Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Ideologia liberal, Stati Uniti

Supreme Court sentenzia sul caso del Maryland. Giudici liberal disintegrati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-22.

2019-06-22__Suprema_Corte__001

Con una sentenza 7 – 2 la Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti ha posto la parola fine su di un contenzioso significativo della mentalità corrente dei liberal democratici.

American Legion et Al. v. American Humanist Assn. et Al.

«In 1918, residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland, formed a committee for the purpose of erecting a memorial for the county’s soldiers who fell in World War I. The committee decided that the memorial should be a cross, which was not surprising since the plain Latin cross had become a central symbol of the war. The image of row after row of plain white crosses marking the overseas graves of soldiers was emblazoned on the minds of Americans at home.»

Riassumendo ed ampliando:

«The case concerned a giant, early 20th century Latin cross, known as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, that stands in a Maryland intersection in the suburbs of the nation’s capital.

– The opinion of the court is authored by Justice Samuel Alito, who says the meaning of the cross was not limited to its religious context, and cautions against a government that “roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism.”

– Though the ultimate vote was 7-2, the case produced a smattering of opinions, with five justices writing separate concurrences to explain their thinking.»

*

«The court’s five conservatives as well as Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer agreed that the cross should remain on public land, while liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented»

Il parere espresso da Sua Giustizia Ginsburg è significativo della mentalità liberal democratica.

«For the same reason, using the cross as a war memorial does not transform it into a secular symbol, as the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized»

«By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion»

*

Il punto centrale consiste nell’ideologia liberal democratica, ben presente anche in Europa, che della non-religiosità — ‘nonreligion‘ – fa un dogma fideistico. E questo sarebbe il meno, perché costoro vogliono anche imporlo a tutti, anche a coloro che la pensassero diversamente.

Ma se la rimozione di qualsiasi simbolo religioso soddisfa i liberal democratici, nel contempo introduce la simbologia dello spoglio eretta a sistema, fatto questo non gradito a moltissime altre persone.

Nella sua globalità questa causa è giù costata ai Contribuenti oltre quaranta milioni di dollari. Aveva prosperato fino a quando è stata che era stata discussa nelle corti inferiori, tutte con giudici liberal, che hanno sentenziato di conseguenza.

I giudizi emessi dalla Suprema Corte sul comportamento dei giudici di livello inferiore sono tranchant.

A seguito, proponiamo il razionale e taluni commenti.

* * * * * * *

La sentenza riporta anche un corposo Syllabus, Certiorari e le opinioni di ben cinque giudici.

«The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed that the memorial is unconstitutional and remanded for a determination of the proper remedy. We now reverse. ….

Applying these principles, we conclude that the Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause.»

Sia Giustizia Thomas aggiunge nella Opinione da Lui espressa anche un solido substrato giuridico.

«The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 1. The text and history of this Clause suggest that it should not be incorporated against the States. Even if the Clause expresses an individual right enforceable against the States, it is limited by its text to “law[s]” enacted by a legislature, so it is unclear whether the Bladensburg Cross would implicate any incorporated right. And even if it did, this religious display does not involve the type of actual legal coercion that was a hall-mark of historical establishments of religion. Therefore, the Cross is clearly constitutional»

Sua Giustizia Gorsuch aggiunge nella Sua Opinione un tratto quasi umoristico.

«The American Humanist Association wants a federal court to order the destruction of a 94 year-old war memo-rial because its members are offended. Today, the Court explains that the plaintiffs are not entitled to demand the destruction of longstanding monuments, and I find much of its opinion compelling. In my judgment, however, it follows from the Court’s analysis that suits like this one should be dismissed for lack of standing. Accordingly, while I concur in the judgment to reverse and remand the court of appeals’ decision, I would do so with additional instructions to dismiss the case. »

* * * * * *

Significativa è invece l’opinione di Sua Giustizia Ginsburg.

«An immense Latin cross stands on a traffic island at the center of a busy three-way intersection in Bladensburg, Maryland.1 “[M]onumental, clear, and bold” by day, App. 914, the cross looms even larger illuminated against the night-time sky. Known as the Peace Cross, the monument was erected by private citizens in 1925 to honor local soldiers who lost their lives in World War I. “[T]he town’s most prominent symbol” was rededicated in 1985 and is now said to honor “the sacrifices made [in] all wars,” id., at 868 (internal quotation marks omitted), by “all veterans,” id., at 195. Both the Peace Cross and the traffic island are owned and maintained by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (Commission), an agency of the State of Maryland. ….

The Latin cross is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith, embodying the “central theological claim of Christi-anity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose from the dead, and that his death and resurrection offer the possibility of eternal life.” ….

For the same reason, using the cross as a war memorial does not transform it into a secular symbol, as the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized ….

By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion. Memorializing the service of American soldiers is an “admirable and unquestionably secular” objective. ….

The First Amendment commands that the government “shall make no law” either “respecting an establishment of religion” or “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” ….

union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion ….

when a cross is displayed on public property, the government may be presumed to endorse its religious content. ….

Holding the Commission’s display of the Peace Cross unconstitutional would not, as the Commission fears, “inevitably require the destruction of other cross-shaped memorials throughout the country. ….

By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion»

* * * * * * *


Cnbc. 2019-06-21. Supreme Court rules that WWI cross on Maryland public land can remain, does not violate Constitution

– The case concerned a giant, early 20th century Latin cross, known as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, that stands in a Maryland intersection in the suburbs of the nation’s capital.

– The opinion of the court is authored by Justice Samuel Alito, who says the meaning of the cross was not limited to its religious context, and cautions against a government that “roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism.”

– Though the ultimate vote was 7-2, the case produced a smattering of opinions, with five justices writing separate concurrences to explain their thinking.

*

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a 40-foot cross commemorating fallen World War I soldiers can remain on public ground because it does not violate the Constitution’s establishment clause that bars favoring one religion over others.

The case concerned a giant, early 20th century Latin cross, known as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, that stands in a Maryland intersection in the suburbs of the nation’s capital. It was erected in 1925.

The cross was conceived as a memorial by mothers of men killed in World War I and is now maintained by a municipal agency that has spent just over $100,000 on the monument since the 1980s. That expenditure has raised questions about whether the cross violates the legal prohibition against excessive entanglement between religion and government, a murky area of constitutional law.

The challenge to the cross came from the American Humanist Association, an advocacy group that promotes secular governance. 

The opinion of the court was authored by Justice Samuel Alito, who said the meaning of the cross was not limited to its religious context. The court’s five conservatives as well as Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer agreed that the cross should remain on public land, while liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

“That the cross originated as a Christian symbol and retains that meaning in many contexts does not change the fact that the symbol took on an added secular meaning when used in World War I memorials,” Alito wrote. “Not only did the Bladensburg Cross begin with this meaning, but with the passage of time, it has acquired historical importance.”

And Alito cautioned against a government that “roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism.”

In contrast, Ginsburg called the cross “the foremost symbol of the Christian faith.”

“By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion,” Ginsburg wrote in a dissent that was joined by Sotomayor.

Though the ultimate vote was 7-2, the case produced a smattering of opinions, with five justices writing separate concurrences to explain their thinking. Breyer, in a concurring opinion joined by Kagan, wrote that the case would be different if the cross had been erected recently.

“I see no reason to order this cross torn down simply because other crosses would raise constitutional concerns,” Breyer wrote.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump, Supreme Court, Census e strilli dei liberal democratici.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-16.

Supreme Court

Entro fine giugno la Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti si pronuncerà se il Census possa o meno richiedere la nazionalità.

Trump, Lib Dem, Suprema Corte e Census. Un duello all’ultimo sangue.

