«Nullo martiro, fuor che la tua rabbia, Sarebbe al tuo furor dolor compìto» (Dante)
Se per i credenti il termine ‘inferno‘ significa la privazione di Dio, per tutti gli esseri umani, credenti o meno, si riduce ad una situazione nella quale la propria volontà è negata ed impotente.
Questo è substrato di un odio viscerale, di un’ira furibonda che rode mente e cuore, nella constatazione della propria inadeguatezza a mutare le cose.
Dal punto di vista umano, molte persone sperimentano già su questa terra quello che poi sarà il loro inferno definitivo.
Pensate ad un essere superbo.
La superbia è una esagerata stima di sé e dei proprî meriti (reali o presunti), che si manifesta esteriormente con un atteggiamento altezzoso e sprezzante e con un ostentato senso di superiorità nei confronti degli altri. Ma questa condizione degenera quasi invariabilmente in un qualcosa di molto peggio. Si dilata in una considerazione talmente alta di sé stessi da giungere al punto di stimarsi come principio e fine del proprio essere: l’uomo si crede di essere dio.
Successo e denaro sono ottimi concimi della superbia, e la serva piaggeria adulatrice dei clientes porta a perdere completamente la percezione del reale.
Ma non ci si illuda che il superbo sia felice. Tutt’altro.
La sua vita è un continuo rodersi cuore, mente e fegato perché gli altri non riconoscono la sua immensità: lo contraddicono, lo ostacolano, tramano contro di lui. In altri termini, gli altri non si sottomettono ai suoi voleri, contrastano la sua volontà.
Se è vero che il superbo si percepisce onnipotente, sarebbe altrettanto vero che gli altri gli negano codesto attributo: di qui l’odio mortale verso gli altri, rei di non riconoscere l’immensa superiorità.
Ma sono ira, rabbia, odio impotenti, perché non aiutano ad imporre il proprio volere, anzi, si rivelano per quello che sono. Sono i tormenti caratteristici dei superbi. Ed iniziano già in questa vita terrea, che il superbo fa di tutto per rendersela più odiosa il possibile.
* * * * * * *
I liberal democratici sono tutto tranne che umili: sono la quintessenza della superbia incarnata negli esseri umani. Non paghi di essersi saziati dei frutti dell’Albero del bene e del male hanno infatti tentato l’attacco all’Albero della Vita: già, nel giardino dell’Eden c’erano entrambi.
È stata proprio la loro superbia a condurli alla disfatta elettorale del 2016, impostando la propria campagna elettorale su di una candidata boriosamente piena di sé stessa, che aveva proposto, imposto, un programma che ben poco aveva di politico o di economico. Era in buona sostanza un’etica di vita, l’etica liberal.
Come tutti i superbi, dopo la confitta addossarono agli ‘altri‘ la colpa della disfatta e presero in odio quello che era stato il vincitore della competizione, scatenandogli contro una campagna mediatica personale mai vista nella storia.
La maggiore conseguenza di quella débâcle fu la perdita del controllo della Corte Suprema.
Fino a quando la Suprema Corte sentenziava 5 a 4 a favore delle tesi giuridiche liberal la osannavano come l’apice della giustizia. Adesso che la Suprema Corte sentenzia 5 a 4 a favore delle tesi giuridiche repubblicane la odiono, la deridono, cercano i ogni modo di affossarla, anche vagheggiando di aumentare il numero dei giudici immettendovi gente di provata fede liberal.
Calunniano sottilmente i giudici che non si sono asserviti ai loro voleri.
* * * * * * *
L’accluso articolo è un capolavoro di volontà contrariata, di odio globale ribollente di ira e rabbia malcelate: è un pezzo degno di un trattato di psichiatria, ove il delirio di onnipotenza si associa ed alimenta il delirio di persecuzione.
Non ci si stupisca se, nel caso, in America ci saranno brutti fatti di sangue: l’odio è violento per sua natura.
Roberts has repeatedly declared that he wants the public to see the court as a nonpartisan institution, even though polarizing cases have often divided it between the five justices appointed by Republican presidents and the four appointed by Democrats.
Roberts over the years has shown he’s uneasy with decisions on big cases that routinely align the court, in effect, along those party lines — an instinct that was most notably evident when he joined with the court’s four Democratic-appointed justices to mostly preserve the Affordable Care Act in 2012. “We do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle, we do not caucus in separate rooms, we do not serve one party or one interest, we serve one nation,” Roberts insisted in a speech last October.
But on cases affecting the core electoral interests of the two parties — like the decision impending this week on whether the Trump administration can add a citizenship question to the 2020 census — Roberts has conspicuously deviated from that pattern. He has repeatedly joined in 5-4 Supreme Court decisions that align all the Republican-appointed justices against all the Democratic-appointed ones on cases that set the underlying rules of political competition, from campaign finance to voting rights. And on those cases, critics say, he has consistently voted with the other GOP-appointed justices to produce rulings that benefit the Republican Party’s electoral interests.
“One thing Roberts has been consistent about is his willingness to take extreme stances to undermine long-standing rules of democracy,” says Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, a group that advocates for expanded voting rights. “We all are impressed by his institutionalism and his deftness at steering the Supreme Court away from making it such a central partisan topic, such as in the ACA case. The democracy issues are where the court has been most aggressive, and he has not been a temporizing swing vote but an ardent activist.”
The census case, Department of Commerce v. New York, crystallizes these issues even more than the earlier electoral decisions in Roberts’ tenure because his role on the court has changed. With the retirement of Anthony Kennedy, a President Ronald Reagan appointee who often functioned as the court’s swing vote, and his contentious replacement last year by the more reliably conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Roberts has become the closest thing to a swing vote on the court, legal analysts agree. That means a party-line decision supporting the Trump administration on the census case would more clearly bear his stamp — and thus more directly undercut his attempts to portray the court as nonpartisan.
Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine who specializes in election law, says that “historically … it has been mostly true” that Roberts has consistently voted to uphold the GOP’s core interests in cases that affect the rules of politics. But, Hasen says, “He’s in a different position now. He’s been the chief justice for a decade but only now is he a swing justice and only now is he on a court when all the conservatives are Republicans and all the liberals are Democrats.”
Roberts has spoken very little in public about specific court decisions, but in his appearance at the University of Minnesota last October, he suggested that the focus on 5-4 decisions that split the court along partisan lines was misplaced. The press, he said, portrays such decisions “more in a political way somebody must think is more readily understandable. From the court perspective, I would like to see the sentence that causes people to split this way (so) a reasonable person could see why there’s two sides to that story.”
Roberts also said he tries to ignore criticism of his decisions (“the good thing about life tenure is that it doesn’t really bother you much”) and doesn’t look back wondering whether he decided cases incorrectly. “I will give the same answer because it’s the true one, and I always worry it will sound harsh or something, but the answer is no,” he said.
1.1.1 A ruling of huge consequence
The census decision due this week has potentially huge implications for the partisan — and racial — balance of political power over the next decade. The Trump administration is seeking to add a question that would, for the first time, ask all Americans whether they are American citizens. A wide variety of experts, including within the Census Bureau itself, have warned that the question could discourage minority groups, particularly Hispanics, from responding to the census.
The nonpartisan Urban Institute recently noted that changes in how the census is administered — particularly an increased reliance on internet responses and reduced emphasis on home visits — could swell the undercount of minorities. Adding a citizenship question to those changes, especially in an atmosphere of intense political tension over immigration, could produce “an undercount of a magnitude we haven’t seen in a decade or two or more,” says Diana Elliott, a senior research associate at the institute.
Specifically, the Urban Institute projected that a census including the citizenship question could undercount Hispanics nationwide by 3.5%, while slightly overcounting whites and also significantly undercounting African Americans and more modestly missing Asian Americans.
That could undercount the population in heavily diverse states including California, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Florida and Georgia while leading to overcounts in mostly white states including Vermont, West Virginia, Maine, New Hampshire and Montana, the group calculated.
In the 2020 reapportionment that will be based on the census results, such an undercount could shift congressional seats — and Electoral College votes — from diverse states mostly within the Sun Belt (particularly California, Texas, Arizona and Florida) toward more predominantly white states mostly across the Rust Belt (Ohio, Minnesota and Montana are among the states that have been projected as possible winners).
Just as important, an undercount of minorities could shift the balance of political power within states. With less recorded population, heavily minority areas would lose representation when states draw new districts after 2020 for state legislative and congressional seats.
