«Republican Senators line up to back Trump on court fight.»
«Senator Lindsey Graham, the Judiciary Committee chairman, says Republicans have the votes to confirm the president’s choice before the Nov. 3 election, though it will still be a challenge.»
«President Trump appeared to secure enough support on Monday to fill the Supreme Court seat left open by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg»
«several key Senate Republicans threw their support behind a campaign-season dash to replace the liberal jurist by the election on Nov. 3 with a conservative who would shift the court’s ideological center to the right for years to come»
«We’re going to move forward in the committee; we’re going to report the nomination out of the committee to the floor of the United States Senate so we can vote before the election»
«But the president was buoyed after Senators Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Cory Gardner of Colorado, two of three remaining Republicans who might have opposed filling the seat»
«With polls showing Mr. Trump trailing former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic presidential nominee, the president insisted on pressing»
«Mr. Trump privately met at the White House on Monday with Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, his front-runner and a favorite of anti-abortion conservatives, who have told him that she is a female Antonin Scalia»
«her coffin will be placed on the same catafalque that bore the body of President Abraham Lincoln, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Monday»
«In a letter to Democrats on Monday, Mr. Graham made no attempt to argue that he was being consistent or following a nonpartisan principle, but instead said he reversed himself in retaliation for the Democrats’ treatment of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh when he was confirmed in 2018 and because Republicans have the power to proceed»
«Since 1975, the average Supreme Court confirmation has taken about 70 days, and only two were quicker than currently contemplated — Justices John Paul Stevens in 1975 and Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981, both of whom were approved unanimously. Since Justice Ginsburg was confirmed with little resistance in 1993, no confirmation has taken less than 62 days.»
* * * * * * *
– Sua Giustizia Ruth Bader Ginsburg è deceduta, lasciando vacante il seggio nella Corte Suprema
– L’Amministrazione legalmente in carica, Mr Trump ed il Senato, hanno il dovere costituzionale di fare la nomina di sostituzione
– I liberal democratici si stanno strappando le vesti perché Mr Trump non usa loro la cortesia di omaggiarli del posto vacante.
Senator Lindsey Graham, the Judiciary Committee chairman, says Republicans have the votes to confirm the president’s choice before the Nov. 3 election, though it will still be a challenge.
President Trump appeared to secure enough support on Monday to fill the Supreme Court seat left open by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg without waiting for voters to decide whether to grant him a second term in what would be the fastest contested confirmation in modern history.
As Mr. Trump promised to announce his choice for the seat by Friday or “probably Saturday,” after memorial services for Justice Ginsburg, several key Senate Republicans threw their support behind a campaign-season dash to replace the liberal jurist by the election on Nov. 3 with a conservative who would shift the court’s ideological center to the right for years to come.
“We’ve got the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg’s replacement before the election,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a close Trump ally, said Monday night on Fox News. “We’re going to move forward in the committee; we’re going to report the nomination out of the committee to the floor of the United States Senate so we can vote before the election.”
Such a timetable would leave only 38 days for the Senate to act and, as a practical matter, even less time because it is highly unlikely that Republicans would want to vote in the last few days before an election in which several of them face serious threats. Some senior Republican senators were still expressing caution about such an accelerated timetable even with the votes seemingly in hand, and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has not publicly committed to a pre-election vote.
But the president was buoyed after Senators Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Cory Gardner of Colorado, two of three remaining Republicans who might have opposed filling the seat, announced that they would support moving ahead with a nomination even though they refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nomination in an election year in 2016. That left only Senator Mitt Romney of Utah considered undecided, but even without him, it appeared to guarantee at least 50 Republican votes to move ahead, with Vice President Mike Pence available to break a tie.
With polls showing Mr. Trump trailing former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic presidential nominee, the president insisted on pressing ahead without waiting for an election he could lose. “I’d much rather have a vote before the election because there’s a lot of work to be done, and I’d much rather have it,” Mr. Trump told reporters. “We have plenty of time to do it. I mean, there’s really a lot of time.”
Mr. Trump privately met at the White House on Monday with Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, his front-runner and a favorite of anti-abortion conservatives, who have told him that she is a female Antonin Scalia. The president spent much of the day with her and later told associates that he liked her, according to people close to the process, who considered her increasingly likely to be the pick.
Justice Ginsburg, who died on Friday at 87, will be honored at a private ceremony in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, then will lie in repose outside the building for the rest of the day and on Thursday, the court announced, an unusual arrangement intended to accommodate the tens of thousands of admirers expected to pay their respects in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic.
The justice will also lie in state in the United States Capitol, the first woman in American history to be so honored, and her coffin will be placed on the same catafalque that bore the body of President Abraham Lincoln, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Monday. The only other member of the Supreme Court ever to lie in state at the Capitol was William Howard Taft, who had served as president before becoming chief justice.
The politics of Justice Ginsburg’s replacement roiled Washington as senators returned to town for the first time since her death. Two Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, said over the weekend that they opposed filling the seat until voters decide the presidency.
But Mr. McConnell reiterated that he intended to fill the seat before year’s end, without explicitly committing to a vote before the election. “The Senate has more than sufficient time to process a nomination,” he said on the Senate floor. “History and precedent make that perfectly clear.”
“This Senate will vote on this nomination this year,” he added in a speech that was intended to justify proceeding after Republicans refused to even consider Mr. Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland for almost nine months in 2016 partly on the grounds that voters should have a say in who filled the lifetime appointment.
Mr. McConnell and other Republicans rationalized taking the opposite position this year because their party controls both the White House and the Senate. Mr. Graham, for one, had vowed repeatedly not to support confirming any selection by Mr. Trump in an election year in keeping with the 2016 decision, only to flip-flop this weekend.
In a letter to Democrats on Monday, Mr. Graham made no attempt to argue that he was being consistent or following a nonpartisan principle, but instead said he reversed himself in retaliation for the Democrats’ treatment of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh when he was confirmed in 2018 and because Republicans have the power to proceed. “I am certain if the shoe were on the other foot, you would do the same,” Mr. Graham wrote.
Mr. Grassley, his predecessor as chairman and a key figure in helping Mr. McConnell block consideration of Judge Garland, likewise reversed himself on Monday. As recently as this summer, Mr. Grassley told reporters that out of fairness and consistency, he would not consider a Trump nominee before the election if he were still chairman.
But in a statement on Monday, he noted that the chairmanship was now Mr. Graham’s, and he would support his decision.
“Once the hearings are underway, it’s my responsibility to evaluate the nominee on the merits, just as I always have,” Mr. Grassley said. “The Constitution gives the Senate that authority, and the American people’s voices in the most recent election couldn’t be clearer.”