Suprema Corte. Senza i liberal democratici sarebbero disoccupati.

Corte Suprema. Il 23 aprile primo pronunciamento sulla costituzionalità del Census.

Supreme Court e Census. – Il punto di vista dei liberal democratici.

*

Riassumiamo.

Il problema se il Census possa o meno chiedere agli intervistati di quale cittadinanza godano sottende una conseguenza gravida di ricadute.

A rigor di termini potrebbe votare nelle elezioni federali o statali solo ed esclusivamente chi abbia cittadinanza statunitense.

Se così fosse, i liberal democratici che fanno votare gli immigrati illegali, perderebbero un numero di voti stimabile trai sei milioni e mezzo nel caso più restrittivo, fino a valutazioni di oltre sedici milioni.

Non solo.

Sulla base dei dati censuali si ripartiscono i deputati che spettano ai singoli stati: la California ed altri stati liberal si troverebbe con un numero di congressisti dimezzato.

Per finire, i fondi federali, una gran parte, è ripartita tra gli stati i base ai dati censuali.

*

I liberal democratici stanno schiumando rabbia impotente: Mr Trump li sta massacrando ogni giorno che passa, tagliando loro le una volta rigogliose fonti di denari pubblici.

Con Mr Trump anche i liberal democratci dovranno lavorare per vivere.

«The Trump administration denied accusations that it concealed evidence that its plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. Census was aimed at boosting Republicans’ electoral power, and said its accusers were making up a conspiracy theory.»

Ma non si rassegnano.

Stanno provando già su questa terra quelle che saranno le pene infernali nell’aldilà.


Reuters. 2019-06-04. Trump administration denies deceit in census citizenship fight

The Trump administration denied accusations that it concealed evidence that its plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. Census was aimed at boosting Republicans’ electoral power, and said its accusers were making up a conspiracy theory.

In a letter to Manhattan U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, who in January blocked the citizenship question from being used on the decennial census, the government called the allegations an “eleventh-hour campaign to improperly derail the Supreme Court’s resolution of the government’s appeal.”

The conservative-majority Supreme Court is due to issue a ruling by the end of June on whether the question can be added in time for next year’s census.

Furman has scheduled a hearing into the new controversy for Wednesday.

Several immigrant advocacy groups, among the plaintiffs in the case, submitted a filing to the Manhattan federal court on May 30 saying that during the course of their lawsuit the administration hid the fact that Thomas Hofeller, a longtime Republican specialist on drawing electoral districts, played a “significant role” in planning the citizenship question.

Hofeller concluded in a 2015 study that asking census respondents whether they are U.S. citizens “would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats” and “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” in redistricting, the plaintiffs said.

Hofeller, who died in 2018, went on to ghostwrite a draft letter from the Department of Justice to the Department of Commerce, asking for a citizenship question on the grounds it would help enforce voting rights, according to the plaintiffs.

In Monday’s filing, the government said it did not rely on Hofeller’s work and said the plaintiffs were “conjuring a conspiracy theory involving a deceased political operative.”

A Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement: “This baseless attack on the integrity of the department and its employees is based on nothing more than fevered speculation.”

Opponents have said a citizenship question would cause a sizeable undercount by deterring immigrant households and Latinos from filling out the forms, out of fear the information would be shared with law enforcement.

Democrats, immigrant advocates and demographers say such an undercount could deprive some communities of funds and political representation because the Census determines how the federal government distributes aid, as well as seats in Congress.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Corte Suprema. Sentenza Tax Board v. Hyatt. Ci interessa e molto da vicino.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-22.

2019-05-15__Scoturs__001

La sentenza della Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti sul caso Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, No. 17-1299  riguarda sicuramente l’America, ma ha anche grandi risvolti sia per la giurisprudenza in generale sia alla fine per tutto il mondo, Europa in particolare.

Essendo una sentenza molto tecnica non è intuitivo cogliere il nesso: cercheremo di spiegarlo al meglio: i giuristi perdonino se useremo un linguaggio piano, ma lo scopo è quello di farsi intendere dal largo pubblico. Le persone con conoscenze specifiche troveranno piacevole leggere il dispositivo qui riportato.

*

In sintesi succinta:

– vieta di portare in giudizio uno Stato nella Corte di Giustizia di un altro Stato.

– afferma il diritto della Corte Suprema di sentenziare anche variando ovvero annullando sentenze pregresse.

*

«Overruling a 40-year-old precedent, the Supreme Court said on Monday that states may not be sued in the courts of other states»

*

«most states already grant sovereign immunity to other states, shielding them from lawsuits»

*

«there have been only 14 cases in the past 40 years in which one state allowed another to be sued in its courts»

*

«The decision was more important for its discussion of when precedents may be overruled»

*

«Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next»

*

«In 1991, Mr. Hyatt, who had lived in California, told the authorities that he had moved to Nevada, which collects no personal income tax. The authorities were doubtful, and they started an aggressive investigation, interviewing estranged family members and making private information available to Mr. Hyatt’s business associates.Mr. Hyatt sued in state court in Nevada over that conduct, and he won a large jury award that was later reduced to $100,000. California argued that allowing such a lawsuit violated the Constitution.»

*

«In 1979, in Nevada v. Hall, the Supreme Court had ruled that such suits were permissible»

*

«Writing for the majority on Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas said California had the stronger argument, basing his decision on constitutional history. Before the states joined the union, he wrote, they were independent nations. “The founding generation thus took as given that states could not be haled involuntarily before each other’s courts,” he wrote.

The Constitution, Justice Thomas added, confirmed that principle, if not in so many words. “The Constitution implicitly strips states of any power they once had to refuse each other sovereign immunity,” he wrote.»

*

«The most heated disagreement in Monday’s decision was over the doctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin for “to stand by things decided.”»

*

«Justice Thomas, noting that respect for precedent is not an “inexorable command,” said three of four factors supported overruling the 1979 decision. »

*

«The people of this nation rely upon stability in the law, …. Legal stability allows lawyers to give clients sound advice and allows ordinary citizens to plan their lives. …. To overrule a sound decision like Hall is to encourage litigants to seek to overrule other cases; it is to make it more difficult for lawyers to refrain from challenging settled law; and it is to cause the public to become increasingly uncertain about which cases the court will overrule and which cases are here to stay»

* * * * * * * *

Il problema è affascinante da un punto di vista giuridico, massimamente in un sistema giuridico basato sul common law, ove le sentenza acquisiscono valore di leggi.

L’errore sottile si insinua qualora si cercasse di massimizzare l’enunciato di una sentenza.

Le sentenze pregresse dovrebbero essere considerate sempre con il massimo rispetto, formale e sostanziale, ma né possono né debbono essere divinizzate. Come tutte le azioni umane possono rivelare nel tempo vizi di forma o carenze di dottrina, possono generare effetti secondari non voluti, indesiderati ed indesiderabili, ovvero potrebbero dimostrarsi superate dai tempi.  Nel ragionare su queste evenienza, Sua Giustizia Thomas reintroduce nella prassi mentale della Suprema Corte ciò che un tempo era denominato ‘buon senso’.

Non solo. Avoca alla Suprema Corte il potere e l’obbligo di riformare sentenze pregresse, in ossequio a quanto prima enunciato.

* * * * * * * *


Il malcontento e la costernazione dei liberal democratici è ben descritto nei seguenti articoli.

Supreme Court Weighs Core Questions of Precedent and States’ Rights

Supreme Court Precedents That May Be at Risk

«Fourteen cases had civil rights at their core, like rulings involving voting rights, affirmative action and deportation. However, one case has already been overturned by Congressional action or another may require assistance from Congress before a new Supreme Court majority could act.

