By nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Saturday to replace the late liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Donald Trump unquestionably has chosen a committed conservative jurist.In announcing his choice in the White House Rose Garden, Trump described Barrett as “one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds,” a woman with sterling credentials and “unyielding loyalty to the Constitution.”A one-time protégé of Antonin Scalia, the late conservative icon on the high court who opposed abortion and gay marriage, Barrett, more than Trump’s two earlier Supreme Court appointments — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — is expected to push the bench much further to the right by creating a new 6-3 conservative-liberal split.That much most legal and political expert agree on.What no one can predict with any certainty is how she’ll vote on hot-button social and economic issues that are likely to come up before the court and determine the rights and freedoms of millions of Americans – including the fate of the Affordable Care Act that currently insures more than 20 million people amid the worst pandemic in over a century.During her confirmation hearing for a seat on a federal appeals court in 2017, Barrett faced two broad questions — whether she can separate her Catholic faith from her decision-making on the court, and whether she will she accept court precedent on abortion, LGBTQ rights and other issues that might be at odds with her understanding of the Constitution.Those questions will likely dominate her confirmation hearing, which reportedly could begin as soon as October 12, and shed light on how she might come down on key issues before the high court.Catholic faith versus jurisprudenceBarrett, 48, is a devout Catholic and the mother of seven children. Her Catholic faith came up during her 2017 confirmation hearing for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Democrats suggested that her religious beliefs on abortion and same-sex marriage would influence how she votes on those issues on the court.She sought to reassure the lawmakers that she would not allow her faith to affect her vote on the federal bench. “It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law,” she said.She also said that she would follow all Supreme Court precedents “without fail” and would regard decisions such as Roe v Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortions, as binding precedent.Democrats were not persuaded.“I can’t tell you how many nominees have been before this panel . . . and virtually all say the same,” Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island said. “‘I’m following the precedent, I’m following the law, I’m following the Constitution. Don’t worry a thing about who I am. How I was raised. What my religion is. What my life experience has been. Put it all aside.’ I don’t believe that for a second.”Today many critics, including Senate Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and liberal advocacy groups, harbor similar doubts about her professed impartiality.“I think her viewpoint would ensure that people who share her ideas about religion would be dominant,” said Caroline Fredrickson, a former president of the left-leaning American Constitution Center who now teaches law at Georgetown University.Her defenders say Barrett is committed to keeping her religious beliefs and jurisprudence separate.“There’s no doubt that Judge Barrett is conservative,” said Andrew Hessick, a University of North Carolina professor who endorsed Barrett’s appellate nomination in 2017. “I think it’s important to separate out the claim that she’s conservative and that she is looking to impose her religious views on the world.”Where she stands on precedentPrecedent, or deference to past court decisions, is a bedrock principle of American jurisprudence. Lower courts are bound by precedents set by the Supreme Court and the high court often upholds its own precedent.However, the Supreme Court sometimes reverses past decisions, and in her scholarly writings and speeches over the years, Barrett has stressed that stare decisis — the legal principle of following precedent — is not an absolute principle.