In several states, Republicans are discussing proposals to draw legislative and congressional districts based not on total population but the number of citizens in each area. That approach — if ultimately passed in states and upheld by the Supreme Court — would tilt power even more dramatically away from areas with large Hispanic populations toward mostly white communities. Recently discovered hard drives from a deceased GOP redistricting specialist, Thomas Hofeller, showed that obtaining the data required to implement such a citizen-based redistricting system was one reason he urged the Trump administration to include a citizenship question in the census.
For all these reasons, experts such as Waldman believe the census case could rival the long-term impact of the other two landmark Roberts-era cases affecting the ground rules of politics: the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision eviscerating campaign finance restrictions, and the Shelby County v. Holder decision, decided six years ago Tuesday, which severely retrenched the Voting Rights Act.
“The census case ranks up there with Citizens United and Shelby County in tilting the rules of American politics,” he says.
Both of those earlier landmark cases were decided on 5-4 votes, with Roberts voting with an all-Republican majority each time. At the time Citizens United was decided, the court’s partisan and ideological balance was less regimented than today. That decision featured Roberts and four other Republican-appointed justices outvoting three justices appointed by Democrats and John Paul Stevens, a Gerald Ford appointee, who often voted with the court’s liberal bloc.
By the time of the Shelby County decision in 2013, Elena Kagan, appointed by President Barack Obama, had replaced Stevens and the court had settled into its current ideological and partisan alignment, though with different members. On that decision, Roberts joined four other Republican appointees to outvote the four Democratic appointees.
Each of these rulings brought huge changes to American politics.
Citizens United, which defined political spending as speech, opened the door to a rapid expansion in “dark money” super PAC spending.
Shelby County had an even more seismic effect. That decision, written by Roberts, effectively invalidated the provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that required states with histories of discrimination to receive federal approval (“preclearance”) for changes in their election laws. With that provision stripped away, Republican-controlled states across the country have stampeded to impose new restrictions on voting, such as limiting early and absentee voting and requiring more stringent proof of identity to cast a ballot.
1.1.2 Other 5-4 election decisions
Roberts has joined 5-4 court decisions that have produced outcomes mostly favored by Republicans on an array of other election-related topics. “If he’s got fears of seeming partisan, he’s managed to compartmentalize,” says Waldman. “He seems to always have a benefit for one party over another.”
Last June, the court upheld an Ohio law that aggressively purged voters from the rolls if they had not participated in recent elections, again on a 5-4 vote that pit all of the GOP-appointed justices against all of the Democratic-appointed ones.
In yet another 5-4 split, the court’s four Democratic-appointed justices last June signaled openness to establishing rules to limit partisan gerrymandering but were unable to attract a fifth vote from any of the court’s Republican-appointed justices. The court is due to decide a new round of gerrymandering cases this week.
So far, three federal district courts have decided against the Trump administration’s decision to add the citizenship question, ruling that the Commerce Department choice to include it violated federal procedures for reaching such a decision. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross initially said he sought to add the citizenship question at the request of the Justice Department — ostensibly to improve enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. But court testimony has shown that he asked the department to make that request, and consulted with anti-immigration hard-liners in the administration in his decision.
“In the census case it’s really hard to come up with a straight-faced argument in the face of evidence that while the Trump administration said they were doing this to protect Hispanic voters they were actually doing it to hurt Hispanic voters,” says Hasen. “If they are going to turn a blind eye to that … that’s a sign that this is a very partisan court. This should be a 9-0 decision (against the question).”
With the disclosure of the Hofeller memos, the court could punt on the decision and send it back to lower courts to consider the new evidence — though most observers consider that unlikely since the Trump administration has insisted it must prepare the census forms by this summer.
Beyond its immediate partisan implications, the census case stands at the forward edge of a racial dynamic that may increasingly embroil the court over the coming decade. As I’ve written, the five-member Republican-appointed majority was confirmed by GOP senators — who represent the parts of America least touched by the demographic changes that are hurtling the US toward a future in which minorities will constitute most of the under-18 population as soon as 2020 and a majority of the overall population around 2043, according to census projections.
If the five GOP-appointed justices authorize a census question that dilutes the political clout of minorities, it would be only one of many decisions that could pit them against the interests of America’s growingly diverse population. Those same justices have displayed much skepticism about other programs, such as affirmative action in education or constraints on law enforcement’s use of race in decision-making, that most minority leaders consider essential to their communities.
Waldman says the census case illustrates how the five Republican-appointed justices could set rules for politics in the years ahead — on issues from redistricting to voting rights — that constrain the influence of the growing minority population, which mostly supports Democrats, and thus help Republicans retain power.
“What it means is the Supreme Court will have an even bigger thumb on the scale for the rules of politics, and it becomes a perpetual motion machine … changing the rules of politics to help elect more Republican officials, who appoint more Republican judges,” Waldman says.
Roberts has left no doubt that one of his greatest fears is that the court he leads will be perceived as nothing more than exactly that kind of cog in the Republican political machine. The explosive decision due this week will test whether that fear is enough to dissuade him from adding Department of Commerce v. New York to Citizens United and Shelby County in his legacy of landmark 5-4 party-line court rulings that have rewritten the rules of competition between Republicans and Democrats.
Dal punto di vista giuridico si pongono alcuni problemi sofisticati quanto importanti.
– Può la Suprema Corte sentenziare cassando una sua precedente sentenza?
– Può un giudice federale di grado inferiore emettere sentenze vincolanti su tutto il territorio degli Stati Uniti?
– Fino a qual punto la Suprema Corte può interferire con quanto legiferato da uno stato sovrano?
* * * * * * *
Cerchiamo di ragionare, nei limiti del possibile.
«As surprising as it might seem, it isn’t uncommon for Supreme Court justices to change their mind. The nation’s high court has overturned 236 rulings in its history, some of which marked sea changes in American society and rule of law»
Se si rimane alquanto sorpresi che la Suprema Corte abbia per ben 236 sentenziato rovesciando quanto sentenziato in passato, lo stupore sembrerebbe essere inappropriato, nel momento in cui negli Stati Uniti di America si dia per scontato che le leggi, sia pur esse quell costituzionali, devono essere ‘interpretate‘.
Una cosa è applicare la costituzione, ed una totalmente differente, opposta, è l’interpretarla. Nel primo caso si rimane nell’alveo della oggettività del diritto, nella seconda nella soggettività del medesimo.
Ma se tutto sia interpretabile a piacere, anche se poi ammantato di aulici ragionamenti, dovrebbe sorgere spontanea la domanda di cosa serva avere una costituzione.
Ciò che conta in effetti non è più la carta costituzionale, bensì il pensiero interpretativo di quanti abbiano il potere di deliberare e di sentenziare.
Nuovamente sorge altrettanto spontanea la domanda di quale differenza passi tra una dittatura conclamata ed una simile gestione giuridica. Nei fatti non esiste differenza alcuna: in ambedue i casi chi ha ottenuto il potere può fare tutto ciò che vuole.
* * *
Dovrebbe a questa luce essere evidente come i due successivi quesiti siano inconsistenti: ci si regolerà come la Suprema Corte abbia deciso doversi regolare.
As surprising as it might seem, it isn’t uncommon for Supreme Court justices to change their mind. The nation’s high court has overturned 236 rulings in its history, some of which marked sea changes in American society and rule of law.
However, it seems remarkable when the case in question is as tightly woven into the fabric of American life as Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion. In the past year, with the confirmation of conservative Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and a wave of states deciding to tighten abortion laws, could this landmark decision could be struck down?
These seven decisions aren’t necessarily the most significant or contentious cases that have been overturned, but they illustrate what moves the Supreme Court to disrupt established law, and how it happens.
Few Supreme Court cases are as well-known or as critical to American history as the 1954 decision that ruled racial segregation in schools, and by association all segregation, was unconstitutional. That decision effectively overturned one of the most infamous Supreme Court cases, Plessy v. Ferguson, which concluded that the idea of “separate but equal” was constitutionally viable.
All you have to do is look at the timing of these decisions — Plessy was decided in 1896 during the tumultuous era after the Civil War, and Brown during the emergence of the Civil Rights movement — to understand the sea change they represent.
Berman says the Supreme Court sometimes votes to overrule a previous precedent to keep up with national progress. In the case of Plessy and Brown, and in various other overturned cases, the Supreme Court is called upon to directly interpret the Constitution.
