»

«That Barrett is waiting in the wings may accelerate Roberts’ long-held concerns about the institutional reputation of the bench»

«On Monday night, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Joining Roberts were the three remaining liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan»

«justices cannot be defined by the president who appointed them»

«In 2012, Roberts cast the decisive vote with the four liberals to uphold the Affordable Care Act, the signature domestic initiative of President Barack Obama. More recently, in 2019, he provided the fifth vote to block Trump’s plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census»

«In June, he spurned the Trump plan to end immediately an Obama initiative that shielded from deportation young immigrants, known as “Dreamers,”»

«All of those Roberts’ opinions drew Republican wrath»

«Another ballot dispute from the Wisconsin — a battleground state of the caliber of Pennsylvania — is now pending before the justices»

«I do think that … the propriety of Supreme Court review in matters of disputed electoral contests is a matter that could come up again»

* * * * * * *

---

Le Loro Giustizia della Suprema Corte sono nominate dal Presidente in carica, ma tale nomina deve essere ratifica dal Senato degli Stati Uniti. Ne consegue che presidente e senato debbano essere dello stesso partito politico.

Il fatto che una Sua Giustizia sia stata nominata da un presidente non indicherebbe però che i suoi giudizi debbano essere sempre in linea con le idee di quel partito: esprimerebbe, o dovrebbe esprimere, piuttosto la sua convinzione sul caso in esame.

Orbene, esaminando le sentenze della Suprema Corte, da centosettanta anni le Loro Giustizie nominate da presidenti democratici hanno sempre votato in accordo alle direttive del loro partito, cosa del tutto non verificabile dall’esame del comportamento delle Loro Giustizie di nomina repubblicana.

Sua Giustizia Roberts è di nomina repubblicana, ma da anni vota in accordo con le Loro Giustizie di nomina liberal democratica. Molto difficile reputarlo un ‘repubblicano’.

Con la conferma senatoriale della nomina di Sua Giustizia Barrett, i rapporto non sarebbero quindi di sei a tre, bensì di cinque a quattro.

A questo punto, il voto di Sua Giustizia Robert diventa ininfluente: se continuasse a schierarsi con i liberal è in minoranza, se si schierasse invece con i repubblicani, sarebbe pur sempre un voto non determinante.

Si è castrato con le sue mani.

Ovviamente, non è detto che Sua Giustizia Roberts prosegua su questa strada, vista la sua vocazione a seguire la maggioranza.

*

---

John Roberts sides with the liberals on mail-in voting but things may change once Barrett arrives.

Roberts’ vote on Monday night, in a ballot dispute in the battleground state of Pennsylvania critical to President Donald Trump’s reelection bid, led to a 4-4 Supreme Court deadlock. That left in place a Pennsylvania court decision allowing mailed ballots to be counted up to three days after Election Day, despite familiar yet unfounded claims from Republicans regarding “the taint of” illegal ballots.

It was not the first time Roberts, a 2005 appointee of Republican George W. Bush, has moved left in a highly charged partisan case to cinch the outcome, but it may be one of the last.

The Supreme Court is on the cusp of a transformation, less one week before it likely sees the addition of a conservative jurist, Amy Coney Barrett, and two weeks before a presidential election. Barrett, 48, has a record and approach to the law that puts her to the far right of the 65-year-old Roberts.

Trump, whose reelection fate may hinge on legal rulings, called the court’s action on Pennsylvania “ridiculous” and “very strange” in an interview on “Fox & Friends” Tuesday morning.

The President has said he wants Barrett on the court in time to resolve any major election case. “I think this will end up at the Supreme Court,” he said last month of the presidential contest. “And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices.”

The Supreme Court’s brief order Monday night, with no explanation of its legal reasoning, belied the dramatic role of the chief justice and the likely internal turmoil that preceded it. The court had been grappling with the state GOP’s emergency request to block the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision for two weeks. Democrats, defending the deadline extension and urging the justices not to intervene, highlighted the pandemic-driven demand for mail-in ballots and postal delays.

That Barrett is waiting in the wings may accelerate Roberts’ long-held concerns about the institutional reputation of the bench. Trump continues to undermine the independence of the federal judiciary with his rhetorical attacks, and new possible threats have arisen from the other side, as some liberals advocate adding more seats to the court — at nine for the past 150 years — to try to diminish its lopsided conservatism.

On Monday night, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Joining Roberts were the three remaining liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Unprecedented control

Until the September 18 death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Roberts had presided over a 5-4, conservative-liberal bench and sat at the center of the ideological spectrum. That gave him unprecedented control.