In 2009, Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act after the Supreme Court ruled in Ledbetter v. the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposed strict time limits for bringing workplace discrimination suits.

In a 2013 decision, Shelby County v. Holder, the court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, which essentially gave Congress a chance to redraft the law. Should Congress rewrite it, a new liberal majority would most likely sustain the new version.»

The Threat to Roe v. Wade in the Case of the Missing Precedent

* * * * * * * *

Vediamo adesso cosa questa sentenza implica per l’America e per il resto del mondo. Quindi anche per l’Italia.

Per i liberal democratici stava diventando abitudine citare gli stati che legiferavano a maggioranza repubblicana presso Corti di altri stati a maggioranza democratica, i giudici delle quali regolarmente bloccavano le leggi deliberate dalle maggioranze espresse dal Popolo Sovrano. Si metteva così in atto un ostruzionismo giudiziario di lunga durata, che era quindi abilmente utilizzato per bollare come illegale ogni legge promulgata dai repubblicani, salvo poi abbandonare l’argomento quando interveniva la Corte Suprema a ristabilire il rule of law.

Dal 23 aprile i giudici politicizzati sanno che saranno incriminati.

L’incriminazione del giudice Joseph ha costituito un altro punto di svolta nella competizione giudiziaria, evidenziando come i comportamenti partigiani dei giudizi non sarebbe stati più a lungo tollerati.

Immediatamente, giudici e media si son fatti silenziosi e cauti.

Più delicata e sottile è invece la questione che la Corte Suprema possa rivedere sentenze già emesse.

Sono infatti in attesa di essere sottoposte al vaglio della Suprema Corte un largo numero di sentenze emesse da Corti inferiori inerenti problemi etici e morali che così stanno a cuore dei liberal democratici, massimamente poi la questione dell’aborto.

Alabama passes bill banning abortion

Avendo fatto dell’aborto e dell’etica il proprio programma politico, i liberal democratici si sentono scendere per le ossa che questo potrebbe essere semplicemente distrutto in via giudiziaria. Ed il tutto con grande clamore.

Ma il crollo dei liberal democratici negli Stati Uniti avrebbe consistenti ripercussioni sull’Europa, ove molte nazioni sono governate ancora da una loro maggioranza.


The New York Times. 2019-05-13. Justices Split Over the Power of Precedent

WASHINGTON — Overruling a 40-year-old precedent, the Supreme Court said on Monday that states may not be sued in the courts of other states.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s more conservative members in the majority. The ruling itself will probably not be particularly consequential, as most states already grant sovereign immunity to other states, shielding them from lawsuits. By one count, there have been only 14 cases in the past 40 years in which one state allowed another to be sued in its courts.

The decision was more important for its discussion of when precedents may be overruled. In dissent, after repeatedly citing a 1992 decision that reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he feared for the future.

“Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next,” he wrote.

Monday’s decision, Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, No. 17-1299, resolved a long-running dispute involving Gilbert P. Hyatt, who had made money from technology patents, and California’s tax authorities. In 1991, Mr. Hyatt, who had lived in California, told the authorities that he had moved to Nevada, which collects no personal income tax.

The authorities were doubtful, and they started an aggressive investigation, interviewing estranged family members and making private information available to Mr. Hyatt’s business associates.

Mr. Hyatt sued in state court in Nevada over that conduct, and he won a large jury award that was later reduced to $100,000. California argued that allowing such a lawsuit violated the Constitution.

In 1979, in Nevada v. Hall, the Supreme Court had ruled that such suits were permissible.

In an earlier encounter with Mr. Hyatt’s case, the court in 2016 came close to overruling that decision. But the court was short-handed after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and it deadlocked 4 to 4.

Writing for the majority on Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas said California had the stronger argument, basing his decision on constitutional history. Before the states joined the union, he wrote, they were independent nations. “The founding generation thus took as given that states could not be haled involuntarily before each other’s courts,” he wrote.

The Constitution, Justice Thomas added, confirmed that principle, if not in so many words. “The Constitution implicitly strips states of any power they once had to refuse each other sovereign immunity,” he wrote.

In dissent, Justice Breyer took issue with both points. Before and after the adoption of the Constitution, he wrote, states generally granted sovereign immunity to other states — but only as a matter of grace and self-interest. Those that desired to take a different approach could do so, Justice Breyer wrote.

The most heated disagreement in Monday’s decision was over the doctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” Justice Thomas, noting that respect for precedent is not an “inexorable command,” said three of four factors supported overruling the 1979 decision.

The earlier decision, he said, was poorly reasoned, inconsistent with related decisions and in tension with later legal developments. But he said that Mr. Hyatt and others had relied on the decision, a factor cutting the opposite way.

“We acknowledge that some plaintiffs, such as Hyatt, have relied on Hall by suing sovereign states,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Because of our decision to overrule Hall, Hyatt unfortunately will suffer the loss of two decades of litigation expenses and a final judgment against the board for its egregious conduct.”

Justice Breyer responded that there was no good reason to overrule the precedent.

“The people of this nation rely upon stability in the law,” he wrote. “Legal stability allows lawyers to give clients sound advice and allows ordinary citizens to plan their lives.” He added, “To overrule a sound decision like Hall is to encourage litigants to seek to overrule other cases; it is to make it more difficult for lawyers to refrain from challenging settled law; and it is to cause the public to become increasingly uncertain about which cases the court will overrule and which cases are here to stay.”

Justice Breyer did not address the fate of Roe v. Wade directly. But he sounded a general note of caution, saying it was “dangerous to overrule a decision only because five members of a later court come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question.”

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

Trump sferra l’attacco alle Corti distrettuali ed inferiori.

Giuseppe Sandro mela.

2019-05-17.

Supreme Court

Il sistema giudiziario americano è complesso perché complessa è la struttura degli Stati Uniti.

Anche se nominalmente politica e giustizia dovrebbero essere poteri separati, nei fatti sicuramente non lo sono, se non altro perché i giudici sono di nomina politica, ancorché vidimata da un assenso senatoriale. Ma il senato è pur sempre composto da politici.

Nei tempi passati, quando un giudice di basso livello si imbatteva in un problema che avesse coinvolto un giudizio costituzionale, era consuetudine rimandare il tutto alla Suprema Corte, attendendo quindi il suo giudizio.

Il sistema ha retto fino a circa due decenni or sono, quando i liberal democratici hanno usato i tribunali di baso livello come arma politica: i giudici di basso livello iniziarono non solo a dare pareri di costituzionalità, ma soprattutto iniziarono ad emettere provvedimenti di blocco su scala federale.

Questo fenomeno è diventato gigantesco con la presidenza Trump, del quale quasi ogni ordine Esecutivo era stato bloccato da un giudice distrettuale. Poi, dopo un anno circa, la Corte Suprema rimetteva le cose a loro posto, bacchettando anche i giudici inferiori, ma era evidente sia l’intromissione dei giudici nella politica sia l’abuso  del potere operativo del giudice.

Il problema giuridico si configura quindi nello stabilire norme giuridiche inequivocabili che regolino la possibilità che un giudice distrettuale possa emettere ordinanza a valore federale.

È semplicemente evidente come un sentenza della Corte Suprema possa bloccare alla radice la guerra legale dei liberal democratici.