“There is a time when cases should be overruled and errors corrected,” she said on a panel at the Federalist Society, a highly influential organization of conservatives and libertarians that advises the Trump White House on judicial nominations.In a 2013 law journal article, Barret singled out the type of precedents that could potentially be overturned, drawing a distinction between Supreme Court decisions that serve as simple precedent and so-called “super-precedents” – cases that “no justice would overrule.”Among super precedents, she cited Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 Supreme Court ruling that ended racial segregation in public schools, but not Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. In 2017, she declined to say whether the 2015 Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage qualified as a “super-precedent.”That worries LGBTQ rights advocates.“She is on record as saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman which indicates to us that she is hostile to the Obergefell ruling and could potentially seek to undermine or overturn it,” said Kevin Jennings, president of Lambda Legal, the largest LBGTQ rights legal advocacy organization in the country. He was referring to the 2015 Obergefell v Hodges court ruling recognizing same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.Hessick said Barrett’s stance on precedent is “a little bit more aggressive” than other jurists’.“She’s written multiple articles saying that there are good reasons to allow litigants to challenge precedent and for courts to reconsider precedent, that It’s important to get it right,” Hessick said.On the other hand, just because a decision is not considered a super-precedent, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will be overturned, Hessick added. “It just means that there’s less restriction on overturning it, that judges should be more willing to re-examine it.”However, while Roe v. Wade is unlikely to be overturned anytime soon despite a fervent campaign by religious groups, Obergefell may be more at risk.“It’s a very important decision, but it’s a recent decision,” Hessick said. “And I think that that probably opens the door for some people to think that it’s more amenable to a challenge than some of the precedents that have been around for a really long time.”Another major issue whose outcome Barrett could influence is the Affordable Care Act. On November 10 — a week after the presidential election — the court is set to hear oral arguments in the latest case challenging the program.As a professor at Notre Dame in 2012, Barrett signed a protest statement denouncing Obamacare, saying a religious exemption from the law’s contraceptive coverage mandate “changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty.”Later, Barret criticized a high court decision upholding the law, taking Chief Justice John Roberts to task for construing as a tax Obamacare’s penalty on individuals lacking health insurance coverage.Ultimately, court watchers say there is no way to know with certainty how she’ll vote on hot-button issues. Justices evolve over time and sometimes break ranks with their ideological cohorts.Going back to the 1950s, a number of Republican justices have gone on to embrace liberal positions much to the chagrin of many on the right.“I don’t know if anyone could have predicted the way Chief Justice Roberts has been voting or the way Justice [Anthony] Kennedy voted in his later years or go back to Chief Justice [Earl] Warren, who Eisenhower apparently said was his worst decision as president,” said Saikrishna Prakash, a University of Virginia law professor who endorsed Barrett three years ago.During her three years on the federal bench, Barrett, according to her defenders, has demonstrated her independence as a jurist. While she has ruled in favor of the Trump administration in two immigration cases and backed restrictions on abortion in two other cases, Barrett has also rejected a police officer’s claim of immunity and a Republican Party challenge to the Illinois governor’s coronavirus pandemic economic and social limits. 
…