Mr. Gardner, who is badly trailing his Democratic rival in a blue state where Mr. Trump is deeply unpopular, likewise threw his support to the president. “I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law,” he said. “Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm.”
Mr. Romney, a frequent critic of Mr. Trump, was seen as the last Republican who might balk. He is concerned about preserving the court’s public reputation, but he is also a conservative reluctant to let an opportunity to shape the court pass by, aides said. He said he planned to announce his views after a senators’ lunch on Tuesday.
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, excoriated Republicans for what he called a brazen power play. “To try and decide this at this late moment is despicable and wrong and against democracy,” Mr. Schumer told reporters.
Privately, Mr. McConnell polled advisers and deputies about a complex set of political considerations with control of the Senate and presidency at stake. Some Republicans argued for announcing a nominee right away and beginning hearings but waiting to vote in a lame-duck session after the election.
Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of Mr. McConnell’s leadership team, said confirming a new justice by Nov. 3 would set “the new recent world record.” He added, “We’d have to do more than we’ve done in a long time to get one done that quickly, but it’s possible.”
Since 1975, the average Supreme Court confirmation has taken about 70 days, and only two were quicker than currently contemplated — Justices John Paul Stevens in 1975 and Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981, both of whom were approved unanimously. Since Justice Ginsburg was confirmed with little resistance in 1993, no confirmation has taken less than 62 days.
The last time a Supreme Court nominee facing meaningful opposition was confirmed in 38 days or less from the day of their initial nomination was in 1949. While the Senate has approved other nominees to the court in election years, none has been confirmed so close to a presidential election in American history.
The calendar is not Mr. Trump’s friend at this point. The Senate is out of session for Yom Kippur next Monday and Tuesday, leaving fewer than 25 business days before Election Day to vet any nominee, conduct multiple days of hearings and hold committee and floor votes. If they moved at breakneck speed with no surprises, Republicans could, in theory, hold a vote by late the week of Oct. 19 or early the next.
Democrats have a few tools to slow down the process — most notably the ability to postpone approval by the committee for a week — but they quite likely have no means to stop Republicans altogether because filibusters were eliminated in Supreme Court confirmations. If a vote were to be delayed until after the election, Democrats could quickly gain an extra vote, assuming Mark Kelly wins a special election in Arizona and is sworn into that seat in November.
To White House officials, the short time frame argued for Judge Barrett because she was a finalist two years ago and therefore already largely vetted. As she met with the president on Monday and came away poised to be chosen, there was still attention on Judge Barbara Lagoa of the 11th Circuit because she is a Cuban-American from Florida, a critical state for the president’s re-election chances.
Mr. Trump told reporters that he had narrowed the list to five women, but the other three identified by the people informed about the process were seen as long shots: Kate Todd, a deputy White House counsel, and Judges Allison Jones Rushing of the Fourth Circuit and Joan L. Larsen of the Sixth Circuit.
The brewing confirmation fight quickly became a campaign issue. Committing an initial $2.2 million in spending, Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative advocacy group, fired the first shots in what is expected to be a costly advertising war to try to sway public sentiment and influence key Republican senators. The group said it would run ads in Colorado and Utah, as well as in Iowa, Maine and North Carolina, where Republican incumbents are in competitive races.
Republicans hope the issue will rally conservative voters who might otherwise not turn out, but a poll released on Monday suggested that Democrats might be more energized by the fight. Sixty percent of Democrats called the Supreme Court “very important” in deciding their vote in November, up 12 percentage points, while 54 percent of Republicans agreed, according to the survey by Politico and Morning Consult.
While aides wanted him to announce his pick as early as Tuesday, Mr. Trump said he opted to wait out of deference to Justice Ginsburg. But even as he talked about showing respect for her, he asserted with absolutely zero evidence that her dying wish that she not be replaced until the next president is chosen, as conveyed by her granddaughter to NPR, was actually scripted by Democrats like Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Schumer or Representative Adam B. Schiff of California.
“I don’t know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff and Schumer and Pelosi?” he told “Fox & Friends.” “I would be more inclined to the second, OK, you know? That came out of the wind. It sounds so beautiful, but that sounds like a Schumer deal, or maybe a Pelosi or Shifty Schiff.”
«Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is resting comfortably after undergoing a non-surgical medical procedure on a bile duct stent on Wednesday at a New York City hospital, the court said»
«Ginsburg, at 87 the oldest member of the Supreme Court and its senior liberal justice, expects to be released from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center by the end of the week after doctors revised a bile duct stent that was originally placed in August 2019, the court said in a statement.»
«stent revisions are common occurrences and the procedure, performed using endoscopy and medical imaging guidance, was done to minimize the risk of future infection»
«Ginsburg, who has had a series of health issues, said two weeks ago she was receiving chemotherapy treatment for a recurrence of cancer after a biopsy revealed lesions on her liver.
Ginsburg was treated for pancreatic cancer in 2019 and 2009, for lung cancer in 2018 and colon cancer in 1999»
«Ginsburg’s health is closely watched because a Supreme Court vacancy could give Republican President Donald Trump the opportunity to appoint a third justice to the nine-member court and move it further to the right»
* * * * * * *
Auguriamo a Sua Giustizia Ruth Bader Ginsburg di potersi riprendere radidamente.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is resting comfortably after undergoing a non-surgical medical procedure on a bile duct stent on Wednesday at a New York City hospital, the court said.
Ginsburg, at 87 the oldest member of the Supreme Court and its senior liberal justice, expects to be released from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center by the end of the week after doctors revised a bile duct stent that was originally placed in August 2019, the court said in a statement.
“According to her doctors, stent revisions are common occurrences and the procedure, performed using endoscopy and medical imaging guidance, was done to minimize the risk of future infection,” it said.
Ginsburg, who has had a series of health issues, said two weeks ago she was receiving chemotherapy treatment for a recurrence of cancer after a biopsy revealed lesions on her liver.
Ginsburg was treated for pancreatic cancer in 2019 and 2009, for lung cancer in 2018 and colon cancer in 1999.
Ginsburg’s health is closely watched because a Supreme Court vacancy could give Republican President Donald Trump the opportunity to appoint a third justice to the nine-member court and move it further to the right.
The court currently has a 5-4 conservative majority including two justices appointed by Trump – Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and Neil Gorsuch in 2017.