«Vice President Mike Pence said the Trump administration will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent lower courts from imposing nationwide injunctions against the president’s policies»

*

«federal district courts have imposed more nationwide injunctions against Trump than the first 40 presidents combined»

*

«A Supreme Court justice has to convince four of his colleagues to uphold a nationwide injunction — but a single district court judge can issue one, effectively preventing the duly-elected president of the United States from fulfilling his constitutional duties»

*

«In the days ahead, our administration will seek opportunities to put this question before the Supreme Court»

*

«Justice Clarence Thomas said he was that skeptical federal trial judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions»

*

«Thomas wrote in an opinion that no other justice joined»

* * * * * * * *


Trump Administration Will Ask Supreme Court To End Nationwide Injunctions, Pence Says

«Nationwide injunctions, in which federal trial judges bar the federal government from enforcing a law or carrying out a policy across the entire country, have beset President Donald Trump since he took office. District courts have blocked administration policy priorities on immigration, national security and health care.

“The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that district judges can decide no more than the cases before them — and it’s imperative that we restore the historic tradition that district judges do not set policy for the whole nation,” Pence told the conservative lawyers group.»

* * * * * * *

Si faccia grande attenzione

«The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that

district judges can decide no more than the cases before them»

Non è un cavillo di lana caprina: qualsiasi sia la decisione della Corte Suprema sarà pur sempre una decisione epocale.


Bloomberg. 2019-05-09. Trump to Ask Supreme Court to Prevent Nationwide Injunctions

– Administration has previously attemped to curb injunctions

– High court hasn’t ruled on question because policies upheld

*

Vice President Mike Pence said the Trump administration will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent lower courts from imposing nationwide injunctions against the president’s policies.

Pence complained Wednesday in a speech to the conservative Federalist Society that federal district courts have imposed more nationwide injunctions against Trump than the first 40 presidents combined. On Tuesday, an appeals court lifted such an injunction against a Trump policy that allows U.S. immigration authorities to force some migrants seeking asylum to wait in Mex while their cases are adjudicated.

“A Supreme Court justice has to convince four of his colleagues to uphold a nationwide injunction — but a single district court judge can issue one, effectively preventing the duly-elected president of the United States from fulfilling his constitutional duties,” Pence said in prepared remarks. “This judicial obstruction is unprecedented.”

“In the days ahead, our administration will seek opportunities to put this question before the Supreme Court,” Pence said.

The Trump administration has already tried on several occasions to persuade the Supreme Court to curb nationwide injunctions. It was an issue when the court considered Trump’s travel ban last year, but the justices didn’t reach the question because they upheld the ban in its entirety.

In a concurring opinion in that case, Justice Clarence Thomas said he was that skeptical federal trial judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions.

“These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system — preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the executive branch,” Thomas wrote in an opinion that no other justice joined.

The administration similarly offered the Supreme Court a chance to curb nationwide injunctions in a clash over military service by transgender people. Lower courts had blocked Trump’s effort to bar most transgender people from service. At the Supreme Court, the administration said those orders should, at most, cover the people involved in the case.

Much like with the travel ban, the high court didn’t address the issue because it let the policy take full effect.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

Supreme Court e Census. – Il punto di vista dei liberal democratici.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-14.

Supreme Court

La Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti ha concesso di esaminare il problema dell’inclusione o meno della domanda sulla cittadinanza nel questionario del censimento che prossimamente il Census porterà a termine.

«The Supreme Court will decide whether the 2020 U.S. Census

can include a question about citizenship»

Il tema è scottante e dibattuto: le note già depositate dalle Loro Giustizie illustrano alla perfezioni i diversi punti di vista giuridici.

A livello dei media, invece, si è spesso andati a toni molto sopra le righe, financo tediosamente astiosi.

Si noti come la Suprema Corte sia chiamata ad esprimere il suo alto giudizio solo dal punto di vista giuridico, non dal punto di vista sociologico o politico.

Il The New York Times ha pubblicato un editoriale in materia, che riporta il punto di vista dei liberal democratici, usando però quel linguaggio corrente, anche se usando un inglese colto, che dovrebbe rendere meglio intellegibile il problema in almeno molte delle sue sfumature.

Premesso che non lo si condivide in alcunché, lo riportiamo tuttavia per completezza informativa.

*


The New York Times. 2019-05-10. The Supreme Court, the Census Case and the Truth

Will the justices be the administration’s enablers or form a firewall against its lies?

*

The smart money says the Trump administration is going to prevail at the Supreme Court in its effort to add a citizenship question to next year’s census. Having read the transcript and listened to the audio file of the recent argument, I don’t challenge that forecast.

Neither am I going to argue with the experts’ prediction that adding the citizenship question, which has been omitted since 1950 from the census form that goes to every household, will lead immigrant families to fail to return the form out of fear caused by the Trump administration’s brutal anti-immigrant policies. The resulting differential undercount will penalize immigrant-rich cities and states in political representation and federal funding.

Harmful as that impact would be on the affected areas, I want to argue here that validating the Trump administration’s cynical hijacking of the census would have a devastating effect on the integrity of the Supreme Court.

Never mind that three Federal District Courts, ruling since the first of the year in three cases, have found the addition of the citizenship question to be procedurally improper or flat-out unconstitutional. There are respectable contrary arguments that might be made, under the Administrative Procedure Act or the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause, or there would be, had the administration acted in the good faith that Judge Jesse Furman, ruling in the case now before the court, found to be conspicuously lacking.

Perhaps the justices who appear poised to overturn the lower-court decisions really believe that Congress has delegated its constitutional census obligation to the secretary of commerce to conduct the enumeration however he wishes without judicial supervision. Maybe they really think that the 18 states suing the Commerce Department lack standing because any harm that befalls them from the citizenship question is due not to the government but to the “illegal” acts of immigrants who fail to answer the census. These propositions constitute the core of the administration’s argument. If the justices are honestly persuaded by them, well, that’s litigation for you. It’s a zero-sum game in which someone wins and someone loses.

But if the plaintiff states are going to lose, it seems to me that it matters greatly how they lose. What was depressing and even scary about the April 23 argument was the disingenuous lengths to which the conservative justices were willing to go to tilt the case in the administration’s favor. They played dumb. They pretended not to know what they surely knew: that the citizenship question will depress the census count in a way that is predictably harmful and that the administration’s brief concealed the real story of how the citizenship question made its way onto the census. In other words, I have enough respect for the justices’ basic intelligence, which includes the ability to read the same briefs and opinions that I read, to conclude that they know full well what game is afoot.

Don’t take my word for it. Read the transcript. The conservative justices were at pains to challenge the very idea that the citizenship question could depress noncitizens’ response rates, despite the fact that numerous Census Bureau studies have shown that to be the case. “What jumps out,” Justice Samuel Alito said to Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood of New York, “is the fact that citizens and noncitizens differ in a lot of respects other than citizenship. They differ in socioeconomic status. They differ in education. They differ in language ability.” And so, he went on, “I don’t think you have to be much of a statistician to wonder about the legitimacy of concluding” that the response rate would go down “because of this one factor.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch weighed in. “There could be multiple reasons why individuals don’t complete the form.” He continued: “We don’t have any evidence disaggregating the reasons why the forms are left uncompleted. What do you do with that? I mean, normally we would have a regression analysis that would disaggregate the potential cause and identify to a 95th percentile degree of certainty what the reason is that persons are not filling out this form and we could attribute it to this question. We don’t have anything like that here. So what are we supposed to do about that?”

Justice Alito then returned to his theme. There were “many factors that could explain a decline when you’re distinguishing between citizens and noncitizens,” he said.

When Ms. Underwood started to explain that the Census Bureau studies had controlled for the differences, Justice Gorsuch broke in. “It’s fair to say we don’t have this isolated, though, isn’t it?” he asked.

At this point in the transcript, Justice Stephen Breyer’s exasperation with his colleagues almost jumps off the page. “There are a million factors,” he said with evident sarcasm. “There are pet dogs, you know. I mean, there are cats.”