“These kinds of decisions happen, but rarely, and the Court has historically been very careful in making sure that there have been major societal decisions that have change the viability of a ruling over time,” he says.
“Plessy was decided at the end of the Civil War. There was obviously a huge change in societal opinion. In general this is an example of the American political system moving concurrently with that.”
The Court also reflected the changing tide of social opinion in 2003, when it effectively legalized same-sex activity nationwide. The Lawrence decision upheld the idea that sexual privacy was a constitutional right, thus invalidating anti-sodomy laws in the few states that had them. (The decision it overturned, the Bowers decision, concluded homosexual sex was not a fundamental right.)
“Again, this was American culture changing its views with regard to privacy and consensual relationships in general, and homosexual relationships in particular,” Berman says. “And with this decision, the Supreme Court was acknowledging that fact.”
Of course, by 2003, homosexual activity was not generally seen as illegal, and had been openly depicted and expressed for quite a while. This is another example, Owens says, of a precedent that had been eroded in practice long before it was officially changed.
“The Court concluded [the original Bowers decision] had been wrongly decided, and there had been an attack on that precedent over time,” he says.
Though it isn’t unheard of for the Supreme Court to overturn rulings, it certainly isn’t easy. Supreme Court rulings often establish a nationwide precedent or interpretation of the law that can have ripples far outside the legal or political sphere.
Owens says one of the Supreme Court’s duties is to generate legal stability and that overturning a previous ruling can upset that if it is not done judiciously.
“Courts ought to be disinclined to upset established precedents,” Owens says, “But there are some legal conditions that the courts have identified to overrule.”
One of these, he says, is the idea that the conditions of the original ruling were wrongly decided.
Though the final decision was controversial, it wasn’t sudden. Conservative groups had been challenging the original Abood decision for more than a decade, and other Supreme Court decisions suggested the court’s opinion on Abood was changing.
“[When the Janus decision was made], they noted the history, and that recent courts had nibbled away the original ruling,” Owens says. “Within the last decade the Supreme Court had really undercut portions of the foundations of Abood, so by the time the Janus decision came about, they already had a disinclination to keep it around.”
This, Owens says, is another situation that may lead the Supreme Court to consider a precedent-changing ruling.
“Consider how a case has been treated by the courts over time,” he says. “If it’s something that they have attacked piece by piece, eventually they’ll say the whole edifice has to come down.”
Most of the most well-known Supreme Court decisions represent changing cultural and social precedents, but there are plenty that encompass economic and technological changes as well.
A 2018 decision concerning how sales tax is paid offers an interesting reflection on these shifts.
The case of South Dakota v. Wayfair established a new precedent in regards to online commerce: Previously, the Supreme Court had used the Dormant Commerce Clause in the Constitution to claim states couldn’t charge sales tax on orders made, say, online or by mail, when the retailer didn’t have a physical presence in the state.
“In the age of online retailing, the old precedent made less and less sense,” Berman says. “The old statute became unworkable. This is the kind of case where overturning precedent may make some kind of sense.”
In 2015, the Supreme Court made a watershed decision regarding LGBT equality when it ruled in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide, invalidating a 1972 decision that claimed there was no federal precedent on which to fall back on when it came to such a matter. (Ironically, Minnesota, the state which brought the Baker case to the Supreme Court, legalized same-sex marriage two years before the Supreme Court did).
The Obergefell decision now represents the kind of precedent that would be extremely difficult to reverse, for an abundance of reasons.
“When the Supreme Court overturns a prior precedent, it is potentially changing a settled constitutional arrangement or a settled set of rights that people come to rely on.” Berman says.
“If right now, someone brought a new case to overturn Obergefell, there would be serious questions. Are those unions legitimate? Who gets to inherit money? Who gets visitation rights?”
However, when it comes to rights and the Supreme Court, individual rights aren’t the only ones that matter.
“One of the questions with regards to constitutional adjudication is how much freedom to leave the states,” Berman says. “Once the Supreme Court says that a certain right or a certain arrangement is required under the Constitution, it means no state can implement a law counter to that right.”
Still, there is often room for interpretation among the lower courts. Capital punishment is a good example of an issue which has been addressed several times in the Supreme Court, and is interpreted at the state level.
“In 1972 the Supreme Court, in a very polarized capacity, says the death penalty is unconstitutional,” Owens says. “Four years later, they reversed course in Gregg v. Georgia.”
The 1972 ruling essentially made death penalty sentences impossible because of the way states were required to hand down such sentences to comply with the 8th Amendment, which forbids “cruel and unusual punishment.”
The overruling decision made these guidelines more workable and gave states a clearer infrastructure in which to hand down death penalties.
When it comes to the future of Roe v. Wade, states rights and the power of the state to interpret federal law are key considerations. There has already been a precedent, decided in 1992, that grants states power over abortion decisions that were not originally in the 1972 Roe v. Wade ruling.
The Casey decision overturned two previous rulings that upheld Roe’s original conclusion that states could not regulate abortions within the first trimester. Instead, the new decision defined a period of “fetal viability” in which states could regulate abortions and said states could regulate abortions earlier as long as the rules did not impose an “undue burden” on the woman.
Recent laws that could be seen as a challenge to Roe v. Wade, including Georgia’s heartbeat bill, could use this vague language to escape any claims that they go against current precedents provided by the Supreme Court.
“Most likely, a state law would come about that imposes some significant restrictions on the right to an abortion, and it gets challenged,” Owens says. “The challenge would be that the state violates Roe, and if the court were to rule in favor of the state, they would essentially be saying Roe was wrongly decided.”
This is why, Owens says, interpretation and implementation are so important when considering Supreme Court precedents. Rarely do Supreme Court decisions legalize or criminalize something outright; they present constitutional and statutory regulations in which states have to operate.
In the case of Roe v. Wade, overturning the decision wouldn’t criminalize abortion — but it would allow states to.
“It would return to the states and the state legislatures,” Owens says. “A lot of people think the Supreme Court decides something and that settles the issue. But while the Court has the first word, it may not have the last.”
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.
«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.»
«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 ….
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 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.
Il Giudice Franklin Dehousse della Suprema Corte si pone il problema se questa istituzione stia distruggendo la trasparenza politica nell’Unione Europea.
È una domanda retorica.
* * *
Volendo andare alla radice del problema, questo diventa stupefacentemente semplice.
L’Unione Europea non è dotata di una Costituzione, una Carta Fondamentale od un documento analogo approvato dal Popolo sovrano con un referendum
Nel 2007 fu fatto un tentativo, ma il testo di allora fu bocciato da referendum tenuti in Francia e nei Paesi Bassi: da allora non se ne parlò più.
Nel contempo l’Unione Europea è dotata di una Suprema Corte, ossia di un organo composto da persone nominate, non elette, che dovrebbe applicare una costituzione che non esiste.
Se non fosse materia seria, sarebbe facile argomento di battute sferzanti.
* * *
All’epoca sia il Consiglio Europea, sia l’Europarlamento sia di conseguenza la Commissione europea erano tutte e tre totalmente dominate dalla componente liberal socialista.
Come scelta de facto la Suprema Corte assunse che i dettami dell’ideologia liberal socialista fossero quelli che avrebbero potuto essere in vigore se fosse esistita una costituzione che non c’era. Il fatto che questa visione fosse stata rigettata a larga maggioranza in ben due consecutivi referendum non turbò più di tanto l’animo dei giudici supremi europei: l’ideologia garantiva infatti che il popolo bue erra spesso e volentieri, ma per sua fortuna è guidato dagli illuminati.
Questo atteggiamento mentale ha improntato il funzionamento della Suprema Corte, che si è politicizzata fino a trasformarsi nel braccio esecutivo che garantisse il perpetuarsi del regime ideologico in essere.
Chiunque propugnasse eresie ideologica sarebbe deferito alla Suprema Corte che lo condannerebbe con la massima veemenza. Sentenze ovviamente inappellabili e con effetto immediato in tutti gli Stati dell’Unione.
* * *
Brexit e sviluppo dei movimenti sovranisti, che in alcuni paesi sono arrivati anche al governo, stanno rimettendo in discussione un simile modo di gestire la giustizia e, più in generale, la politica dell’Unione Europea.
Eu Observer, roccaforte liberal socialista che inizia a vedere in forse i finanziamenti percepiti dall’Unione, si pone con molta circospezione il problema.