«Il collegio elettorale degli Stati Uniti d’America (in inglese: United States Electoral College) è un insieme di elettori, stabilito dalla Costituzione statunitense, che ha il compito ogni quattro anni di eleggere il presidente e il vicepresidente degli Stati Uniti d’America. Il Collegio elettorale è composto da 538 elettori e vota le due cariche a maggioranza assoluta (quindi, almeno 270 voti). Secondo quanto prevede la Costituzione all’art. 2, ogni assemblea legislativa statale è libera di decidere le modalità con cui vengono selezionati questi elettori in ogni stato. Il numero degli elettori del Collegio elettorale è pari al numero totale dei seggi presenti al Congresso (attualmente 100 senatori e 435 rappresentanti). A questi 435 elettori, secondo quanto previsto dal XXI emendamento (ratificato nel 1961) si aggiungono gli elettori eletti dal Distretto di Columbia, che sono in numero pari al numero di elettori previsto dallo stato meno popoloso dell’Unione, attualmente 3. ….
Dopo che si sono tenute le elezioni “popolari”, che si tengono ogni primo martedì successivo al primo lunedì di novembre dell’anno elettorale, ogni stato procede al conteggio dei propri “voti popolari” per convertirli in elettori del Collegio elettorale, dove ogni stato segue le proprie leggi di attribuzione. Quasi tutti gli stati distribuiscono gli tutti gli elettori a disposizione per il proprio stato al candidato che ha vinto le elezioni popolari nel proprio stato, ad eccezione di due stati che invece applicano una sorta di “rappresentanza proporzionale”. ….
Solitamente gli elettori selezionati da uno stato sono obbligati a votare per il candidato vincitore in quello stato, anche se attualmente esiste un dibattito su dove poggi questa restrizione. Gli elettori selezionati si riuniscono dunque nella capitale di ogni singolo stato il primo lunedì successivo al secondo mercoledì del mese di dicembre elettorale, allo scopo di realizzare le operazioni di voto. ….
Il sistema che prevede il Collegio elettorale è da lungo tempo oggetto di un forte dibattito.» [Fonte]
* * * * * * *
La Costituzione Americana promulgata il 21 giugno 1788 preso atto sia del fatto che nasceva una federazioni di stati che ritenevano la propria indipendenza tranne che per i contenuti di interesse federale, sia delle oggettive condizioni delle distanze e delle comunicazioni dell’epoca.
L’elezione del presidente avviene in modo indiretto. A ciascuno degli stati membri è assegnato un certo quale numero di Elettori, che dovranno quindi recarsi a Washington per costituire l’Electoral College che alla fine nominerà il nuovo presidente. La Costituzione concedeva quasi un mese di tempo agli Elettori per intraprendere il viaggio nella capitale.
Per tradizione bisecolare, gli Elettori erano tenuti a votare come presidente il candidato che aveva ottenuto la maggioranza dei voti nel proprio stato.
Negli ultimi tempi però si sono evidenziate correnti di pensiero, ma anche di mera bottega politica, che proporrebbero due variazioni.
La prima, suggerirebbe una riforma costituzionale che eliminasse d’emblée il Collegio Elettorale. In rare evenienze, infatti, il candidato presidente eletto dagli Elettori avrebbe potuto aver conseguito meno voti popolari del concorrente.
La seconda invece si interroga sulla costituzionalità dell’obbligo degli Elettori a votare il candidato più votato, domandandosi se non sia più appropriato lasciar loro libertà di voto.
Questi problemi si sono acuiti nel tempo anche a seguito del sorgere di una corrente di pensiero propensa da utilizzare come legge elettorale un sistema proporzionale puro, cosa che in passato sarebbe stata organizzativamente semplicemente impossibile.
Adesso i quesiti sono stati ammessi alla discussione alla Corte Suprema.
«The Supreme Court will decide whether Electoral College voters have a constitutional right to cast ballots for candidates who didn’t win their state’s popular vote»
«A decision is expected by the end of June, ahead of the presidential election in November. The cases are the latest in a string of high-profile disputes the court is expected to resolve in a contentious election year»
Anche in questa occasione si deve constatare quanto i tribunali possano interferire sull’operato politico.
– The Supreme Court will decide whether Electoral College voters have a constitutional right to cast ballots for candidates who didn’t win their state’s popular vote, the justices announced Friday.
– The justices said they will hear two cases brought by Electoral College voters in Washington state and Colorado who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 despite her wins in those states.
– A decision is expected by the end of June, ahead of the presidential election in November. The cases are the latest in a string of high-profile disputes the court is expected to resolve in a contentious election year.
The Supreme Court will decide whether Electoral College voters have a constitutional right to cast ballots for candidates who didn’t win their state’s popular vote, the justices announced in an order on Friday.
The justices said they will hear two cases brought by Electoral College voters in Washington state and Colorado who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 despite her wins in those states.
Like most states, Washington and Colorado require their electors to follow the will of their states’ voters. But those laws are now being challenged by Electoral College voters who argue that such laws are unconstitutional.
A decision in the matter is expected by the end of June, ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November. The cases are the latest in a string of high-profile disputes the top court is expected to resolve in a contentious election year.
Historically, the faithfulness of Electoral College voters has largely been a formality. In 2016, 10 out of the total 538 electors attempted to cast ballots out of line with their state’s popular vote. But attorneys on both sides of the issue urged the top court to resolve the constitutional question before a crisis emerges.
Larry Lessig, an attorney for the electors in Washington, wrote in court papers that a swing by 10 electors would have been enough to alter the results in five of 58 previous presidential races.
“This case gives the Court the rare opportunity to decide a constitutional question related to presidential selection in a non-emergency setting,” he wrote.
The Washington case was brought by three presidential electors who cast their ballots for Colin Powell, the former secretary of state under President George W. Bush. The electors were each fined $1,000 under state law, which they have said in court papers appears to be the first fine of its type in American history.
The Washington Supreme Court upheld the fines in an 8-1 vote that rejected the electors’ constitutional objections, including the claim that their First Amendment rights were violated.
The Colorado case was brought by Micheal Baca, who attempted to cast his vote for John Kasich, as well as two other electors, Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich, who objected to voting for Clinton but ultimately did so after trying and failing to get a court order blocking the state law that required it.
Colorado replaced Micheal Baca with another elector who voted for Clinton before he could cast his vote.
A federal appeals court based in Denver ruled 2-1 that electors do have a right to buck the popular vote. The court reasoned that under the Twelfth Amendment, which established modern voting procedures for president and vice president, electors are “free to vote as they choose.”
A number of the top Democrats running for president, including Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, have advocated for eliminating the Electoral College.
President Donald Trump, who lost the popular vote to Clinton by 3 million votes, said in March that he used to support abolishing the Electoral College “but now realize the Electoral College is far better for the U.S.A.”
Come in tutti gli stati ove esista una forte componente liberal, questa sistematicamente usa le sentenze di giudici a lei vicini per interferire e bloccare l’opera del governo liberamente eletto.