It fell to Justice Elena Kagan to bring the argument back to earth. “Would it be right to say, General,” she said to Ms. Underwood, “that it was the Census Bureau’s conclusion, a bureau full of statisticians, that it was the citizenship question that was driving the differential response rates?”

“That is correct,” Ms. Underwood replied.

Among the other conservative justices, Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his custom, said nothing, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh said relatively little. Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t join in the game that Justices Alito and Gorsuch were playing, but he did seem strangely obtuse when he observed to Ms. Underwood that “we’ve had demographic questions on the census, I don’t know how far back, but certainly, it’s quite common. Sex, age, things like that. ‘Do you own your house?’ ‘Do you own a radio?’ I mean, the questions go quite beyond how many people there are.”

The chief justice’s observations, while accurate, made no sense in the context of this case, as Ms. Underwood diplomatically pointed out. “We have no comparable evidence about any of those other questions that they depress the count in this substantial a way and in this disproportionate a way,” she said.

And what is there to say about Solicitor General Noel Francisco’s argument for the Trump administration? It’s part of our current national tragedy that an allergy to the truth has infected the Department of Justice from the top down. Mr. Francisco maintained in both his brief and his oral argument that it was the Justice Department that urged Wilbur Ross, the secretary of commerce, to add the citizenship question, ostensibly to provide for more precise enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. Aside from the fact that the Trump administration has shown no interest in protecting voting rights and that no administration has asked for a citizenship question in the 54 years since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 became law, there is one problem with the solicitor general’s narrative: It is demonstrably untrue.

According to the record methodically compiled in Judge Furman’s District Court courtroom, Secretary Ross was urged to add the citizenship question by Steve Bannon, a White House adviser at the time, and the anti-immigrant crusader Kris Kobach. Mr. Ross shopped the idea around the federal government for a year and was initially turned down by the Department of Homeland Security as well as the Justice Department. He finally made a direct pitch to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who agreed to get him a letter that would request the citizenship question and provide the Voting Rights Act rationale — the rationale that Judge Furman called pretextual.

So when Mr. Francisco told the justices that there was “no evidence in this record” that Secretary Ross would have added the citizenship question “had the Department of Justice not requested it,” he was at that moment the luckiest person in the courtroom: The red light on the lectern came on, indicating the end of his argument time. No one could ask a follow-up question, including Justice Kagan, who earlier had observed to Mr. Francisco that “you can’t read this record without sensing that this need is a contrived one.”

This sordid tale might be just so much inside-the-Beltway gossip except that it goes directly to the legal matter at hand in the pending case, Department of Commerce v. New York. The administration is demanding deference to its decision on what to ask on the census. Yet experts at the Census Bureau have testified that asking the citizenship question will make the 2020 census less accurate. As Solicitor General Underwood of New York put it in her brief for the plaintiffs, addressing the Justice Department’s purported request for the question, “Settled principles of administrative law foreclose any deference when a decision maker falsely claims to rely on the expertise of another agency to defend its determination.”

The basic legal claim of New York and the other states is that adding the citizenship question is “arbitrary and capricious,” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. As the states’ brief explains: “A decision maker acts arbitrarily by purporting to rely on another agency’s expertise when, in fact, the decision maker instructed that agency rather than the other way around. Such illusory reliance undercuts the foundational premise for judicial deference to administrative action: that the decision resulted from an exercise of specialized expertise that courts lack. When a decision maker purports to rely on an exercise of expert judgment that never happened, there is nothing to which the courts can defer.”

In the administration’s brief, Mr. Francisco complains that “until now no court has seen fit to police the contents of the decennial census questionnaire by even entertaining an arbitrary-and-capricious challenge, let alone upholding one.” Could the reason be that no administration before this one thought to pull off such a trick? But this one did, leaving the Roberts court with a choice: It can be the administration’s enabler or it can acknowledge the truth and be a firewall. That choice is a fateful one, for the court and for the rest of us.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Gerrymandering. Republicani e democratici si stanno scannando.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-08.

Springfield Collegio 001

Collegio Distrettuale di Springfield. L’arte di disegnare i collegi elettorali.


Gerrymandering deriva dal nome dell’inventore, Mr Gerry, e da ‘salamander‘: la salamandra di Gerry.

L’allora Governatore del Massachusetts, Mr Elbridge Gerry nei primi dell’ottocento constatò come gli elettori fossero raggruppato in zone ben definite: quindi ridisegnò i perimetri dei collegi elettorali uninominali in modo tale da assicurare a sé stesso ed al suo partito una vittoria con percentuali bulgare.

Il sistema fu accolto con grandi ovazioni da parte dei politici, che si dettero un gran da fare. I collegi della Scozia e quelli dell’Irlanda del Nord furono a suo tempo gerrymanderingzati con mano pesante, ma, ad esser franchi, anche quelli italiani non scherzano per nulla. Poi, qui da noi servì tutta la abilità del partito democratico italiano per non cogliere l’occasione propizia.

Ma non tutto il male viene per nuocere.

Per promuovere il bene del popolo e la prosperità della nazione, i politici investirono ingentissime somme per fondare una nuova branca della matematica statistica: la teoria dell’ottimizzazione, che solo dopo molto tempo fu applicata alla razionalizzazione dei procedimenti industriali.

* * *

Negli Stati Uniti, caratterizzati da grande mobilità delle persone, i distretti ed i collegi elettorali dovrebbero essere regolarmente rivisti per distribuire in modo abbastanza omogeneo in essi la popolazione. Di norma, ci si basa sui dati censuali della popolazione. Ma ogni volta che ciò accade il gerrymandering colpisce forte e duramente. Di lì contenziosi e voce grossa, talora anche pallottole vaganti. In linea generale il grosso del contenzioso accade negli stati ove una fazione politica abbia il controllo della Corte Suprema dello stato: quei giudici hanno la potestà di mettere la parola fine alla diatriba. Solitamente, fanno i loro appunti, e rimandano tutti ai legislatori: ma quando perdono la pazienza, ridisegnano loro i distretti.

Non ci si stupisca quindi che alla fine tutto approdi alla Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti, la Scotus. Ed al momento Scotus si sta anche interessando delle modalità con le quali il Census raccoglie i dati. Il clima politico è al calor rovente.

«A panel of federal judges on Thursday ordered Michigan’s Republican-controlled legislature to redraw nearly three dozen state and U.S. congressional districts, ruling that the existing lines illegally dilute the power of Democratic voters»

*

«The decision gives lawmakers until Aug. 1 to approve new district maps»

*

«If legislators fail to do so, or if the court finds the new district lines are similarly unconstitutional, the judges said they would draw the maps themselves. The redrawn districts would take effect in time for the 2020 elections»

*

«The state’s 14 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are also up for election next year, and a majority of them could have new boundaries under the court’s ruling»

*

«The decision is likely a boon for Democrats, who in 2018 failed to win a majority of the seats in the state House of Representatives, state Senate or the state’s U.S. congressional delegation despite winning the overall popular vote in all three cases»

*

«Partisan gerrymandering is the process by which one party draws legislative districts to weaken the other party’s voters»

*

«The lines are typically redrawn once a decade after the U.S. census, and in many states the party in power controls the decision-making»

*

«The Supreme Court has historically been reluctant to assert judicial oversight over what has always been a political undertaking»

*

«The Supreme Court could choose to put the Michigan ruling on hold until it issues its own decision, which is expected by June»

* * * * * * * *

Una possibile soluzione potrebbe essere quella di prevedere maggioranze qualificate per approvare una riforma dei collegi e dei distretti. Si potrebbe prospettare che almeno il 75% dei legislatori voti a favore.