Anni ed anni fa un gruppo di temerai ardì chiedere di accedere alle spese degli europarlamentari.
Vi erano sospetti che sconfinavano nella certezza di un’allegra gestione del denaro pubblico, di cui pudicamente l’europarlamento non rilasciava contabilità alcuna. Viaggi privati pagati con denaro pubblico erano il peccato veniale, le orge sibaritiche erano debolezze umane, il peculato si sarebbe invece configurato solo ed esclusivamente nel caso che si fosse sospettato che a farlo fosse stato un sovranista.
Il parlamento, nella sua componente liberal socialista, rifiutò sdegnosamente e con parole di fuoco di rendere pubblici quei conti.
Ma il meglio lo dette la Corte Generale EU, che ha ribadito per ben 43 volte consecutive che le spese degli eurodeputati siano fatto privato:
«The general need to control concrete expenses financed by the European taxpayer was never considered as a valid justification».
Si sarebbe rimasti sorpresi se l’Ombudsman avesse espresso parere differente.
«As the definition and protection of personal data are broadened, the EU institutions communicate less and less, and transparency is slowly dying.»
«Obtaining official documents becomes a new sequel of Mission Impossible (but without the happy ending).»
* * * * * * *
Non vorremmo andare a parole dure, anche se ne sarebbe il luogo.
Tuttavia questi dati e queste considerazioni corroborano nella comprensione del terrore dei gerarchi dell’Unione Europea di un ingresso in quota rilevante dei sovranisti nell’europarlamento: il 23 e 24 maggio si vota.
E poi? E se qualche testone volesse rivedere le contabilità finalmente accessibili?
Quale atteggiamento terrà la Suprema Corte nel caso che il nuovo europarlamento rendesse pubblici bilanci e rendiconti?
Ufficialmente non potrebbe farlo, essendoci una sentenza in essere che lo vieta. Assisteremo a contorsionismi giuridici.
Come spiegare al Cittadino Contribuente che i soldi, tanti, sono stati utilizzati per finanziare i ludi erotici degli europarlamentari?
Avete idea di quanto costi una bottiglia di Krug – Grande Cuvée Jeroboam? Bene: se lo gargarizzavano come delle betoniere. I Contribuenti a pagare e loro a bere: dura vita quella del liberal socialista.
In 2016, this author requested various documents about the expenses of the European Court of Justice, concerning among other things the possible use of cars and chauffeurs for private trips paid by the EU budget.
The parliament refused all journalists’ requests for various reasons (no documents, excessive workload, and especially private data).
The journalists introduced a legal action.
The Court of Justice refused more or less all the author’s requests, though they cited both his quality as a member of the institution, and later as a citizen.
The author then made a complaint to the Ombudsman, and later a legal action about three decisions.
In September 2018, the EU General Court approved totally the parliament’s refusal, invoking essentially the protection of personal data (the concept is mentioned 43 times in a judgment of 140 points!).
It considered that more or less all documents contained personal data.
Consequently, for each document, the journalists had to produce a very concrete reason to disclose the personal data, with each time concrete evidence.
The general need to control concrete expenses financed by the European taxpayer was never considered as a valid justification.
In November 2018, in a letter to the ombudsman the president of the Court of Justice adopted exactly the same reasoning.
It covered any document written or signed by a judge on any administrative or legislative matter (car, chauffeurs, budget, ICT, appointment, official missions, legislative debate, etc), with the additional motive that all these topics are considered as directly linked to the judicial activity.
Again, the general need to control expenses financed by the European taxpayer is never considered as a valid justification. The judgment is invoked four times (though the appeal period was not over).
Transparency slowing dying
This approach leads to a very paradoxical result.
As the definition and protection of personal data are broadened, the EU institutions communicate less and less, and transparency is slowly dying.
Obtaining official documents becomes a new sequel of Mission Impossible (but without the happy ending).
Finding a concrete and precise justification for each document is extremely cumbersome. It also often requires precise information, which was precisely the reason why the Amsterdam Treaty enshrined the right to obtain it in the first place (the author was among the negotiators).
Furthermore, the required level of legal acumen makes this largely impossible for non lawyers.
Consequently, judgments often begin by affirming the theoretical principle of access and finish by concluding that concrete access is refused.
More fundamentally, many more requests are made, by journalists for example, and are refused. Financing a legal action is simply not possible.
There are reasons to doubt the validity of such a restrictive approach.
The synthesis is alas good, but the court’s legal interpretation is not.
Data protection is not at all an absolute right, and should be combined with other rights similarly protected by the charter of fundamental rights, such as the right of access to documents (Article 42), the right to information (Article 11), and the right to a good administration (Article 41).
The jurisprudence’s very restrictive approach has revealed a complete opposition between the Court of Justice and the commission.
As an example (there are many others), the court refuses to communicate any concrete element linked to the use of chauffeurs and cars by judges, while the commission, following the ombudsman’s invitation, does precisely the opposite with commissioners.
This is an essential improvement.
For the first time, citizens and control organs can know exactly what is publicly financed, and the Juncker commission must be strongly commended for this.
It is very hard to understand how the trips of the institutions’ members can be considered simultaneously so public that they must be financed by the taxpayer and so private that nobody can know anything about them.
Whatever one thinks about Martin Selmayr’s appointment, the commission has also been very transparent with the documents (here too, the Court of Justice follows completely the opposite approach).
This context explains why the author introduced a legal action against the Court of Justice (with a hearing on 11 January 2019).
If the ECJ restrictive approach is confirmed, it will mean that the other institutions’ openness (beginning with the commission’s) will be strongly reduced.
In a period of strong contestation of the EU by various circles, this could become very dangerous.
This restricts strongly control by the press (which has a huge stake here), the institutions, and finally the citizens.
Furthermore, nothing infuriates more the public than the feeling that opacity protects the interests of the European institution’s members (or top bureaucrats).
Transparency remains an essential instrument to remedy the present crisis of trust in the institutions. Accepting its fading away will be extremely damaging.
Franklin Dehousse is a professor at Liege University, and a former judge at the Court of Justice of the EU
«Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had two cancerous growths removed from her lung Friday and will remain hospitalized for several days.
Ginsburg, the leader of the court’s liberal faction, underwent a pulmonary lobectomy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, according to a news release from the court.
The procedure to remove two nodules in the lower lobe of her left lung followed their discovery during tests performed last month to diagnose and treat rib fractures suffered in a fall on Nov. 7.
Both nodules removed during surgery were found to be malignant on initial pathology evaluation, according to thoracic surgeon Valerie Rusch, the court’s release said. Post-surgery, there was no evidence of any remaining disease in the lung or anywhere else in Ginsburg’s body, the court said.
“Currently, no further treatment is planned,” the court release said. “Justice Ginsburg is resting comfortably and is expected to remain in the hospital for a few days. Updates will be provided as they become available.”
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women in the United States, according to the National Cancer Institute. From 2009-13, it caused more deaths than breast, prostate, colorectal and liver cancers combined. The five-year survival rate is just 18%, but far better if the cancer is discovered at an early stage.
Ginsburg, a 25-year veteran of the nation’s highest court and a cultural icon among liberals and proponents of women’s rights, has been closely monitored by those on the left and right for her health. Conservatives have a 5-4 majority on the court, and future vacancies during President Donald Trump’s watch could increase that margin. Republicans will have a 53-47 majority in the Senate next year.»
* * * * * * *
Sua Giustizia Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 86 anni, è stata operata per rimuovere due noduli polmonari, per alcune altre fonti per una lobectomia, e «both nodules removed during surgery were found to be malignant on initial pathology evaluation».
Auguriamo a Sua Giustizia Ruth Bader Ginsburg di riprendersi rapidamente dall’intervento, e, nel contempo, auspichiamo un decorso clinico non tumultuoso.
The 85-year-old Supreme Court justice is “resting comfortably” after the surgical procedure.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent surgery in New York City to remove two malignant nodules on her left lung.
A press release from the Supreme Court noted that the nodules were discovered during treatment for rib fractures caused by a fall last month.
Ginsburg’s surgeon said the operation was successful and that “Post-surgery, there was no evidence of any remaining disease.” She will remain at Memorial Sloan Kettering, a top cancer treatment center in New York, for the next few days.
Ginsburg, 85, is the oldest serving justice. She was appointed in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton and is one of four reliably liberal votes in a Supreme Court that now has a 5-4 conservative majority.