читати більше »

President Donald Trump’s continued attacks on the legitimacy of voting by mail and refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power has raised concerns that a bitterly contested presidential election in November could provoke a constitutional crisis.Experts predict nearly 80 million people will vote by mail this year, and recent polling indicates that nearly twice as many Democrats as Republicans will send in absentee ballots.Trump, who is trailing in national presidential polls, has repeatedly – and without evidence – denounced mail-in voting as fraudulent and a scam. Many states have expanded absentee voting during the coronavirus pandemic to reduce the potential for spreading the highly contagious and deadly disease.In particular, the president has been critical of states that proactively sent mail-in ballots to all registered voters, even those that did not request one.Twice last week, Trump refused to commit to the peaceful transfer of power if he loses the election, citing concerns over the legitimacy of mail-in ballots.”We are going to have to see what happens. You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster,” said Trump during a news conference on Thursday.Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said he was not surprised by Trump’s equivocation on ensuring a peaceful democratic transition. “Look, he says the most irrational things,” Biden told reporters Wednesday evening. “I don’t know what to say about it. But it doesn’t surprise me.”U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other top Republicans on Thursday reiterated their support for the democratic principle of peaceful transition, without directly criticizing the president.Rejection rateAnalysts note that while there is no evidence of widespread vote-by-mail fraud as the president has alleged, mail-in ballots do have a higher rejection rate, mostly because voters fail to fill them out properly.Also there have been cases of ballots getting lost in the mail, and as happened during this year’s primary elections in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, some states experienced long delays in counting the surge of mail-in ballots.“The more you encourage people to vote by mail, the larger the number of people who will be disenfranchised and their votes aren’t going to count,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commissioner, now with the Republican leaning Heritage Foundation.Von Spakovsky also raises security concerns over mail-in ballots, that they could be intercepted and altered, or that polling staff may not properly check that ballot signatures match the registration signatures on file.Supreme CourtTrump predicts there could be legal challenges to the ballot count that would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. This is one reason he has cited for his intention to nominate a replacement for recently deceased liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the election.In the closely contested 2000 presidential election, the Supreme Court ruled on a vote recount dispute in Florida that essentially provided Republican George W. Bush a victory over former Democratic Vice President Al Gore by one electoral vote.Gore then conceded, saying it was for the good of the country, despite winning the overall popular vote.The Supreme Court’s role this year in all of this – if any – remains to be seen.“Hopefully we won’t be in a situation in which we’re asking justices to rule on a case that will decide the outcome of the election. I think that would be very problematic for democracy,” said Sam Berger, a Democratic political analyst at the Center for American Progress.Red MirageOne contested election scenario called the Red Mirage or Blue Shift could sow doubt over the legitimacy of the election and lead to legal challenges to mail-in voting.A Democratic polling firm called Hawkfish projected that because the mostly Democratic mail-in ballots could take days longer to tabulate than in-person voting, Trump may take the lead on election night, but eventually lose to Biden as absentee ballots are counted.Democrats reportedly fear Trump would claim victory early and refuse to later concede by challenging the legality of mail-in ballots.Also, according to a report last week in The Atlantic, the Trump campaign, citing possible vote-by-mail fraud, is considering asking Republican-controlled state legislators, “to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly.”In the complicated U.S. Electoral College system that gives added weight and influence to smaller, rural states, the popular vote in each state is used to select a slate of electors who pledge to cast their ballots for the winning candidate.Democrats would almost certainly challenge in court any Republican attempts to override the popular vote in Biden’s favor by installing electors pledged to vote for Trump.Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center For Justice at New York University Law School, says there is long established legal precedent, “that made it clear that when it comes to the electoral votes, it’s the voters’ will, not the legislators’ or the tweets of any candidate that decide.”A protracted legal battle over a contested election, analysts fear, could undermine public confidence in the American democratic system and provoke political violence from both right-wing militias and radical leftists. 
…

читати більше »

Платформа з деокупації Криму об’єднуватиме всі заходи, які стосуються Криму, на різних рівнях. Про це проєкту Радіо Свобода Крим.Реаліі розповіла перша заступниці голови Міністерства закордонних справ України Еміне Джеппар.

«Мета Кримської платформи – це винесення теми Криму на найвищий міжнародний, політичний рівень. Ця платформа буде охоплювати кілька рівнів. Найвищий – це лідери держав, для яких ми готуємо Кримський саміт. Зараз важко говорити, чи можна буде його провести фізично (через пандемію COVID-19 – ред.)», – сказала Джеппар.

За її словами, МЗС планує провести саміт 26 лютого, в День опору Криму російської окупації.

Читайте також: Експрем’єр Японії назвав анексію Криму однією з причин непідписання мирної угоди з Росією

«Наступний рівень – це міністри закордонних справ і міністри оборони. Під цей рівень ми будемо підтягувати різні заходи в рамках НАТО, ЄС, ООН, ОБСЄ, Ради Європи. Це буде екосистема заходів протягом року і це повинні бути системні речі», – каже заступниця міністра.

Напередодні Еміне Джеппар повідомила, що Україна планує запросити Росію до участі в міжнародній платформі з деокупації Криму, але надії на те, що Кремль погодиться, небагато.