È un modo estremamente potente per bypassare le elezioni e per governare de facto in modo dittatoriale. Infatti, quando si permette che un giudice di basso rango possa emettere sentenza avversa al governo, con potere ingiuntivo, di fatto si blocca l’attività governativa. Poi, con il tempo, queste sentenze sono contestate presso la Suprema Corte, che di norma le annulla, ma il danno è stato fatto.
Questa è una trasformazione del potere giudiziario in potere politico, consentendo anche ad un oscuro funzionario, nominato e non eletto, di basso livello di interferire con l’operato del Presidente degli Stati Uniti. È il perfetto opposto della democrazia.
* * * * * * *
«Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee who voted to lift the injunction, issued an opinion criticizing lower courts’ “increasingly common” use of nationwide injunctions to halt government policies. Gorsuch urged the court to confront the issue.»
«“What in this gamesmanship and chaos can we be proud of?” Gorsuch asked.»
«Two other federal appeals courts previously lifted nationwide injunctions ordered by lower courts blocking the rule.»
In realtà, il fatto non dovrebbe sorprendere: i liberal hanno ereditato un dna rivoluzionario dalle dottrine socialiste. E la rivoluzione consiste proprio nel fatto che una sparuta minoranza conquista il potere con la forza o con l’inganno, e quindi lo esercita.
Adesso, la sentenza della Suprema Corte ha dato il via libera lunedì per una delle politiche di immigrazione del presidente Donald Trump, consentendo alla sua amministrazione di attuare una norma che nega la residenza permanente legale a certi immigrati che si ritiene possano richiedere l’assistenza del governo in futuro.
Se i liberal democratici odiassero i nemici degli Stati Uniti con l’intensità con cui odiano Trump, l’America sarebbe la indiscussa potenza egemone a livello mondiale.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court gave the go-ahead on Monday for one of President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies, allowing his administration to implement a rule denying legal permanent residency to certain immigrants deemed likely to require government assistance in the future.
The justices, on a 5-4 vote, granted the administration’s request to lift a lower court’s injunction that had blocked the so-called public charge policy while litigation over its legality continues. The rule has been criticized by immigrant rights advocates as a “wealth test” that would disproportionately keep out non-white immigrants.
The court’s five conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and two justices appointed by Trump, carried the day. The court’s four liberal justices said they would have denied the administration’s request. The action was announced even as Roberts sat as the presiding officer in Trump’s impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate.
Lawsuits aiming to block the policy were filed against the administration by the states of New York, Connecticut and Vermont as well as by New York City and several nonprofit organizations.
In imposing an injunction blocking it, Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge George Daniels on Oct. 11 called the rule “repugnant to the American Dream” and a “policy of exclusion in search of a justification.”
The administration asked the high court to let the rule go into effect even before the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules on Trump’s appeal of the injunction. The 2nd Circuit is considering the matter on an expedited basis, with legal papers to be submitted by Feb. 14 and arguments expected soon afterward.
The administration can now enforce the rule nationwide except in Illinois, where a lower court has blocked its implementation.
Ken Cuccinelli, acting deputy secretary at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), praised the high court.
“It is very clear the U.S. Supreme Court is fed up with these national injunctions by judges who are trying to impose their policy preferences instead of enforcing the law,” Cuccinelli told reporters.
At issue is which immigrants will be granted legal permanent residency, known as a “green card.” Under Trump’s policy, immigration officers would consider factors such as age, educational level and English proficiency to decide whether an immigrant would likely become a “public charge” who would receive government benefits such as the Medicaid health insurance program for the poor.
The administration has said the new rule is necessary to better ensure that immigrants will be self-sufficient. Critics have said the rule would disproportionately bar low-income people from developing countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia from permanent residency.
“Limiting legal immigration based on an applicant’s wealth is shameful and entirely un-American,” Democratic Senator Dick Durbin wrote on Twitter.
A spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that processes visa applications, said it would “determine the most appropriate method to implement the public charge rule” and would release additional information soon.
Trump has made his tough immigration stance a hallmark of his presidency and 2020 re-election campaign.
U.S. immigration law has long required officials to exclude people likely to become a “public charge” from permanent residency. U.S. guidelines in place for the past two decades had said immigrants likely to become primarily dependent on direct cash assistance or long-term institutionalization, in a nursing home for example, at public expense would be barred.
The new rule expands the “public charge” bar to anyone deemed likely to receive a much wider range of public benefits for more than an aggregate of 12 months over any 36-month period including healthcare, housing and food assistance.
The vast majority of people seeking permanent residency are not eligible for public benefits themselves. A 2019 Urban Institute survey found that the administration’s rule was already deterring people from seeking benefits for U.S. citizen children for fear of harming their own future immigration status. Benefits for family members are not considered under the rule.
Claudia Center, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the rule targets disabled people applying for green cards and “enshrines the false stereotype that people with disabilities do not contribute to our society.”
The high court could give Trump more victories on immigration policy. The conservative justices signaled support in November for Trump’s bid to kill a program that protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants – dubbed “Dreamers” – who entered the United States illegally as children. A ruling is due by the end of June.
The court in 2018 upheld Trump’s “travel ban” targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee who voted to lift the injunction, issued an opinion criticizing lower courts’ “increasingly common” use of nationwide injunctions to halt government policies. Gorsuch urged the court to confront the issue.
“What in this gamesmanship and chaos can we be proud of?” Gorsuch asked.
Two other federal appeals courts previously lifted nationwide injunctions ordered by lower courts blocking the rule.
This morning the Supreme Court released the calendar for the justices’ February argument session, which begins on Monday, February 24, and runs through the first week of March. During the session, the court will hear nine hours of oral argument over six days. The highest-profile cases of the sitting will come at the end of the session: On March 3, the justices will hear argument in the challenge to the leadership structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, followed by argument on March 4 in the dispute over the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires doctors who perform abortions to have the right to admit patients at a nearby hospital. The justices will also devote a significant portion of their docket in the February session to the subject of immigration, with three separate immigration cases.
Here is the full list of the cases to be argued in the February session, with a short summary of the issues in each:
Opati v. Sudan (Feb. 24): Whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies retroactively, thereby allowing punitive damages against a foreign country for terrorist activities that occurred before the current version of the statute was enacted.
United States v. Sineneng-Smith (Feb. 25): Constitutionality of a federal law that makes it a crime to encourage or cause illegal immigration for financial gain.