Reuters. 2019-05-05. U.S. judges order Michigan to revamp Republican-drawn districts in gerrymandering case

A panel of federal judges on Thursday ordered Michigan’s Republican-controlled legislature to redraw nearly three dozen state and U.S. congressional districts, ruling that the existing lines illegally dilute the power of Democratic voters.

The decision gives lawmakers until Aug. 1 to approve new district maps, which would need to be signed by Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

If legislators fail to do so, or if the court finds the new district lines are similarly unconstitutional, the judges said they would draw the maps themselves. The redrawn districts would take effect in time for the 2020 elections.

The court also ordered Michigan to hold special state Senate elections next year, rather than in 2022 as scheduled, in any gerrymandered districts. The state’s 14 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are also up for election next year, and a majority of them could have new boundaries under the court’s ruling.

The decision is likely a boon for Democrats, who in 2018 failed to win a majority of the seats in the state House of Representatives, state Senate or the state’s U.S. congressional delegation despite winning the overall popular vote in all three cases.

“Today, this court joins the growing chorus of federal courts that have, in recent years, held that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional,” U.S. District Judge Eric Clay, an appointee of former U.S. President Bill Clinton, wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.

Partisan gerrymandering is the process by which one party draws legislative districts to weaken the other party’s voters. The lines are typically redrawn once a decade after the U.S. census, and in many states the party in power controls the decision-making.

In late March, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether such gerrymandering violates the U.S. Constitution in a case stemming from the electoral maps in Maryland and North Carolina.

The Supreme Court has historically been reluctant to assert judicial oversight over what has always been a political undertaking.

The judges in the Michigan case said the gerrymandered map “gives Republicans a strong, systematic, and durable structural advantage in Michigan’s elections and decidedly discriminates against Democrats.”

The result is a violation of Democratic voters’ constitutional right under the First Amendment to freely associate, the court said.

“Federal courts must not abdicate their responsibility to protect American voters from this unconstitutional and pernicious practice that undermines our democracy,” the judges wrote.

Republican lawmakers, who intervened in the case, will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, state Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey said.

“We will prepare to comply with this most recent ruling while we await the outcome of the appeal,” Shirkey said in a statement.

The Supreme Court could choose to put the Michigan ruling on hold until it issues its own decision, which is expected by June.

The lawsuit was filed by a number of Democratic voters and by the League of Women Voters of Michigan.

Michigan was key to U.S. President Donald Trump’s victory in 2016, when he became the first Republican presidential candidate to win the state’s support in nearly 30 years. The state is likely to be a major battleground state next year, when Trump runs for a second term.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Corte Suprema. Respinte le ‘stravaganti’ argomentazioni dei giudici del 9° Circuito

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-04-25.

Supreme Court

Qui il testo originale della sentenza 17-988.

«The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that workers at a California business could not band together to seek compensation for what they said was their employer’s failure to protect their data»

*

«The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s conservative members in the majority»

*

«The decision was the latest in a line of rulings allowing companies to use arbitration provisions to bar both class actions in court and class-wide arbitration proceedings»

*

«The decision was the latest in a line of rulings allowing companies to use arbitration provisions to bar both class actions in court and class-wide arbitration proceedings. In earlier 5-to-4 decisions concerning fine-print contracts with consumers and employment agreements, the court ruled that arbitration provisions can require disputes to be resolved one by one»

*

«Those rulings can make it difficult for consumers and workers to pursue minor claims even where their collective harm was substantial»

*

«The judge agreed that arbitration was the right forum but said class arbitration was permitted by the arbitration clause in the employment agreement»

* * * * * * * *

Chi mai si fosse illuso che i liberal democratici abbiano a cuore la gente resterà amaramente disilluso.

I giudici federali del Nono Circuito, tutti liberal, avevano sentenziato la costituzionalità delle class action per questa categoria di problematiche.

Questa sentenza avrebbe permesso la presentazione di class action anche per motivazioni minime.

Tradotto in altri termini, gli avvocati liberal, lavorando fianco a fianco a molte organizzazioni sindacali, avrebbero potuto agire in modo indiscriminato: le sole cause al momento pendenti assommano richieste di refusione per oltre 340 miliardi di dollari americani.

La Corte Suprema ha ristabilito lo stato di diritto, the rule of law, rendendo ragione ai Cittadini ed alla società civile: ha respinto le ‘stravaganti’ argomentazioni dei giudici del Nono Circuito.

Si preannunciano tempi molto duri per quanti interpretino in modo fantasioso i dettami costituzionali ai fini di mera bottega personale.


The New York Times. 2019-04-24. Split 5 to 4, Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Class Arbitrations

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that workers at a California business could not band together to seek compensation for what they said was their employer’s failure to protect their data.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s conservative members in the majority.

The decision was the latest in a line of rulings allowing companies to use arbitration provisions to bar both class actions in court and class-wide arbitration proceedings. In earlier 5-to-4 decisions concerning fine-print contracts with consumers and employment agreements, the court ruled that arbitration provisions can require disputes to be resolved one by one.

Those rulings can make it difficult for consumers and workers to pursue minor claims even where their collective harm was substantial.

Wednesday’s decision, Lamps Plus v. Varela, No. 17-988, started in 2016, when a hacker posing as a company official persuaded an employee of Lamps Plus, which sells lighting fixtures, to disclose the tax filings of about 1,300 workers. The hacker used the information to file a fraudulent tax return in the name of Frank Varela, a Lamps Plus employee.

Mr. Varela had signed an employment agreement requiring him to resolve disputes with Lamps Plus through arbitration. But he went to court, filing a class-action suit against the company on behalf of himself and other Lamps Plus employees.

Lamps Plus asked the judge to do two things: send the case to arbitration and require Mr. Varela to pursue only his own claim there. The judge agreed that arbitration was the right forum but said class arbitration was permitted by the arbitration clause in the employment agreement.

The arbitration clause said that “arbitration shall be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings relating to my employment.” That language, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled, meant that workers could pursue their claims as a class in the arbitration proceeding.

In an unsigned opinion, the majority said that language allowed the workers to band together. “A reasonable — and perhaps the most reasonable — interpretation of this expansive language is that it authorizes class arbitration,” the majority said.

In dissent, Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez said the majority had engaged in a “palpable evasion” of the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision that said it was unlawful to require class arbitration where the arbitration agreement did not discuss the matter one way or the other. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, quoting an earlier dissent, said the decision was the court’s latest effort “to deny employees and consumers ‘effective relief against powerful economic entities.’”

“Propelled by the court’s decisions,” Justice Ginsburg wrote, “mandatory arbitration clauses in employment and consumer contracts have proliferated.”

Writing for the majority on Wednesday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the 2010 decision resolved Mr. Varela’s case. Since Mr. Varela and Lamps Plus had not expressly agreed to class arbitration, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, only individual arbitrations were allowed.

The chief justice wrote that class arbitrations were at odds with the basic goals of arbitration, which he said were speed and simplicity.

All four of the court’s liberal members wrote dissents. Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the majority had created a body of law whose purpose was to frustrate class actions and class-wide arbitrations.

She said the court should have endorsed a common principle of contract interpretation that resolves ambiguities against the party — here, Lamps Plus — that drafted the provision. Using ellipses to indicate a skeptical pause, she wrote that Wednesday’s decision would never have appeared among decisions by the court “save that this case involves … class proceedings.”

Pubblicato in: Giustizia, Sistemi Politici

Suprema Corte. Senza i liberal democratici sarebbero disoccupati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-04-23.

Supreme Court

Nei suoi ultimi cento pronunciamenti, la Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti ha dovuto esaminare ben ottantanove ricorsi fatti da liberal democratici, per la maggior parte su problemi, veri o presunti tali, relativi a problemi sessuali. Non sanno pensare ad altro.