Ginsburg has had her share of health scares. She has survived both colon and pancreatic cancer, the latter of which has a low survival rate.
Most recently, Ginsburg has been traveling to promote On the Basis of Sex, a movie starring Felicity Jones that dramatizes her early life as one of the few female law students at Harvard — and then as a rising star litigator taking on gender discrimination issues.
Read the full press release from the Supreme Court below.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent a pulmonary lobectomy today at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Two nodules in the lower lobe of her left lung were discovered incidentally during tests performed at George Washington University Hospital to diagnose and treat rib fractures sustained in a fall on November 7. According to the thoracic surgeon, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, FACS, both nodules removed during surgery were found to be malignant on initial pathology evaluation. Post-surgery, there was no evidence of any remaining disease. Scans performed before surgery indicated no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body. Currently, no further treatment is planned. Justice Ginsburg is resting comfortably and is expected to remain in the hospital for a few days. Updates will be provided as they become available.
È cosa di somma importanza studiare a fondo gli avversari e, nel caso, cercare di imparare da loro.
I liberal socialisti hanno portato al massimo grado di raffinatezza l’arte di governare anche nel caso che avessero perso le elezioni.
Gli strumenti usati sono svariati, ma alcuni primeggiano per la loro importanza.
In primo luogo, hanno sempre avuto la massima cura di far nominare persone loro vicine negli alti gradi della Magistratura. Poi, ottenuto questo risultato, hanno iniziato a proclamare la sacralità della divisione dei poteri, che la Magistratura è intoccabile ed insindacabile, che la politica dovrebbe astenersi dal’interferire. Nel contempo, i loro Magistrati svolgono una chiara e netta azione politica.
«”He is a faker,” she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”
It is highly unusual for a justice to make such politically charged remarks, and some critics said she crossed the line. House Speaker Paul Ryan told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Tuesday night the comments were “out of place.”»
Un po’ difficile dire che Sua Justizia Mrs Ginsburg non abbia tracimato nella politica e che stesse facendo politica, immemore della debita non ingerenza.
* * *
In secondo luogo i Magistrati liberal democratici sfruttano la loro posizione per alterare pesantemente la legislazione governativa.
«The Supreme Court dismissed on Tuesday the last remaining appeal in a pair of cases challenging President Trump’s executive order, issued in March, that sought to limit travel to the United States.»
La lettura del dispositivo di sentenza della Suprema Corte bacchetta il Giudice Watson in modo severo, pur usando i toni ovattati che le si confanno.
Il cuore del problema risiede nel fatto che un oscuro giudice distrettuale abbia la potestà, e la usi, di bloccare una legge dello stato.
Si faccia molta attenzione. Le Corti inferiori hanno la possibilità, e spesso anche il dovere, di sottoporre alla Suprema Corte quesiti di costituzionalità su di un qualsivoglia argomento di interesse. ma non dovrebbe loro competere il diritto di emettere sentenze esecutive di sospensione.
Questo è il classico abuso, misuso, della Magistratura politicizzata per bloccare le iniziative politiche di governi in carica non a connotazione liberal democratica.
* * *
Come si constata, i liberal democratici negli Stati Uniti, ma anche i socialisti nell’Europa, hanno insegnato come governare senza l’incomodo di essere eletti. Discorso analogo potrebbe essere fatto sulla Agenzie e sulle ngo.
È sufficiente avere giudici della propria fede ideologica e conferire loro quei poteri che dovrebbero spettare solo a personaggi politici eletti dal popolo sovrano. È la pura e semplice dittatura della magistratura.
* * * * * * *
Tutto filava liscio e nessuno se ne lamentava, nessuno dei liberal democratici ovviamente, fino a tanto che le Corti di giustizia erano succursali delle sedi di partito e la Corte Suprema anche essa un voivodato liberal.
L’elezione di Mr Trump a Presidente degli Stati Uniti ha rotto le uova nel paniera democratico.
Nominando le Loro Giustizie Mr Gorsuch e Mr Kavanaugh la Suprema Corte è tornata ad essere luogo di amministrazione della giustizia: sono due giudici liberi ed indipendenti nel giudizio, ma non sono liberal.
Durante il quadriennio di Presidenza. Mr Trump avrà la possibilità concreta di nominare 239 Giudici in posti vacanti, ad iniziare da quelli da ricoprirsi nel Nono Circuito.
I liberal democratici sono diventati pazzi dalla furiosa rabbia. Avesse vinto Mrs Hillary Clinton avrebbe nominato tutti giudici liberal, stabilizzando così la dittatura per decenni.
I liberal democratici si sono sentiti sbeffeggiati dall’avversa sorte, proprio mentre erano ad un epsilon dalla vittoria finale. Di qui la loro livorosa reazione.
Poi, quasi a mettere la ciliegina sulla torta. a midterm Mr Trump ha conservato il Senato, migliorando persino il numero dei seggi: una grande vittoria che i liberal democratici cercano in ogni modo di scotomizzare con schifiltosa nonchalance. Ma si sono ustionati gravemente.
* * * * * * *
Adesso il The New York Times se esce con questo interessante articolo, ove accusa il Presidente Trump di aver spostato l’asse politico della Suprema Corte fuori dal raggio di azione dei liberal democratici.
Lasciamo al Lettore il piacere di questa prosa, ricordando solo come il The New York Times si il corifeo dei liberal democratici.
L’articolista si stupisce che Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh si sia associato ad una sentenza non favorevole alla Amministrazione.
Mr Trump ha nominato Giudici competenti ed imparziali, che applicano le leggi. lasciamo volentieri loro personaggi come Sua Giustizia Ruth Bader Ginsburg, faziosamente di parte.
The Trump administration is treating it like a wholly owned subsidiary.
The Trump administration’s treatment of the Supreme Court as a wholly owned subsidiary is one of the most compelling dramas now unfolding in Washington. Whether this drama plays out as comedy or tragedy is up to the court.
“Comedy” may be an odd word in this context, but I have to confess that I’ve been more than a little amused by the administration’s frantic and largely failed effort to enlist the justices in keeping the public from learning how the decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census actually came about.
The embarrassing outline of the story is known, summarized in eyebrow-raising detail by Michael Wines in The Times this week. Wilbur L. Ross, the secretary of commerce, testified to Congress under oath in March that he added the disputed question “solely” because the Justice Department asked for it. In fact, documents that came to light in a lawsuit brought by the State of New York and other governmental and private plaintiffs show that pressure didn’t come from the Justice Department. Rather, it was Secretary Ross who pressed the Justice Department to make the request, after consulting with Steve Bannon, the former White House strategist, and Kris Kobach, one of the country’s most stridently anti-immigrant political figures (who lost his race for the governorship of Kansas in Tuesday’s election).
Census experts have warned that a question about citizenship status will deter immigrants from responding altogether, leading to a potentially significant undercount in parts of the country with large immigrant populations, which could affect federal funding to states and representation in Congress.
Last month, with a trial date approaching for the New York lawsuit, the administration went to the Supreme Court with a request to block the plaintiffs from taking pretrial testimony from Secretary Ross and John Gore, the acting assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Federal District Judge Jesse Furman, presiding over the case, had refused to block the depositions on the ground that the plaintiffs had already made a sufficiently “strong showing of bad faith” on the part of the two officials to justify further investigation of the decision-making process. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld Judge Furman’s order.
In the administration’s request to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco argued that because “an agency decision maker’s mental processes are generally irrelevant to evaluating the legality of agency action,” there was no reason to “probe the secretary’s mental processes.” In an unsigned order, the justices agreed, apparently unanimously, to block the deposition of Secretary Ross, while voting 7 to 2 to allow the deposition of Mr. Gore to go forward. The dissenters were Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, who said the court should have stopped the questioning of both men. Their separate opinion contained a strong hint to Judge Furman: “One would expect that the court’s order today would prompt the district court to postpone the scheduled trial and await further guidance.”
That was a hint that Judge Furman chose not to take a few days later, when the administration asked him to stay the entire trial. Rejecting that request, the judge elaborated on his earlier reference to “bad faith.” In a pointed 15-page opinion, he wrote that he had “found reason to believe that Secretary Ross had provided false explanations of his reasons for, and the genesis of, the citizenship question.” Three days later, the administration was back at the Supreme Court, quoting from the two justices’ earlier dissenting opinion and seeking an immediate stay of the trial. In an unsigned one-sentence order, issued last Friday, the justices refused. The vote this time was 6 to 3. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Justices Gorsuch and Thomas. The trial began in Judge Furman’s courtroom in Manhattan on Monday.