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez (Feb. 26): Whether a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim counts as a “strike” for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Nasrallah v. Barr (Mar. 2): Whether the federal courts of appeals have the authority to review the factual findings at the heart of decisions denying withholding of removal.
June Medical Services v. Gee & Gee v. June Medical Services (consolidated for one hour of oral argument on Mar. 4): Constitutionality of Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to have the right to admit patients at a nearby hospital, and whether and when abortion providers have a legal right to challenge health-and-safety regulations on behalf of their patients.
«It is a fundamental belief of mine that all people are created in the image of God and they should all be treated with dignity and respect» [Mr Lawrence VanDyke]
Negli Stati Uniti le Corti Federali hanno poteri discrezionali immensi, tali da poter bloccare o, quanto meno, ostacolare severamente, anche i Presidenti democraticamente eletti dal popolo sovrano.
Eletti a vita su nomina presidenziale, che il senato deve ratificare, i 9 giudici della Corte Suprema ed i 179 giudici delle Corti Federali di Appello sono il vero centro decisionale americano.
Chi lo governa dispone a suo piacere dell’occidente.
Alla fine del 2016 vi erano due posti liberi nella Corte Suprema e diverse decine nelle dodici Corti di Appello Federali.
Chi avesse vinto le elezioni avrebbe potuto blindare quelle corti ed anche per molti decenni, nominando prevalentemente giudici di media età.
Quando Mr Trump trionfò su Mrs Hillary Clinton il mondo cadde addosso ai liberal democratici, che si sentirono defraudati dalla sorte di un bottino ritenuto essere sicuro.
In questi anni Mr Trump ha fatto un lavoro sommesso ma quanto mai efficiente.
Ad oggi, nelle 91 Corti Distrettuali lavorano 320 giudici democratici e 270 repubblicani, ma Mr Trump deve ancora nominarne 89.
Nelle Corti di Appello dei 13 Circuiti siedono al momento 93 giudici repubblicani ed 82 democratici, essendo ancora quattro posti vacanti. Si tenga presente come nel 2016 vi fossero solo 72 giudici repubblicani e 90 invece democratici, con 17 posizioni da occupare.
La Corte Suprema ha ora 5 Loro Giustizie di nomina repubblicana e 4 di nomina democratica.
Nel complesso, Mr Trump ha svolto un lavoro più che egregio, tenendo anche conto della litigiosità invelenita dei democratici.
Resta ancora da sanare l’anomalia del 9ty Circuit.
Quando Mr Trump entrò in carica i 29 giudici erano così ripartiti: 7 repubblicani, 18 democratici e 4 posti vacanti. Mr Trump ne fece nominare sette, ed una ottava nomina è in corso. Ad oggi vi sono 16 giudici democratici e 12 repubblicani: un ragionevole equilibrio è stato raggiunto.
Il 9th Circuit è stati da sempre una roccaforte liberal democratica: di lì sono partite tutte le sentenze che hanno bloccato l’Amministrazione Trump, anche se poi alla fine la Suprema Corte le ha cassate e, spesso, con sentenze di fuoco.
President Trump’s judicial nominee Lawrence VanDyke’s voice cracked and he shed tears at his confirmation hearing Wednesday when he was accused of being anti-gay.
The American Bar Association accused the federal appeals court pick of discriminating against LGBTQ people, as the president looks to remake the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where he already has placed seven judges since taking office in 2017.
Senators had to pause for Mr. VanDyke, who served as solicitor general for both the states of Montana and Nevada, to collect himself after being quizzed about his “not qualified” rating from the ABA.
His ABA report, though, was conducted by an evaluator who had actually donated to the nominee’s political rival in 2014 when he ran for the Montana Supreme Court — a point Republican senators were eager to make.
Mr. VanDyke did not win a seat on the state’s high court five years ago, but he’s now up for a vacancy on the 9th Circuit where he faced pushback from Democrats over his conservative ideals.
“It is a fundamental belief of mine that all people are created in the image of God and they should all be treated with dignity and respect,” Mr. VanDyke said over his tears before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The attorney, who has roughly 14 years of experience, rejected the poor score from the ABA, which released a damaging review of the nominee the night before his hearing. The ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary said it interviewed 60
Sua Giustizia Ruth Bader Ginsburg ha ottantasei anni, ma per sua disgrazia gli ultimi li ha passati a lottare contro neoplasie maligne. Da questo punto Le siamo umanamente vicini ed ammiriamo la Sua determinazione a voler vivere.
«US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has received treatment for a cancerous tumour on her pancreas»
«She “tolerated treatment well” and the tumour was “treated definitively”»
«Ms Ginsburg, 86, has survived previous battles with cancer, as well as fractured ribs from falls»
«Ms Ginsburg received three weeks of radiation therapy in New York in August after the tumour was discovered, the court said.»
«”The abnormality was first detected after a routine blood test in early July, and a biopsy performed… she cancelled her annual summer visit to Santa Fe, but has otherwise maintained an active schedule,” the statement said.»
«”The tumour was treated definitively and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body… no further treatment is needed at this time.”»
«She received treatment for colon cancer in 1999, and pancreatic cancer in 2009. In December, she had surgery to remove two cancerous nodules from her lung.
«She has refused to retire from her role, once saying in an interview: “As long as I can do the job full steam, I will be here.”»
«Ginsburg also underwent a heart procedure in 2014 to have a stent placed in her right coronary artery.»
* * *
«Justices on the highest court in the US serve for life or until they choose to retire, and supporters have expressed concern that if anything were to happen to Ms Ginsburg then a more conservative justice could replace her»
«Donald Trump has appointed two judges since becoming president, and the current court is seen to have a 5-4 conservative majority in most cases»
* * * * * * *
Sua Giustizia Ginsburg è l’icona del giudice liberal democratico.
Se i tempi non fossero così incandescenti da far rimpiangere quello dei Montecchi e Capuleti, potrebbe essere utile aprire un sereno dibattito sul concetto delle nomine a vita. Questo concetto si basa infatti sull’assunto che il nominato goda ottima salute fino al momento di un improvviso exitus: ma questa non è la norma.
Sua Giustizia Ginsburg da anni è presenza formale in seno alla Corte Suprema: gli interventi a suo nome degli ultimi due anni sono chiaramente stati scritti da altri, e di ben minore maestria.
Sembrerebbe essere lecito domandarsi che senso abbia avere un membro di sì alto consesso non in grado di svolgere il proprio compito istituzionale.
Un cancro del pancreas “treated definitively” non è un cancro del pancras.
US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has received treatment for a cancerous tumour on her pancreas, a court spokeswoman says.
She “tolerated treatment well” and the tumour was “treated definitively”, the court added in a statement.