Despite his entrenched right-wing views dating to his work in the Reagan administration, Roberts developed a pattern of leaving the fold in highly visible, politically drenched cases. His actions reinforced his own assertion that justices cannot be defined by the president who appointed them.

That pattern counteracted the Trump message that any “Obama judge” or other Democratic appointee would automatically rule against his interests and anyone he appointed to the bench would be on his side.

In 2012, Roberts cast the decisive vote with the four liberals to uphold the Affordable Care Act, the signature domestic initiative of President Barack Obama. More recently, in 2019, he provided the fifth vote to block Trump’s plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

In June, he spurned the Trump plan to end immediately an Obama initiative that shielded from deportation young immigrants, known as “Dreamers,” who had come to the country without proper documentation with their parents.

All of those Roberts’ opinions drew Republican wrath, and Monday night’s action leaving in place a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision was no different.

Yet, in this tumultuous period as Trump fights a challenge for the White House from former Vice President Joe Biden, there may be a difference.

Roberts did not explain his thinking. (None of the justices did.) So, for other state ballot disputes marching toward the high court, the chief justice has not locked himself into any legal stance regarding state ballot procedures.

The canny Roberts is known for foreseeing cases headed to the high court and keeping his options open. And his overall 15-year record on voting rights is anything but liberal. He authored the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision that gutted a crucial section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act requiring states with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval for any new voter-ID rule, redistricting map or other electoral change that could affect individuals’ right to vote.

Last April, in a Wisconsin case as the coronavirus pandemic was growing, Roberts voted with the familiar conservative bloc to refuse to extend a deadline with absentee ballots. That time, Democrats, as well as dissenting liberal justices, declared the majority had undermined the franchise, especially for racial minorities, the poor and elderly.

Another ballot dispute from the Wisconsin — a battleground state of the caliber of Pennsylvania — is now pending before the justices.

The Barrett effect

Confounding predictions of the Roberts Court role in any major lawsuit arising from the current presidential election would be a new Justice Barrett. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Barrett this Thursday and a full Senate vote could come as soon as next Monday, just over a week before the election.

Her judicial philosophy is deeply conservative, but she has voted on scant election cases as a judge for the past three years on the Chicago-based 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

As a young lawyer, Barrett worked on the country’s last major election fight, the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, on the side of Bush. So did Roberts and Kavanaugh.

Cases like Bush v. Gore, Roberts told senators when he was before them in his 2005 confirmation hearings, “don’t come along all that often.”

But, as he declined to answer whether he believed the justices should have intervened in that Florida-based dispute, the prescient Roberts asserted, “I do think that … the propriety of Supreme Court review in matters of disputed electoral contests is a matter that could come up again.”

Trump. Se gli riuscisse questo colpo sarebbe chiamato il Grande.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-05-02.

I Giudici della Corte Suprema Federale sono nominati a vita dal Presidente degli Stati Uniti, previa approvazione da parte del Senato.

Le cariche a vita hanno i loro pro ed i loro contro. I Giudici sono tutelati dalle alterne sorti politiche, ma restano per molto tempo e con loro le loro concezioni giuridiche.

Per molti anni la Suprema Corte è stata una satrapia liberals: avevano avallato anche un matrimonio tra un uomo ed il suo cellulare.

Las Vegas. Matrimonio gay con un elettrodomestico.

*

Adesso le cose stanno mutando.

Trump. Neil Gorsuch nominato alla Suprema Corte. Sviluppi futuri.

*

I repubblicani hanno ripristinato nella Suprema Corte Federale la maggioranza repubblicana, non ancora quella avversa ai liberals democratici: il Giudice Kennedy è ondivago.

Mr Trump ha un piano di lungo termine di rimpiazzo dei giudici federali

Trump. Marcia verso la conquista del vero potere.

* * * * * * *

Ma per fortuna della umanità la biologia è imparziale.

Giudice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Decano della Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti.

«I due giudici più anziani, Ginsburg e Kenndy, hanno 84 ed 81 anni, rispettivamente. Pur augurando loro lunga e felice vita, potrebbero anche dover lasciare libero il posto nel primo quadriennio di Mr Trump. In questa evenienza allora si aprirebbe un lungo periodo in cui la Suprema Corte potrebbe tornare a deliberare secondo giustizia e non secondo ideologia.»

A quanto sembrerebbe, i giudici supremi Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, e Stephen Breyer avrebbero severi problemi di salute e starebbero per ritirarsi.

«The Justices likely to retire are Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.»

*

«Ginsburg and Breyer tend to be more liberal, and Kennedy is normally a swing vote.»