It takes the votes of five justices to grant any kind of stay. Conspicuously missing from the votes on the administration’s side were Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and his newest colleague, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The majority’s silence gives no hint of their reasoning. Maybe the chief justice and Justice Kavanaugh simply found Solicitor General Francisco’s hyperbolic rhetoric unpersuasive. Or maybe it was something deeper, a sense that a 5-to-4 vote to shield the Trump administration from ordinary legal process would have been a needless step on the road to disaster for a court already seen as polarized by political allegiances. By just such incremental developments will the line between comedy and tragedy be etched by the newly constituted Roberts court.
But for those of us hanging on the court’s every move, there was hardly time to catch our breath before the Trump administration was back at it again, trying to bend the court to its will. On Monday night, it filed three highly unusual petitions at the court, this time seeking immediate review of decisions by three Federal District Courts that have prevented the administration from shutting down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. All three decisions, from courts in New York, San Francisco and Washington, are already in federal appeals courts, with one appeal having been argued and another scheduled to be heard in January. So what’s the rush?
The administration’s filing of three petitions “for a writ of certiorari before judgment” is an aggressive move, and the language is aggressive as well, devoid of even a hint of empathy for the fate of the “Dreamers,” young people brought to this country as children who have been enabled by DACA to build stable adult lives in the United States. “These cases concern the executive branch’s authority to revoke a discretionary policy of nonenforcement that is sanctioning an ongoing violation of federal immigration law by nearly 700,000 aliens,” the petition in the New York case, Nielsen v. Vidal, asserts. The administration’s basic argument is that the decision to undo the program, established by the administration of President Barack Obama in 2012, is unreviewable by any federal court.
What makes the filing even more striking is that the administration tried the same move last January in one of the San Francisco cases, United States Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. Solicitor General Francisco argued then that the “institutional injury suffered by the United States” from the district court’s injunction against shutting down DACA merited an immediate Supreme Court appeal. The justices denied the petition.
What’s different now? It can’t be that the White House was looking for an Election Day tough-on-immigrants headline; the petitions were filed late in the day on Monday without fanfare and made news only in the legal press. Did Attorney General Jeff Sessions want to show what a gung-ho team player he was on the eve of what turned out to be his forced resignation on Wednesday? Such speculation is above my pay grade. But one reason that comes to mind is that the court today is different from the court that existed last January. Unlike the five votes needed to issue a stay, four votes are sufficient to grant a petition and add a case to the calendar for decision. Maybe the administration’s lawyers assume that Justice Anthony Kennedy wasn’t with them back then but that Justice Kavanaugh, his successor, will be with them now.
Or maybe they make no such assumptions, but simply want to try and see — to test the line between comedy and tragedy.
Silenzio e documentazione sono i principali mezzi di governo.
Solo pochi eminenti personaggi storici quali il cardinal di Richelieu oppure Klemen von Metternich seppero governare con il silenzio. La Corte Suprema del Sacro Romano Impero era il pilastro portante di tutta la struttura politica, garantendo un’equa giustizia a tutti i cittadini: fu il vero cementante dell’Impero. I giudici che la componevano avevano il divieto assoluto di parlare in pubblico.
* * *
Da sempre i rapporti tra potere politico e potere giudiziario sono retti da sottili equilibri, altamente instabili, e la diatriba intercorsa tra Mr Trump e Sua Giustizia Roberts ne rimarca importanza ed urgenza.
I fatti sono, o dovrebbero essere, noti. Riportiamo la versione pubblicata dalla Bbc.
Una Corte Distrettuale della California ha sentenziato contro un ordine Esecutivo emesso dal Presidente Trump circa i migranti richiedenti asilo.
«Mr Trump on Tuesday called a jurist who ruled against his asylum policy an “Obama judge”.»
Immediata la risposta del Capo della Corte Suprema americana, Sua Giustizia John Roberts.
«US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has taken the extraordinary step of rebuking President Donald Trump’s criticism of a federal judge.
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges …. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.»
«Chief Justice Roberts’ Supreme Court colleague Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been a far more outspoken critic of Mr Trump. …. In 2016, the liberal judge apologised for calling Mr Trump a “faker” in an interview after coming under fire for commenting on a candidate as a jurist.»
* * * * * * * *
«Members of the Supreme Court – in fact, the whole of the federal judiciary- like to think of themselves as above and apart from the tumult of American politics. …. The politicisation of the judiciary is now reaching a crescendo»
È sempre molto difficile cercare di essere equilibrati quando si tratta di un problema politicamente incandescente.
Tuttavia un tentativo val bene la pena.
– Una sostanziale non ingerenza del potere politico nella Magistratura e della Magistratura nel potere politico è una pura e semplice utopia: occorrerebbe stare con i piedi sulla terra ed accontentarsi del meglio possibile.
– Innanzitutto sarebbe opportuno ricordare come il potere politico sia, almeno in Occidente, conseguito tramite la vidimazione elettorale, mentre quello giudiziario è ottenuto per nomina. Sono i politici in carica a nominare i giudici. È del tutto naturale che il politico al momento al governo nomini giudici a lui vicini, se non per convinzione almeno per utilità.
– La nomina di Magistrati a vita è sicuramente prassi benvenuta per il Governo che nomina, ma nel contempo è un severo ostacolo all’esercizio delle pubbliche funzioni di un governo subentrante, che si ritrova un corpo di magistrati avverso. Ma le diverse fazioni si alternano al governo: ne consegue che l’Occidente si trova handicappato nei confronti di sistemi politici più snelli ed efficienti. La capacità operazionale del Governo dovrebbe sempre venire prima di ogni altra istanza.
– Se si concorda con Sua Giustizia Roberts che non dovrebbero esistere “Obama judges or Trump judges” ma solo giudici imparziali, si deve però prendere dolorosamente atto che nella realtà dei fatti esistono, e si vedono all’opera, gli “Obama judges“. Una cosa sono gli enunciati di principio ed un’altra i fatti. Se si parla di “Obama judges” è per il semplice motivo che esistono.
– In molte nazioni esiste l’istituto giuridico dell’immunità parlamentare, anche se le giurisprudenze in materia variano grandemente. L’indipendenza dai magistrati dai politici ha un senso compiuto solo se, e solamente se, anche i politici siano indipendenti dai Magistrati. Ribadiamo però, anche se già detto, che i magistrati sono nominati, mentre i politici sono eletti: due figure ben differenti.
– Se i Magistrati tengono alla loro onorabilità, come sarebbe giusto e doveroso, si facciano allora parte attiva nell’isolare quanti tra di loro si comportano in modo opinabile.
Da ultimo, ma non certo per ultimo, prendiamo atto di un problema spinoso.
Se si potrebbe trovare ragionevole che una Corte di livello adeguato, una Corte Costituzionale per esempio, vagli se un provvedimento governativo sia o meno aderente ai dettami costituzionali, sembrerebbe altrettanto ragionevole escludere da tale capacità giuridica Corti di livello inferiore.
Sembrerebbe essere illogico prima ancora che ingiusto che un giudice di una minuscola Corte possa esprimere un giudizio su di un provvedimento governativo e, soprattutto, possa persino bloccarne l’esecuzione su tutto il territorio con effetto immediato.
A nostro sommesso parere, se sia lecito che una Corte abbia dubbi sulla costituzionalità, sembrerebbe essere doveroso che essa rimetta il tutto al vaglio della Suprema Corte, essendole precluso l’atto ingiuntivo.
In caso contrario, perderebbe senso il nominare una Corte Costituzionale: qualsiasi giudice ne surrogherebbe le funzioni.
Domitius Ulpianus, nato nel 170 d.C. a Tiro e morto a Roma nel 228, fu uno dei massimi giuristi romani.
A lui dobbiamo Ad Sabinum, un commentario dello jus civile, ed Ad Edictum, una esaustiva raccolta di sentenze e scolia, racchiusi in ottantatre libri. È stata la prima e sistematica raccolta del corpo giurisprudenziale romano, cui tanto deve l’attuale civiltà occidentale.