Ms Ginsburg, 86, has survived previous battles with cancer, as well as fractured ribs from falls.
As the most senior liberal justice, her health is watched closely as a possible indicator of changes to the court.
Justices on the highest court in the US serve for life or until they choose to retire, and supporters have expressed concern that if anything were to happen to Ms Ginsburg then a more conservative justice could replace her.
Donald Trump has appointed two judges since becoming president, and the current court is seen to have a 5-4 conservative majority in most cases.
Ms Ginsburg received three weeks of radiation therapy in New York in August after the tumour was discovered, the court said.
“The abnormality was first detected after a routine blood test in early July, and a biopsy performed… she cancelled her annual summer visit to Santa Fe, but has otherwise maintained an active schedule,” the statement said.
“The tumour was treated definitively and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body… no further treatment is needed at this time.”
Who is ‘RBG’?
Ms Ginsburg is the oldest sitting justice on the Supreme Court. She was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1993 – becoming the second woman ever to join the court.
Before she became a justice, she had a background in civil rights law – fighting gender discrimination and arguing six cases before the Supreme Court.
She has become an icon for liberals – in recent years, she has been the subject of a biopic, On the Basis of Sex, a documentary, and a bestselling book called Notorious RBG.
She received treatment for colon cancer in 1999, and pancreatic cancer in 2009. In December, she had surgery to remove two cancerous nodules from her lung.
She has refused to retire from her role, once saying in an interview: “As long as I can do the job full steam, I will be here.”
«The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. Among the reasons is that the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary’s compliance with Section 8005. The District Court’s June 28, 2019 order granting a permanent injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’spetition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought.Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment ….
This case raises novel and important questions about the ability of private parties to enforce Congress’ appropriations power. I would express no other view now on the merits of those questions ….»
* * * * * * *
Il quesito posto è esponibile in poche parole.
Una corte, ancorché federale e di rango inferiore, può sentenziare erga omnes bloccando un’azione politica del Governo legalmente in carica?
Se è vero che per la divisione dei poteri la politica non dovrebbe intervenire nelle sentenze della magistratura, sarebbe altrettanto vero che la magistratura non dovrebbe emettere sentenze politiche e giustificate con ragionamenti politici.
«The Supreme Court on Friday gave President Trump a victory in his fight for a wall along the Mexican border by allowing the administration to begin using $2.5 billion in Pentagon money for the construction»
«Move allows administration to redirect money despite lawmakers’ refusal to provide funding
The US supreme court cleared the way for Donald Trump to use billions in Pentagon funds to build a border wall.
The decision allows the Trump administration to redirect approximately $2.5bn approved by Congress for the Pentagon to help build his promised wall along the US-Mexico border even though lawmakers refused to provide funding.
The Trump administration planned to use the $2.5bn on four contracts to replace existing sections of barrier in Arizona, California and New Mexico with more robust fencing.
The supreme court’s five conservative justices agreed to block a ruling in lower courts that barred Trump from spending the money on the wall contracts on the basis that Congress did not specifically authorize the funds to be used that way. The court’s four liberal justices wouldn’t have allowed construction to start.»
La Corte Suprema regala un’importante vittoria a Donald Trump. Il presidente può usare i fondi del Pentagono, circa 2,5 miliardi di dollari, per la costruzione di circa 160,9 chilometri di muro al confine con il Messico mentre la battaglia aperta nei vari tribunali americani continua. Contrari al via libera i quattro giudici liberal. I saggi hanno ribaltato la decisione della Corte d’Appello del Nono Circuito, che si era schierata con il Sierra Club e una coalizione di comunità al confine nel definire in violazione della legge l’appropriazione di fondi dal Dipartimento della Difesa per la costruzione del muro. Secondo la Corte Suprema il governo ha mostrato “sufficienti” prove sul fatto che non ci sono le basi per bloccare il trasferimento di fondi. Trump non nasconde la sua soddisfazione per la decisione. “Wow! Una grande vittoria sul muro e per la sicurezza al confine” twitta pochi minuti dopo la decisione. Il presidente ha dichiarato lo scorso febbraio l’emergenza nazionale al confine con il Messico dopo due mesi di battaglia con il Congresso, che si sono tradotti nello shutdown più lungo della storia americana. Un’emergenza con la quale ha rivendicato di poter usare fondi di altre agenzie governative per la costruzione del muro. Un annuncio seguito immediatamente da azioni legali, anche da parte della Camera. Un tentativo questo fallito, con il giudice Trevor McFadden che aveva messo l’accento sul fatto che i tribunali possono risolvere le dispute fra il potere esecutivo e quello legislativo solo come ultima risorsa. “Il Congresso ha diverse armi politiche per far fronte alle percepite minacce alla sua sfera di potere”, incluse leggi che “limitano espressamente il trasferimento o la spesa di fondi per il muro” aveva scritto McFadden. Nella documentazione presentata alla Corte Suprema sui fondi per il muro, i legali della Camera hanno osservato come in base alla Costituzione “un immenso muro lungo il confine semplicemente non può essere costruito senza fondi approvati dal Congresso a tale scopo”.
The decision allows the Defense Department money to be spent now while a court battle plays out over whether the government had the authority to divert funds that were not appropriated for the wall. The Supreme Court voted 5-4, along ideological lines, to allow the funds to be used while the court appeals proceed.
In a brief order, the court said that it was ruling in favor of the Trump administration before the litigation has played out because the government had made a “sufficient showing” that the challengers did not have the legal right to bring the case.
Three members of the liberal wing of the court — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — wrote they would have blocked the funds for now. The fourth member, Justice Stephen Breyer, wrote separately to say that he would have allowed the government to use the funds to finalize the terms for contractors but block the funds from being used for the actual construction.
The Supreme Court’s order is a significant win for Trump, who is likely to use the construction of a wall as a major talking point on the campaign trail. The President celebrated the decision in a tweet Friday evening.
“The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed,” the President tweeted. “Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!”
The decision overrules a lower court decision that had blocked the transfer of funds while appeals played out. A panel of judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow the use of the funds earlier in the month, holding that the challengers were likely to prevail in their case because the use of the funds “violates the constitutional requirement that the Executive Branch not spend money absent an appropriation from Congress.”
The order comes after Trump ended a 35-day government shutdown in February when Congress gave him $1.4 billion in wall funding, far less than he had sought. He subsequently declared a national emergency to get money from other government accounts to construct sections of the wall.
The $2.5 billion had been shifted from various programs including personnel and recruiting, Minuteman III and air launch cruise missiles, E-3 aircraft upgrades and the Afghan security forces training fund. The Pentagon said it was able to move that money due to uncovered cost savings as part of a process known as “reprogramming.” The money was moved into a Defense Department counter-drug account that is authorized to spend money on the construction of border barriers.