Gli americani ed il mondo attendono con pazienza che l’ondata si attenui e le Loro Giustizie possano riprendere le usuali occupazioni. Sono infatti pendenti numerose cause inerenti il commercio e gli usuali rapporti umani. Basterebbe solo pensare al contenzioso sorto a seguito dell’avvento dei dazi.

*

«The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case from New York, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623, along with one from Georgia that came to the opposite conclusion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618.»

*

«The New York case was brought by a sky-diving instructor who said he was fired because he was gay. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that “sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.”»

*

«The Georgia case was brought by a child welfare services coordinator who said he was fired for being gay. The 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, ruled against him in a short, unsigned opinion that cited a 1979 decision that had ruled that “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.” …. The Georgia case was brought by a child welfare services coordinator who said he was fired for being gay. The 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, ruled against him in a short, unsigned opinion that cited a 1979 decision that had ruled that “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.”»

*

«The justices also agreed to decide the separate question of whether Title VII bars discrimination against transgender people. The case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 18-107, concerns Aimee Stephens, who was fired from a Michigan funeral home after she announced that she was a transgender woman and would start working in women’s clothing»

*

«Most federal appeals courts have interpreted the law to exclude sexual orientation discrimination. But two of them, in New York and Chicago, recently issued decisions ruling that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is a form of sex discrimination.»

* * * * * * *

Tanto per gradire, ci si dovrebbe ricordare che il 23 aprile sarà per la Suprema Corte una giornata impegnativa.

Supreme Court expands April 23 census arguments

«The Supreme Court says it will try to resolve all the legal issues about a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

The justices on Friday are expanding their April 23 arguments to include whether asking about citizenship would violate the Constitution’s call for a once-a-decade count of all people, not just citizens. The court already was considering whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ decision to add a citizenship question is arbitrary and capricious under federal law.

The court is hearing the Trump administration’s appeal of a federal judge’s ruling in New York that the decision violated federal law. Since then, a judge in California said a citizenship question also would violate the Constitution.

A final answer about a citizenship question is needed soon to allow printing of the census questionnaire.»

*

Questa sarà una decisione che ammetterà oppure escluderà dal voto decine di milioni di persone, immigrate illegalmente.

A nostro sommesso parere sarà una decisione ben più impegnativa di quella inerente una traversita.


The New York Times. 201-04-22. Supreme Court to Decide Whether Bias Law Covers Gay and Transgender Workers

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would decide whether a federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against gay and transgender workers.

The law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, forbids employment discrimination based on sex. The question for the justices is whether that language bars discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status.

Most federal appeals courts have interpreted the law to exclude sexual orientation discrimination. But two of them, in New York and Chicago, recently issued decisions ruling that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is a form of sex discrimination.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case from New York, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623, along with one from Georgia that came to the opposite conclusion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618.

The New York case was brought by a sky-diving instructor who said he was fired because he was gay. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that “sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.”

The Georgia case was brought by a child welfare services coordinator who said he was fired for being gay. The 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, ruled against him in a short, unsigned opinion that cited a 1979 decision that had ruled that “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.”

The justices also agreed to decide the separate question of whether Title VII bars discrimination against transgender people. The case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 18-107, concerns Aimee Stephens, who was fired from a Michigan funeral home after she announced that she was a transgender woman and would start working in women’s clothing.

She sued and won in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. Discrimination against transgender people, the court ruled, was barred by Title VII.

“It is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex,” the court said, adding, “Discrimination ‘because of sex’ inherently includes discrimination against employees because of a change in their sex.”

There is a second issue in Ms. Stephens’s case, one that could allow her to win however the Supreme Court might rule on whether Title VII applies to discrimination against transgender people. In 1989, the court said discrimination against workers because they did not conform to gender stereotypes was a form of sex discrimination.

The Sixth Circuit ruled for Ms. Stephens on that ground, too, saying she had been fired “for wishing to appear or behave in a manner that contradicts the funeral home’s perception of how she should behave or appear based on her sex.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said that Title VII bars discrimination against gay and transgender people. In recent briefs, the Trump administration has taken the opposite position.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Sindacati pubblici, democratici, annientati. Ridotti del 90%.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-04-12.

Supreme Court

Trump. La Suprema Corte libera i lavoratori dalla malversazione dei sindacati.

La Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti di America aveva rilasciato la sentenza 16-1466.

Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees

«The State of Illinois’ extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment; Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, which concluded otherwise, is overruled.»

*

«Illinois law permits public employees to unionize. If a majority of the employees in a bargaining unit vote to be represented by a union, that union is designated as the exclusive representative of all the employees, even those who do not join. Only the union may engagein collective bargaining; individual employees may not be represented by another agent or negotiate directly with their employer. Non­members are required to pay what is generally called an “agency fee,” i.e., a percentage of the full union dues. Under Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, 235–236, this fee may cover union expenditures attributable to those activities “germane” to the union’s collective-bargaining activities (chargeable expenditures), but may not cover the union’s political and ideological projects (nonchargeable expendi­tures). The union sets the agency fee annually and then sends non­members a notice explaining the basis for the fee and the breakdown of expenditures. Here it was 78.06% of full union dues.»

* * *

In breve, i sindacati americani avevano imposto a tutti i dipendenti, non solo agli iscritti, il pagamento di una tassa a loro favore. Questa decisione era stata giudicata legale e costituzionale dalle Corti di livello inferiore, per cui la questione è stata alla fine sottoposta al giudizio della Suprema Corte, che ha rigettato simile procedura, giudicandola non costituzionale, oltre che ‘iniqua’.

«Two dozen states have required agency fees. The ruling means that the estimated 5 million non-union workers for state and local governments who have paid these fees can stop»

*

«Here it was 78.06% of full union dues»

I sindacati si spendevano allegramente quelle cifre per finanziare i loro piani politici, che coincidevano con quelli dei liberal democratici, trattenendo non poco per finanziare le loro misere tasche.

«[to] cover the union’s political and ideological projects (nonchargeable expendi­tures).»

* * *

In sintesi, i sindacati introitavano illegalmente cifre da capogiro che poi spendevano per la campagna elettorale dei liberal democratici.

La Corte Suprema ha messo fine a codesta manfrina illegale.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Nel breve volgere dei sei mesi è successo quello che doveva succedere.

«The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees saw a 98 percent drop from the prior year»

*

«The Service Employees International Union lost 94 percent of their agency fee payers»

*

«The Mackinac Center is one of several conservative groups running campaigns urging public employees to consider dropping out of their unions»

*

«These agency fees represented 70 to 80 percent of union dues and were forcibly removed from the pay checks of public workers who wanted nothing to do with far-left unions that spend billions of dollars every year to elect Democrats»

* * * * * * *

I sindacati american restano ancora una grande potenza ed una macchina elettorale a favore del liberal democratici.

Però questo colpo è davvero duro.

Se ne sono andate molte più persone di quanto loro si fossero aspettati. Quasi tutti.

*


Mass Exodus of Public Union Fee Payers After High Court Ruling

– Supreme Court forbade mandatory nonmember fees

– Unions, opponents eye effect on membership rolls

*

Two major public sector unions lost nearly 210,000 agency fee payers combined in 2018, according to recently filed reports showing the impact of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that prohibits forcing nonmembers to pay for collective bargaining and other nonpolitical expenses.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees saw a 98 percent drop from the prior year, leaving 2,200 agency fee payers. The Service Employees International Union lost 94 percent of their agency fee payers, reducing the number of agency fee payers to 5,800.