Dobbiamo a Brucardo di Worms (965 – 1025), autore di un completato trattato di diritto canonico, una raccolta di tutte le regole generali del diritto, enunciate dai glossatori della scuola giuridica di Bologna. In suo onore, gli enunciati giuridici prendono nome di brocardi, assiomi giuridici da una parte, definizioni fatte secondo opinioni da dimostrarsi logicamente dall’altra.
Nell’Ad Edictum Ulpiano riporta un brocardo estremamente sintetico ma chiaro in modo lampante:
«Quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem».
Tradotto, «Ciò che aggrada all’imperatore, ha vigore di legge».
* * * * * * *
Questa frase racchiude tutti i tormenti della giurisprudenza mondiale.
Il quesito è semplicissimo:
“il diritto, e quindi la relativa giurisprudenza, deve essere oggettivo
oppure è materia soggettiva?”.
Se si concepisce il diritto in modo oggettivo, allora esso deve essere soggetto al principio di non contraddizione, sul quale è basata tutta la logica. Nessuno dei suoi enunciati ed assiomi, nessuno dei suoi ragionamenti può contraddire alcunché di quanto già stabilito essere non contraddittorio. La verità è una ed una soltanto, la giustizia è una ed una soltanto. Da ciò discende come conseguenza la unicità dell’etica e della morale.
Se si concepisce il diritto in modo soggettivo, cesserebbe di esistere il modo di poter verificare se un enunciato sia o meno vero. La verità semplicemente né esisterebbe né potrebbe esistere. Le conseguenze sono sconcertanti.
Visto che ogni possibile affermazione è ingiudicabile dal punto di vista intellettuale, si ritiene essere in vigore quella enunciata dal più forte, da chi abbia il potere di imporla. Norma che semplifica la vita, ma solo se si sia dalla parte del vincitore.
Con il pragmatismo tipico dei romani, Ulpiano abbraccia questa seconda tesi. In altri termini, legalizza il dato di fatto che l’essere umano sperimenta nella storia dalla sua comparsa sulla terra: il più forte ha ragione, se la prende, ed impone i suoi voleri. Chi non obbedisca è semplicemente soppresso.
Le leggi di Gengis Khan, di Lenin, Stalin ed Hitler erano valide in quanto essi avevano la possibilità di imporne il rispetto. Morti loro, la gente tirò un respiro di sollievo. Certo, i loro fedeli seguaci scontarono in modo definitivo gli arbitri pregressi. La gente ha buona memoria ed un simulacro di giustizia alberga nell’animo di ogni essere umano.
* * * * * * *
Nel periodo di tempo in cui i liberal democratici hanno gestito la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti, formandone la maggioranza dei nove giudici, hanno seguito il brocardo di Ulpiano, legalizzando con sentenze ad hoc il volere politico della dirigenza liberal.
Adesso la Suprema Corte è passata a maggioranza repubblicana, ed il brocardo è stato abbandonato.
Ecco il razionale del perché la nomina di Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh è epocale.
«The Supreme Court plays a vital role in US political life. Appointed for life, its nine members have the final say on US law.»
«This includes highly contentious social issues, such as abortion, and challenges to government policy.»
«Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment could tilt the balance in favour of conservatives for years to come. »
«Republicans control the Senate by a narrow 51-49 majority. Without the support of Mr Flake and one other Republican senator – and assuming all Democrats vote against – the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh cannot occur.»
«A simple majority of those present is needed for the confirmation. If there is a tie, the vice-president, who presides over the Senate, casts the deciding vote.»
«Mr Flake, who often differs from Mr Trump and the Republican leadership in Congress, had issued a statement shortly before Friday’s session stating that he would back Judge Kavanaugh.»
* * *
«Analysts say an FBI investigation into the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh would not be a “new” investigation.»
«It would be reopening its previously completed background check on Judge Kavanaugh. This might mean going back to old witnesses – or speaking to new ones.»
«Friday saw Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee throw out Democrat attempts to subpoena Mark Judge, a friend of Judge Kavanaugh who Dr Ford said had witnessed the assault on her 36 years ago. Mr Judge had told the committee in a written statement that he did not recall any such incident.»
«On Friday, a day after hearing from Dr Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, the Senate Judiciary Committee split along partisan lines in a vote on passing Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate.»
«Democrats accused the 11 Republicans of attempting to rush the process, while Republicans countered that the 10 Democrats were using the sexual assault allegations in an attempt to delay – and ultimately block – the conservative judge from joining the Supreme Court.»
* * *
«Il senatore repubblicano Jeff Flake ha annunciato che votera’ a favore di Brett Kavanaugh, il giudice nominato da Donald Trump»
* * * * * * * *
Constatiamo molto amaramente come negli attuali Stati Uniti di America vi siano persone, anche assurte a cariche pubbliche della massima importanza, che ritengano come una accusa sia equivalente ad una sentenza cassata.
Ribadiamo come le accuse non supportate da prove probanti, inequivocabili, siano solo ed unicamente calunnie. Le accuse poi devono essere fatte alle usuali autorità competenti e nei termini stabiliti dalla legge, non certo ai media.
Orbene, la nomina di Sua Giustizia Mr Kavanaugh è stata approvata in sede di commissione giustizia del Senato, che a giorni sarà chiamato ad esprimere il voto definitivo.
Dem votano contro. Senatore Flake popone rinvio voto per indagine Fbi
La commissione giustizia del Senato americano ha approvato la nomina alla Corte Suprema del giudice conservatore Brett Kavanaugh, nonostante le accuse di aggressione sessuale da parte di tre donne. Repubblicani a favore, contro i democratici. Ora la nomina dovrà essere confermata in seduta plenaria dal Senato.
Ma intanto il senatore repubblicano Jeff Flake ha proposto di posticipare per non oltre una settimana il voto del Senato per la conferma del giudice, per consentire una indagine dell’Fbi sulle accuse di aggressioni sessuale.
On Thursday, the committee heard testimony from Christine Blasey Ford, now a professor of psychology in California, who says Judge Kavanaugh – nominated to the court by President Trump – sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers in the 1980s.
Judge Kavanaugh also testified on Thursday, angrily rejecting the allegation he had ever assaulted her or anyone else. He accused Democrats of politicising the process and harming his family and good name.
What might the FBI do in a week?
Analysts say an FBI investigation into the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh would not be a “new” investigation.
It would be reopening its previously completed background check on Judge Kavanaugh. This might mean going back to old witnesses – or speaking to new ones.
Friday saw Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee throw out Democrat attempts to subpoena Mark Judge, a friend of Judge Kavanaugh who Dr Ford said had witnessed the assault on her 36 years ago. Mr Judge had told the committee in a written statement that he did not recall any such incident.
After the committee had adjourned, Mr Judge’s lawyer Barbara Van Gelder said: “If the FBI or any law enforcement agency requests Mr Judge’s co-operation, he will answer any and all questions posed to him.”
What exactly has happened?
On Friday, a day after hearing from Dr Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, the Senate Judiciary Committee split along partisan lines in a vote on passing Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate.
Democrats accused the 11 Republicans of attempting to rush the process, while Republicans countered that the 10 Democrats were using the sexual assault allegations in an attempt to delay – and ultimately block – the conservative judge from joining the Supreme Court.
Then, amid much confusion, Arizona Republican Jeff Flake told the committee that he would back the motion to send Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination for a full vote on the Senate floor – but would not support his confirmation in the Senate without the additional FBI probe for which the Democrats and the American Bar Association (ABA) had pressed.
The vote then went ahead, with all 11 Republicans including Mr Flake in favour and all 10 Democrats – despite welcoming Mr Flake’s intervention – voting against.
A statement issued later by the committee said it would “request that the administration instruct the FBI to conduct a supplemental FBI background investigation”.
It said: “The supplemental FBI background investigation would be limited to current credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today.”
Why is this vote so important?
The Supreme Court plays a vital role in US political life. Appointed for life, its nine members have the final say on US law.
This includes highly contentious social issues, such as abortion, and challenges to government policy.
Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment could tilt the balance in favour of conservatives for years to come.
Republicans control the Senate by a narrow 51-49 majority. Without the support of Mr Flake and one other Republican senator – and assuming all Democrats vote against – the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh cannot occur.
A simple majority of those present is needed for the confirmation. If there is a tie, the vice-president, who presides over the Senate, casts the deciding vote.
Mr Flake, who often differs from Mr Trump and the Republican leadership in Congress, had issued a statement shortly before Friday’s session stating that he would back Judge Kavanaugh.