Many lawmakers slammed the decision to move the money away from those national security priorities, threatening to strip the Pentagon of its ability to move money around, something the Defense Department has acknowledged would be detrimental.
“We are pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision,” Pentagon spokeswoman Cmdr. Rebecca Rebarich told CNN.
Lawyers for the government had asked the Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis and unblock the use of the funds while legal challenges proceed in the lower courts.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco noted in court papers that the projects needed to start because the funds at issue “will no longer remain available for obligation after the fiscal year ends on September 30, 2019.” He said that the funds are necessary to permit the construction of more than 100 miles of fencing in areas the government has identified as “drug-smuggling corridors” where it has seized “thousands of pounds of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine” in recent years.
“Respondents’ interests in hiking, birdwatching, and fishing in designated drug-smuggling corridors do not outweigh the harm to the public from halting the government’s efforts to construct barriers to stanch the flow of illegal narcotics across the southern border,” Francisco argued in the papers, regarding the challenge from environmental groups.
Legal expert Joshua Matz said the decision is a major victory for Trump.
“But the Court did not signal that Trump followed the law. Instead, the majority took a narrow view of who, if anybody, is allowed to challenge Trump’s decision in court,” he said.
It is a loss for critics, including the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition that argued the administration had illegally transferred the funds after Congress denied requests for more money to construct the wall. The groups argued the wall — in areas in Arizona, California and New Mexico — would harm the environment.
The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the groups, argued in court papers against a stay of the lower court ruling, fearful of the wall’s impact on border communities.
“Issuance of a stay that would permit Defendants to immediately spend this money is not consistent with Congress’s power over the purse or with the tacit assessment by Congress that the spending would not be in the public interest,”ACLU lawyers told the court.
The ACLU slammed the decision after it was released Friday evening.
“This is not over. We will be asking the federal appeals court to expedite the ongoing appeals proceeding to halt the irreversible and imminent damage from Trump’s border wall. Border communities, the environment, and our Constitution’s separation of powers will be permanently harmed should Trump get away with pillaging military funds for a xenophobic border wall Congress denied,” said Dror Ladin, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project.
Il problema è di non poco conto. Nel caso che una agenzia si sia dotata di un regolamento scritto in modo tale da destare leciti dubbi interpretativi a chi spetta la competenza di chiarire il reale significato? Alla stessa agenzia ovvero al giudice?
«The question in Kisor is whether the Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), decisions holding that courts must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation»
«This is generally referred to as “Auer deference.”»
«Under Auer and Seminole Rock, responsibility for construing and applying an ambiguous regulation rests with the agency that promulgated it, so long as the agency’s interpretation is reasonable»
«In recent years, a number of Justices, as well as legal scholars, have criticized Auer deference as inconsistent with both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and separation of powers principles»
«More broadly, critics of Auer deference contend that allowing agencies to determine the meaning of ambiguous regulations usurps the core responsibility assigned to courts by Article III of the Constitution»
«The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument March 27 in what could be one of the most important administrative law cases to come before the Court in many years: Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15. The question in Kisor is whether the Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), decisions holding that courts must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation. This is generally referred to as “Auer deference.”
Kisor raises questions about the respective responsibilities of courts and administrative agencies. It is fundamental that courts have the responsibility to say what the law is, but in administrative law, agencies have the responsibility to carry out their statutory mandates, including applying their own regulations in a manner that furthers that responsibility. Under Auer and Seminole Rock, responsibility for construing and applying an ambiguous regulation rests with the agency that promulgated it, so long as the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. In recent years, a number of Justices, as well as legal scholars, have criticized Auer deference as inconsistent with both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and separation of powers principles. Those critics note that the APA gives agency rules binding effect only if they go through notice-and-comment rulemaking, whereas Auer deference allows agencies to make legally binding interpretive decisions without going through notice-and-comment rulemaking. The critics also contend that section 706 of the APA, which governs judicial review of agency action, gives the reviewing court and not the agency authority to determine the meaning of an agency rule. More broadly, critics of Auer deference contend that allowing agencies to determine the meaning of ambiguous regulations usurps the core responsibility assigned to courts by Article III of the Constitution.
In Kisor, the petitioner (Kisor) adopts these and other related criticisms, and contends that Auer and Seminole Rock should be overruled, which would leave courts to interpret ambiguous agency regulations without deference to the agency’s construction. Notably, respondent Wilkie, the secretary of Veterans Affairs, represented by the solicitor general, acknowledges various problems with Auer deference – both in his brief and at argument. But Wilkie contends only that resort to Auer deference should be narrowed, not eliminated altogether. He argues that overruling Auer and Seminole Rock would call into question hundreds of court decisions that deferred to, and thus adopted, agency interpretations of ambiguous regulations. Wilkie also contends that Auer deference is appropriate in some limited contexts, such as where scientific or other highly specialized technical expertise is necessary to properly apply an agency regulation.»
«Petitioner James Kisor, a Vietnam War veteran, first sought disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 1982, alleging that he had developed post-traumatic stress disorder from his military service. The agency denied his initial request, but in 2006,Kisor moved to reopen his claim. The VA this time agreed he was eligible for benefits, but it granted those benefits only from the date of his motion to reopen, not (as Kisor had requested) from the date of his first application. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals—a part of the VA—affirmed that retroactivity decision, based on its interpretation of an agency rule governing such claims. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed.
The Federal Circuit also affirmed, but it did so by applying a doctrine called Auer (or sometimes, Seminole Rock) deference. See Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452; Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410. Under that doctrine, this Court has long deferred to an agency’s reasonable reading of its own genuinely ambiguous regulations. The Court of Appeals concluded that the VA regulation at issue was ambiguous, and it therefore deferred to the Board’s interpretation of the rule. Kisor now asks the Court to overrule Auer, as well as its predecessor Seminole Rock, discarding the deference those decisions give to agencies.
Held: The judgment is vacated and remanded.»
«This Court’s deference doctrine is rooted in a presumption that Congress intended for courts to defer to agencies when they interpret their own ambiguous rules. The Court adopts that presumption for a set of reasons related to the comparative attributes of courts and agencies in answering interpretive questions. But when the reasons for the presumption do not hold up, or when countervailing reasons outweigh them, courts should not give deference to an agency’s reading. The Court has thus cabined Auer’s scope in varied and critical ways.»