The disclosure reports filed with the Labor Department last week provide an early snapshot of ramifications of the high court’s June 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which said mandatory agency fees in the public sector violate nonmembers’ First Amendment rights. Agency fees typically amount to 75 to 85 percent of full union dues.

The two main public teachers unions similarly lost their fee payers following the ruling, according to government reports and union representatives.

While the immediate and near total exodus of fee payers from public sector unions was expected, the long-term impact of the Janus decision will likely be measured in how many members quit. The ruling allows public employees in unionized workplaces to benefit from collective bargaining without paying anything.

“Most agency fee payers left,” said Patrick Wright, vice president for legal affairs at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a conservative advocacy group. “The big question going forward is how many full members are going to join them.”

The Mackinac Center is one of several conservative groups running campaigns urging public employees to consider dropping out of their unions.

The early returns show little change in AFSCME and SEIU membership numbers. AFSCME gained by more than 9,000 non-retired members in 2018, about a 1 percent gain over the previous year. The SEIU lost nearly 4,500 non-retired members, which represents a 0.3 percent drop. …..

*


Nolte: Public Unions Lose over 90% of Non-Member Dues After SCOTUS Ruling

Two powerful, left-wing public unions lost over 90 percent of non-member fees after the Supreme Court ruled against forcing non-members to pay union dues.

In other words, until June of 2018 we lived in a country where public sector workers who chose not to join their respective unions were still forced to pay union dues, which are called agency fees.

These agency fees represented 70 to 80 percent of union dues and were forcibly removed from the pay checks of public workers who wanted nothing to do with far-left unions that spend billions of dollars every year to elect Democrats.

The Supreme Court ruled that these mandatory union dues violated the free speech of non-members, who had been forced through these un-American agency fees to contribute to political campaigns they wanted no part of. ….

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

Corte Suprema. Il 23 aprile primo pronunciamento sulla costituzionalità del Census.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-03-22.

Supreme Court

«Il diavolo si nasconde nei dettagli»

*

Trump, Lib Dem, Suprema Corte e Census. Un duello all’ultimo sangue.

United States Department of Commerce, Et Al., versus State Of New York, Et Al., Respondents

On Petition For Writ of Certiorari before Judgment to The United States Court of Appeals for The Second Circuit.

*

– La costituzione americana impone che ogni dieci anni il Census esegua un censimento della popolazione, ossia conti il numero di ‘persone’ presenti in ogni stato degli Stati Uniti.

– I numeri raccolti dal Census sono utilizzati per calcolare il numero dei rappresentati al Congresso che spettano ad ogni stato e sono inoltre utilizzati nella ripartizione del budget federale: un giro di migliaia di miliardi.

– Negli Stati Uniti non esiste un documento di identità corredato di fotografia recente che abbia valore a livello federale.

– Per votare, le persone devono ad ogni tornata elettorale iscriversi alle liste elettorali: basta soltanto il presentarsi.

– Alle elezioni politiche dovrebbero poter votare solo quanti siano cittadini dello stato.

– Se la Suprema Corte sentenziasse che il Census possa includere la domanda sulla nazionalità, si censirebbe chi sia o meno cittadino americano, e quindi ammissibile al voto. Le liste elettorali subirebbero diete dimagranti stupefacenti.

«Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census»

*

In breve, in alcuni stati vi è un largo numero di immigrati clandestini, non cittadini americani, la presenza dei quali comporta un innalzamento artificioso del  numero dei seggi attribuiti al Congresso e grandi successi elettorali per i politici che li patrocinano.

«That decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in New York, said the Commerce Department hid its real reasons for adding the question, violating the federal law that governs administration agencies.»

*

«The latest ruling, issued this month by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco, goes further. Seeborg said a citizenship question would lead to a less accurate count, violating the constitutional requirement of an “actual enumeration” of the population every 10 years.»

*

«Agreeing to a government request, the court said it will broaden its April 23 argument to account for a new lower court ruling that said the Constitution bars the inclusion of a citizenship question»

* * * * * * * *

Come si constata, la posta in gioco è davvero elevata: qualunque essa sia condizionerà le elezioni americane per almeno una decina di anni, e costituirà quindi precedente giuridico.

Una unica considerazione.

Si prende atto come nove funzionari dello stato, di massimo livello ma pur sempre funzionari non eletti, siano chiamati a prendere una decisione squisitamente politica.

Non si nega che si era affezionati al vecchio, imperfetto e tanto criticato sistema democratico, ove governavano gli eletti, vidimati dal voto popolare.

* * * * * * * *

Traduzione.

La Corte Suprema amplia la questione della cittadinanza per il censimento

– Giudici che valutino se la questione viola la Costituzione

– La Corte è già fissata per conoscere delle argomentazioni nella causa 23 aprile.

*

La Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti ha detto che espanderà il suo showdown programmato nel corso del censimento del 2020 per considerare se la Costituzione permette all’amministrazione Trump di aggiungere una domanda che si chiede se le persone sono cittadini americani.

Accettando una richiesta del governo, la corte ha detto che amplierà la sua argomentazione del 23 aprile per rendere conto di una nuova sentenza della corte inferiore che ha detto che la Costituzione impedisce l’inclusione di una questione di cittadinanza.

La corte ha in programma di ascoltare le argomentazioni su una sentenza più ristretta in un caso diverso. Quella decisione, emessa dal giudice distrettuale degli Stati Uniti Jesse Furman a New York, ha detto che il Dipartimento del Commercio ha nascosto le sue vere ragioni per aggiungere la questione, violando la legge federale che governa le agenzie amministrative.

L’ultima sentenza, emessa questo mese dal giudice distrettuale statunitense Richard Seeborg a San Francisco, va oltre. Seeborg ha detto che una domanda di cittadinanza porterebbe ad un conteggio meno accurato, violando il requisito costituzionale di un “conteggio effettivo” della popolazione ogni 10 anni.

Un censimento sottostimato in aree con un gran numero di non cittadini potrebbe allontanare i distretti congressuali e i dollari federali da quelle comunità.

In una lettera alla Corte Suprema questa settimana, il Solicitor General Noel Francisco ha detto che l’amministrazione Trump prevede di appellarsi alla sentenza di Seeborg, ma ha detto che i giudici possono risolvere la questione costituzionale come parte della disputa di New York.

Francisco ha scritto che la corte deve decidere la questione costituzionale per “risolvere definitivamente se il segretario può ripristinare una domanda di cittadinanza al censimento decennale 2020”.

*


Bloomberg. 2019-03-15. Supreme Court Expands Fight Over Census Citizenship Question

– Justices to consider whether question violates Constitution

– Court is already set to hear arguments in case April 23

*

The U.S. Supreme Court said it will expand its scheduled showdown over the 2020 census to consider whether the Constitution lets the Trump administration add a question asking whether people are American citizens.

Agreeing to a government request, the court said it will broaden its April 23 argument to account for a new lower court ruling that said the Constitution bars the inclusion of a citizenship question.

The court has been planning to hear arguments on a narrower ruling in a different case. That decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in New York, said the Commerce Department hid its real reasons for adding the question, violating the federal law that governs administration agencies.

The latest ruling, issued this month by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco, goes further. Seeborg said a citizenship question would lead to a less accurate count, violating the constitutional requirement of an “actual enumeration” of the population every 10 years.

A census undercount in areas with large numbers of non-citizens could shift congressional districts and federal dollars away from those communities.

In a letter to the Supreme Court this week, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco said the Trump administration plans to appeal Seeborg’s ruling, but he said the justices can resolve the constitutional issue as part of the New York dispute.

Francisco wrote that the court needs to decide the constitutional issue to “definitively resolve whether the secretary may reinstate a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census.”

The New York case is Department of Commerce v. New York, 18-966.