On his way to the committee room, he was berated by two women who said they were victims of sexual violence and urged him to change his mind.
Speaking to reporters at the White House after the committee vote, Mr Trump said he would leave it to Senate leaders to decide how to proceed.
“Whatever they think is necessary is okay,” he said. “They have to do what they think is right.”
But he continued to support Judge Kavanaugh, saying he had not thought “even a little bit” about a replacement – but added that he had found Dr Ford a “credible witness”.
Are there other allegations against Kavanaugh?
Yes, and new ones appeared ahead of Thursday’s hearing. At present they are:
– Julie Swetnick. A Washington DC resident. In a sworn affidavit, she alleges Brett Kavanaugh was involved in the drugging and sexual assault of girls at house parties in the 1980s. She says she was the victim of a gang rape in 1982 at a party attended by the now-Supreme Court nominee
Ogni accadimento può essere valutato e percepito da differenti punti di vista.
Se la battaglia di Adrianopoli fu una débâcle per l’Impero Romano, preannunciandone la rovinosa caduta, per i Goti invece fu un trionfo di rara grandezza, che consentì loro di governare per secoli.
Se la battaglia di Hastings sancì l’era normanna in Inghilterra, per i britannici segnò l’inizio di secoli di schiavitù, de iure e de facto.
Se Midway fu un trionfo per la marina americana e per gli Stati Uniti, essa fu di converso l’evento che sancì che il Giappone aveva perso la guerra.
Di questi giorni stiamo assistendo allo scontro finale tra repubblicani e democratici. È uno scontro per la vita o per la morte: uno dei due contendenti è destinato a morire.
Il campo di battaglia è il Senato degli Stati Uniti, chiamato secondo Costituzione a confermare la nomina fatta dal Presidente Trump di Sua Giustizia Brett Kavanaugh. Entro questa settimna dovrebbero svolgersi le votazioni.
Nicky Woolf ha sintetizzato in un breve articolo i cinque motivi che rendono questa scelta epocale: ovviamente valuta la situazione dal punto di vista liberal democratico.
«Here are a few of the things a conservative majority on America’s highest court might mean:
1) The end of a woman’s right to choose
2) The end of the possibility of easy de-Trumpification
3) The end of hope to contain even some of the damage from Trump’s agenda
4) The end of the Supreme Court’s reliability to fairly arbitrate a possible impeachment or 25th Amendment proceeding.
5) The end of the Supreme Court as a check on executive powers.»
* * * * * * *
Dal suo punto di vista Mr Woolf ha ragione.
Trascura però di dire un particolare di non poco conto. Se alle presidenziali del 2016 Mrs Hillary Clinton avesse vinto al posto di Mr Trump, ora la Suprema Corte sarebbe governata dai liberal democratici. In quella tornata elettorale i democratici hanno fatto una lunga serie di severi errori di valutazione, primo tra tutti la nomination di Mrs Hillary Clinton. Errori poi proseguiti con i tentativi di demonizzazione di Mr Trump. Bene. Pagheranno davvero salato i loro comportamenti.
Con le nomine di Sua Giustizia Gorsuch e di Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti resterà a maggioranza repubblicana per almeno tre decenni.
I liberal democratici sanno più che bene che saranno trattati per come hanno trattato: saranno annientati come forza politica. Ecco perché sono terrorizzati: saranno trattati che i Goti trattarono i Romani dopo Adrianopoli, e sono in molti a sperare che il trattamento sia ben più duro.
Trump’s second Supreme Court pick seems set for Senate confirmation. Here’s what that could mean.
After four days of intense hearings, Republicans are pushing ahead with their plan to ram the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s second nominee to the Supreme Court, through the Senate. They’re doing this despite – or more likely because of – the upcoming midterm elections, which could threaten their razor-thin majority in the Senate.
The hypocrisy involved is nothing short of breath-taking. This is the same group of Senate Republicans who, under the guise of insisting that the voice of the American people be heard in the 2016 election, refused to even meet with Merrick Garland, the overwhelmingly qualified judge Barack Obama nominated to replace Antonin Scalia on the court.
“The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let’s give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide,” was what the Republican senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said in March 2016.
If it wasn’t obvious that he was playing politics then – which it entirely was – then it’s abundantly so now. It is now September, much closer to another election and thus another opportunity for the American people to “have their say”, but now that a Republican is in the White House and is happy to outsource his judicial picks to the right-wing Federalist Society, McConnell and the GOP are singing from an entirely different hymn sheet.
The speed with which Republicans are acting in order to get Kavanaugh on the court before they risk losing their majority in November, despite it being entirely and visibly contradictory to their previous position when it was a Democrat in the White House doing the nomination, is pretty much unsurprising at this point. The Republicans are no longer interested in even the appearance of playing by the rules of democracy.
Certainly, the fact that a trove of documents dumped on Senate Democrats just the night before the hearings began contain possible evidence that Kavanaugh had perjured himself didn’t affect the Republicans one bit.
The stakes could not be higher. Kavanaugh is set to replace justice Anthony Kennedy, who has long been the swing vote on the Court, meaning that the balance of American jurisprudence could dramatically shift with his appointment.
Here are a few of the things a conservative majority on America’s highest court might mean:
1) The end of a woman’s right to choose
Abortion in the US was made legal by a 1973 Supreme Court decision in a famous case called Roe vs Wade, which found that state laws criminalising access to abortions were unconstitutional. A conservative court could reverse that.
After meeting with Kavanaugh, Susan Collins, a moderate Republican senator from Maine who is thought of as one of two possible dissenting votes that might sink the confirmation over this issue (she has previously said that she would vote against a nominee who wants to overturn Roe vs Wade), said that she was satisfied with his position on the subject. But some of his answers to questions in his hearing last week throw serious doubt on that.
Collins, as well as Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, has come under intense pressure from women’s rights groups to break with the GOP and block Kavanaugh’s nomination; activists even sent her 3,000 coat-hangers during the hearing as a symbol of the back-alley abortions that used to take place before Roe vs Wade. An August 21 poll by Public Policy Polling found that voting to confirm Kavanaugh could hit Collins support at home by as much as 16 points in the next election.
2) The end of the possibility of easy de-Trumpification
Because Supreme Court seats are lifetime appointments, a conservative majority on the court could have ramifications that far outlast the Trump administration itself. As columnist EJ Dionne noted in the Washington Post on Sunday, “if the Trump era produces a backlash so strong that a Democratic president and Congress pass breakthrough economic and social policies, conservatives will count on their court majority to block, dismantle or disable progressive initiatives.”
3) The end of hope to contain even some of the damage from Trump’s agenda
As FiveThirtyEight point out, Kennedy was hardly a staunch liberal: even before he announced his retirement, the Supreme Court had, with him as the deciding vote, saved Trump’s Muslim ban and upheld gerrymandering, and that was in this session alone. But he also wrote the majority opinion of the ruling which overturned the anti-gay Defence of Marriage Act, and has previously sided with the liberal justices on issues of marriage equality, abortion rights, and affirmative action. With another ideological conservative like Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court it is unlikely that judicial challenges to the Trump agenda will have much chance of succeeding.
4) The end of the Supreme Court’s reliability to fairly arbitrate a possible impeachment or 25th Amendment proceeding.
This is less likely, as impeachment itself is a purely legislative proceeding. Only the chief justice of the Supreme Court is involved, in as much as they act as the judge for the trial before the Senate, which would only happen following a successful series of votes to impeach in the House. But if in future, say if the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election shows evidence of collusion or other illegal behaviour on Trump’s part, it is possible that an effort to remove him using the 25th Amendment, which provides for situations where the president is unable to do the job, could fall to the Supreme Court for arbitration if Trump refuses to step down. More likely, and even more worrying, is:
5) The end of the Supreme Court as a check on executive powers.
During Watergate, President Nixon attempted to invoke executive privilege to avoid release of the tapes he had recorded of himself. Then, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Nixon had to surrender the recordings. That it was unanimous makes it a pretty tough precedent to overrule, but norms are falling like flies these days, and an executive-friendly conservative majority on the court could rule in Trump’s favour if he tried to invoke similar privilege with regard to, for example, a subpoena to the president from the Mueller investigation. In fact, Kavanaugh has previously argued that US vs Nixon was wrongly decided. A cynic might even suspect that might be why he was so high up Trump’s list of picks in the first place.