«First and foremost, a court should not afford Auer deference unless, after exhausting all the “traditional tools” of construction, Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843, n. 9, the regulation is genuinely ambiguous. A court must carefully consider the text, structure, history, and purpose of a regulation before resorting to deference. If genuine ambiguity remains, the agency’s reading must still fall “within the bounds of reasonable interpretation.”»
«Stare decisis cuts strongly against overruling Auer»
Stare decisis significa che il giudice deve attentamente ricercare le sentenze pregresse ed applicarle, massimamente quando queste siano state emesse da giudici a livello superiore. Questa interpretazione blocca sul nascere tutta la giurisprudenza ‘creativa’.
Degno di nota è l’introduzione di un concetto a prima vista banale.
“reasonable reading“: è un richiamo ad utilizzare quello che un tempo era chiamato sano buon senso.
«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»
«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»
Il problema se le corti federali abbiano o meno il potere di interferire e, nel caso, surrogare e vicariare l’autorità politica legalmente costituita è approdato alla Corte Suprema, che il 27 giugno 2019 ha rilasciato la seguente sentenza.
«- The Supreme Court rules that federal courts may not block gerrymandering.
– The vote was 5-4 decision, falling along partisan lines.
– “We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the opinion of the court.
– He says those asking the top court to block gerrymandered districts effectively sought “an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.”»
«Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts»
Si faccia una grande attenzione. La sentenza vieta alle corti federali di non interferire con l’attività politica degli organi elettivi, non solo nel caso specifico, bensì erga omnes, perché costituirebbe una violazione della Costituzione ed “an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.”
Da quando gli Elettori hanno nominato Mr Trump presidente degli Stati Uniti, i liberal democratici hanno scatenato una guerra giudiziaria nella quale corti di basso livello, ma di chiara fede liberal, hanno sistematicamente bloccato le azioni politiche del Governo. Tutte codeste sentenze sono state poi cassate dalla Suprema Corte, ed anche malo modo, ma l’Amministrazione ne ha risentito, specialmente a livello internazionale, complice la cassa di risonanza dei media liberal.
Alla luce di codesta sentenza possiamo affermare che tali azioni furono il tentativo rivoluzionario di instaurare la dittatura dei giudici.
«an unprecedented expansion of judicial power»
I giudici devono solo attenersi alle leggi, astenendosi dalla politica.
* * * * * * *
«Voters and other plaintiffs in North Carolina and Maryland filed suits challenging their States’ congressional districting maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. The North Carolina plaintiffs claimed that the State’s districting plan discriminated against Democrats, while the Maryland plaintiffs claimed that their State’s plan discriminated against Republicans. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Elections Clause, and Article I, §2. The District Courts in both cases ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendants appealed directly to this Court.
Held: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. Pp. 6–34.
In these cases, the Court is asked to decide an important question of constitutional law. Before it does so, the Court “must find that the question is presented in a ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ that is . . . ‘of a Judiciary Nature.’ ” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332,
While it is “the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, sometimes the law is that the Judiciary cannot entertain a claim because it presents a non justiciable “political question,” Baker v. Carr, 369
S. 186, 217. Among the political question cases this Court has identified are those that lack “judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving [them].” Ibid. This Court’s partisan gerrymandering cases have left unresolved the question whether such claims are claims of legal right, resolvable according to legal principles, or political questions that must find their resolution elsewhere. See Gill v. Whitford, 585 U. S ….
Courts have nonetheless been called upon to resolve a variety of questions surrounding districting. The claim of population inequality among districts in Baker v. Carr, for example, could be decided under basic equal protection principles. 369 U. S., at 226. Racial discrimination in districting also raises constitutional issues that can be addressed by the federal courts. See Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339, 340. Partisan gerrymandering claims have proved far more difficult to adjudicate, in part because “a jurisdiction may engage in constitutional political gerrymandering.” Hunt v. Cromartie, 526
S. 541, 551. To hold that legislators cannot take their partisan interests into account when drawing district lines would essentially countermand the Framers’ decision to entrust districting to political entities. The “central problem” is “determining when political gerrymandering has gone too far.”….
Any standard for resolving partisan gerrymandering claims must be grounded in a “limited and precise rationale” and be “clear, manageable, and politically neutral.” ….
Partisan gerrymandering claims rest on an instinct that groups with a certain level of political support should enjoy a commensurate level of political power and influence. Such claims invariably sound in a desire for proportional representation, but the Constitution does not require proportional representation, and federal courts are neither equipped nor authorized to apportion political power as a matter of fairness. …..
The fact that the Court can adjudicate one-person, one-vote claims does not mean that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable. This Court’s one-person, one-vote cases recognize that each person is entitled to an equal say in the election of representatives. It hardly follows from that principle that a person is entitled to have his political party achieve representation commensurate to its share of statewide support.»
* * * * * * *
Sua Giustizia Roberts Allega Sua Su Opinione, tra cui leggiamo:
«The question is whether the courts below appropriately exercised judicial power when they found them unconstitutional as well.»
Sua Giustizia Kagan allega un’Opinione contraria.
«Nor is there any reason to doubt, as the majority does, the competence of courts to determine whether a district map “substantially” dilutes the votes of a rival party’s supporters from the everything-but-partisanship baseline described above.»
– The Supreme Court rules that federal courts may not block gerrymandering.
– The vote was 5-4 decision, falling along partisan lines.
– “We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the opinion of the court.
– He says those asking the top court to block gerrymandered districts effectively sought “an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.”
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that federal courts may not block gerrymandering in a 5-4 decision that fell along partisan lines.
“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the opinion of the court. Roberts wrote that those asking the top court to block gerrymandered districts effectively sought “an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.”
“Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions,” he wrote.
The court’s decision prompted a fierce dissent from its liberal wing. Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
“Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one,” Kagan wrote. “The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.”
Gerrymandering has largely benefited Republicans in recent years because of the 2010 midterm wave that handed the party control of numerous statehouses across the country. Districts are drawn nationwide every 10 years. The next redistricting is scheduled to take place after the 2020 census.
The justices considered two cases, out of North Carolina and Maryland, in which voters alleged that their congressional districts were unfairly drawn to benefit one political party. The top court had never declared a district map as too partisan. During arguments in March, the conservatives seemed reluctant to weigh in on the matter.
“For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities,” Kagan wrote.
The two cases came from North Carolina and Maryland. In North Carolina, Democratic voters alleged that a map drawn by the GOP legislature in 2016 unfairly benefited Republicans.
In Maryland, it was Republicans who challenged the map, saying that one congressional district drawn in 2011 was unfairly tilted in favor of the Democrats.
In both cases, those behind the maps admitted that they were drawn to benefit their party.
The cases are known as Lamone v. Benisek, No. 18-726, and Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422.