*

«If any of them resign, it’s likely that Trump will replace them with another “originalist” like Gorsuch»

*

Pur augurando lunga e felice vita a tutti, il ritiro di questi tre Giudici sarebbe una particolare Grazia del Cielo: sono tutti e tre liberals ideologicamente convinti. Mr Trump potrebbe rimpiazzarli agevolmente con altri tre giudici quarantenni, ottenendo così una Corte Suprema a schiacciante maggioranza repubblicana e fortemente anti – liberal: Corte che resterebbe in essere per almeno trenta anni.

*

Se così fosse, i liberals democratici potrebbero tranquillamente chiudere bottega e dedicarsi alla pastorizia, sempre che Mr Trump glielo conceda, cosa di cui molti nutrono forti dubbi.

Nota.

Recenti voci di corridoio sugferirebbero che il Giudice kennedy stesse pensando a ritirarsi.

---

→ Conservative Daily Post. 2017-04-22. GOP Senator Makes Unexpected Announcement About Other Supreme Court Seat To Be Filled

The Supreme Court is one of the most sacred institutions in our government. Judges appointed to the Court are given the job for life. They’re expected to be independent and focused on whether or not laws are constitutional. However, the authoritarian left does not care about the Constitution. Instead of judges deciding cases based on what the founders intended, liberals would rather have them base their decisions around their personal desires. Fortunately, President Trump has made it clear that he will only appoint justices who promise to use restraint. He’s already appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch and is expected to appoint another soon.

According to reports, a senior Supreme Court Justice is considering stepping down. Sources say they may retire as early as this summer. If someone steps down, Trump will be able to appoint another justice, which would shift the balance of the court to the right.

Earlier this week, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, gave a speech at Kent Corporation in Muscatine, Iowa, his home state. In response to a question, he told those in attendance that an upcoming vacancy on the Supreme Court was “rumored,” and added that he personally “would expect a resignation this summer.” Since Grassley heads the Judiciary Committee, which is the group tasked with approving the next Justice, many believe Grassley knows something everyone else doesn’t. When asked about whether or not the new Justice will be chosen from the same list used for Gorsuch, Grassley said, “I don’t know about racial and ethnic divisions, but there’s some very good females on there that would make good Supreme Court Justices as well.” Unfortunately, he didn’t provide any additional details.

He also suggested that there may be more than one resignation coming up. The Justices likely to retire are Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Ginsburg and Breyer tend to be more liberal, and Kennedy is normally a swing vote. If any of them resign, it’s likely that Trump will replace them with another “originalist” like Gorsuch. Originalists believe that the Constitution should be understood the way the original writers intended. Those who disagree with this notion, such as liberals like Ginsburg, argue that the Constitution is a “living document,” which should be interpreted differently at different points in time. Originalists believe that this leads to decisions being based on one’s own preference rather than the actual law and absolutely oppose it. Since many cases are currently decided 5-4, usually in favor of the liberals, replacing a progressive with a conservative would shift the balance of the court, making it less judicially active in the process.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the oldest judge on the Court, is the most likely candidate to retire. Her recent behavior has proven that she is no longer fit to serve. Earlier this year, she mistakenly referred to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as one of the “women of the Senate.” Although it’s probably the case that her assistants wrote the speech, she’s still responsible for not catching the mistake. She either didn’t read her speech before giving it or she doesn’t know who the Senator is. Either way, she needs to step down.

Although Trump is expected to appoint at least one other judge sometime during his four years as President, it’s not guaranteed. If the justices wait until the next election year to retire, Grassley has made it clear that Republicans will start the nomination process after the election. “If there’s a vacancy in the last year of a presidency, people ought to have a voice,” he reasoned.

Holding off on the nomination process during an election year is not a new idea. Back in 1992, former Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, argued that if a Supreme Court Seat became available during the election year, President George H. W. Bush should not nominate anyone. Grassley claims he’s just “taking the same view that Democrats did.”

However, if a seat becomes vacant before an election year, liberals still upset over the fact that Judge Merrick Garland wasn’t given a hearing during an election year will be able to do very little to stop Trump from appointing a new Justice. This is because, in order to get Gorsuch confirmed, GOP senators invoked the “nuclear option,” which officially lowered the number of votes needed for a super majority to a simple majority. That meant in order to be approved, justices now only need fifty-one votes instead of the original sixty. Gorsuch was successfully given the position by a vote of 54-45. Three Democratic Senators, Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Joe Donnelly (D-IN) recognized that he was extremely qualified and voted against their own party.