 
…

читати більше »

U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, giving him an opportunity to make the court more conservative, 37 days before the November 3 presidential election.”Today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court … Judge Amy Coney Barrett,” Trump said to a gathering in the White House Rose Garden.“This should be a straightforward and prompt confirmation,” he said, urging lawmakers and media to refrain from personal and partisan attacks on Barrett.The president also noted that should Barrett be confirmed, she would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the nation’s highest court.In brief remarks, Barrett praised Ginsburg’s life of service, to women and the court.Trump had promised to nominate a woman to succeed Ginsburg, who died last week at age 87. Barrett, a conservative appeals court judge, had been a front-runner for the seat along with another appeals court judge, Barbara Lagoa, both of whom were appointed by Trump earlier in his administration to the federal bench.The president’s decision to make an appointment ahead of his heated reelection contest with former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden instantly sparked a fierce political battle in Washington, with Senate Republican leaders arguing the confirmation process should proceed as quickly as possible and Democrats contending the nomination should be delayed until the winner of November’s presidential election is known.At stake is the political leaning of the Supreme Court, to which justices are appointed for life. The court had a 5-4 conservative majority before Ginsburg’s death. If a conservative justice is confirmed to replace Ginsburg, the conservative majority could shift to 6-3.President Donald Trump walks along the Colonnade with Judge Amy Coney Barrett to a news conference to announce her as his nominee to the Supreme Court, at the White House, Sept. 26, 2020.Whoever fills Ginsburg’s vacant seat will play a role in making key Supreme Court decisions in the coming years on a range of important issues, likely including abortion rights, health care, gun laws, religious liberty, immigration and freedom of speech.Election Day loomingSenate Republican leaders are planning to move quickly to confirm Trump’s court nominee. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised to confirm the choice by Election Day on November 3.Trump has said that it is important to have a full court on Election Day in case there are legal challenges regarding the vote.“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court,” Trump said Wednesday of the general election, adding, “and I think it’s very important that we have nine justices.”A flurry of election litigation has already begun in states across the country amid an expectation of large increases in mail-in ballots and early voting brought on by the coronavirus pandemic.Judge Amy Coney Barrett reacts as President Donald Trump announces her as his nominee to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat, at the White House in Washington, Sept. 26, 2020.Support for BarrettBarrett has drawn wide support from the conservative legal establishment in the United States.She is a 48-year-old devout Catholic who is very popular among conservative evangelical Christians, arguably Trump’s most loyal supporters.Barrett taught law at the University of Notre Dame, one of the most prominent U.S. Catholic universities, for 15 years before Trump named her in 2017 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which covers the states of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.Religious conservatives hope Barrett would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion rights in the United States. While Barrett has in the past expressed criticism of the ruling, she also said during her 2017 confirmation hearing to the appeals court that she would view previous Supreme Court rulings as binding precedent.Democrats opposed her confirmation in 2017, voicing concerns about the role she places on religion in her life. They cited comments Barrett made at Notre Dame, saying a “legal career is but a means to an end … and that end is building the Kingdom of God.”Vice President Mike Pence told ABC News this week that Barrett faced “intolerance” about her faith in her last confirmation hearing.Political battleRepublicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, the legislative body that is responsible for confirming judicial appointments.Two Republicans have said they oppose filling Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat before November: Lisa Murkowski from Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. However, two more Republican senators would have to join them to give Democrats the ability to block a potential nominee, and it appears the remaining Republicans are united in their bid to see a confirmation hearing take place.Democratic leaders in the Senate charge Republicans with hypocrisy because they refused to allow consideration of former President Barack Obama’s final Supreme Court nominee in 2016. At that time, Republicans argued that high court vacancies should be left unfilled during an election year so the American people can weigh in on the choice.Now, Democrats are arguing Republicans should apply that same logic and hold off on filling the Supreme Court seat until after the presidential election.Republicans have defended their actions, arguing that the situation was different in 2016 because at that time there was divided government — one party held the presidency, and the other party held the Senate — whereas in 2020 Republicans control both bodies.Trump’s Supreme Court nominee would be his third, following Senate approval of two other conservative justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both of which came after contentious confirmation hearings.
…

читати більше »

