[ad_1]
There is no doubt that there will be a royal battle in the coming months between Republicans and Democrats in the US Senate regarding the confirmation of President Trump's choice of a judge's successor-in-waiting Anthony Kennedy. If anyone doubted the importance of each person who sits on the US Supreme Court, there was a lesson in each of the three decisions 5-4 that the High Court issued in the last days of his term. Last week
In perhaps the most famous case, the court confirmed, by the narrowest majority, the executive order of President Trump limiting the travel of some Muslim majority countries. The key parties to the ruling said that a president has broad powers over immigration based on an almost absolute delegation of congressional authority and that courts should not look beyond the text of the law. a presidential exercise of this power to find a constitutional violation as long as the exercise was neutral on his face – regardless of anything that a president could say or intimate publicly.
Having decided otherwise would have been to invite the courts to question all presidential actions. In this case, national security was involved. But the invitation would have necessarily been broad, paving the way for constant recourse to the courts rather than to the electoral process.
In a second case, the Supreme Court, still by the narrowest of margins, said that state governments could not force public employees who do not join unions to pay fees that fund collective bargaining for the benefit of union members and non-members. In addition to objecting to their actual embezzlement, some employees were reluctant to be forced to contribute to causes that they did not support (public sector unions are the main backers of candidates from local Democratic parties). ). The Court stated that the current practice violates the rights to freedom of expression of non-union members.
In the third, and somewhat similar, case, the Court, by a vote of 5 or 4, ruled that seeking to persuade women to choose parenthood or adoption (rather than abortion) ), a state government can not force them to provide women who come to them with information on how to terminate their pregnancies
composed of conservative members of the Court and the minority of its liberal members . A change of one would have changed the outcome and, we could add – at the risk of a hyperbole – the kind of country in which we live. If the next battle of confirmation results in the strengthening of the conservative majority, the effects will be felt for a generation.
[ad_2]
Source link