Amy Coney Barrett is a 48-year-old devout Catholic and an apparent abortion-rights opponent who is popular among conservative evangelical Christians, arguably President Donald Trump’s most loyal supporters.Barrett has authored more than 100 opinions since her 2017 confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which covers the states of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.Her opinions have consistently reflected her conservative values.She was a front-runner for Trump’s third nomination to the Supreme Court, to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died September 18. He nominated Neil Gorsuch in 2017 to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016. After the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2018, Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to fill the seat.Barrett, a New Orleans native, earned a degree in English literature from Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee, and then entered Notre Dame Law School in Indiana in the fall of 1994.She began teaching at the law school in 2002 at age 30 and served as a judge for the first time when confirmed for the 7th Circuit.Seen as Scalia successorReligious conservatives and others salute Barrett as an ideological successor to the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she worked as a clerk. She is the ideological opposite of Ginsburg.Scalia was a leading advocate of originalism, in which justices attempt to interpret constitutional laws by what they meant at the time they were written. Barrett has for years expressed sympathy for originalism, which many liberals oppose on the grounds the approach is too rigid and does not allow the Constitution to evolve in contemporary times.As a law professor, Barrett expressed some criticism of the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which protects a pregnant woman’s right to have an abortion.Barrett has been a member at times of the conservative Federalist Society. She has long been associated with People of Praise, a small spiritual Christian community in Indiana, although her current status with the group is not publicly known.If confirmed by the Senate, Barrett would become the youngest justice on the nation’s highest court, a position she could maintain for decades.
…

читати більше »

Британська загальнонаціональна телерадіомовна організація BBC вибачилася за публікацію неточної карти України в новині про катастрофу в Харківській області літака Ан-26.

При цьому мовець не уточнив, що неточність полягала у тому, що анексований Росією Крим не був позначений територією України. Крім того, була використана транслітерація назви Києва з російської – Kiev замість Kyiv. 

«Попередня версія цієї історії містила мапу, що була неточною. Ми приносимо вибачення за помилку», – йдеться в доповненні до матеріалу.

Раніше на помилку звернуло увагу посольство України у Великій Британії.

«Важко повірити власним очам. Сподіваємося, це була звичайна помилка, яка буе виправлена в найкоротший час», – написали в дипломатичному представництві.

Незабаром редактори BBC видалили зображення мапи без Криму.

У серпні фінська телекомпанія Yle оприлюднила заяву про помилку в своїй публікації, де Кримський півострів був позначений таким же кольором, як і територія Росії. 

Схожі інциденти, коли видання публікують карту, де Крим позначений як частина Росії, стаються регулярно. Українські дипломати звертаються до видань із вимогою виправити помилку.

Міжнародні організації визнали окупацію й анексію Криму незаконними і засудили дії Росії. Країни Заходу запровадили економічні санкції. Росія заперечує анексію півострова і називає це «відновленням історичної справедливості». Верховна Рада України офіційно оголосила датою початку тимчасової окупації Криму і Севастополя Росією 20 лютого 2014 року.
…

читати більше »

Росія та Японія не підписали мирну угоду в тому числі через анексію Криму – про це колишній прем’єр-міністр Японії Абе Сіндзо повідомив у матеріалі видання Nikkei.

За словами Абе, під час зустрічі з президентом Росії Володимиром Путіним в грудні 2016 року він відчув, що Путін готовий активно домагатися вирішення територіальної суперечки з Японією. Найближе до врегулювання, вважає він, обидві країни були в період до зустрічі в листопаді 2018 року в Сингапурі.

«Було розуміння, що ми нарешті наближаємося до переговорів про укладення угоди», – сказав Абе. Він додав: у певний момент очікував, що матиме повідомити про це рішення народу та розпустити нижню палату парламенту для проведення позачергових виборів.

Читайте також: Йосіхіде Суга став новим прем’єр-міністром Японії

«Але зрештою угода так і не була підписана. Абе цитує зовнішні фактори, а саме – дедалі більш напружені відносини між Вашингтоном і Москвою після анексії Росією Криму», – пише видання на основі інтерв’ю з японським політиком.

Японія багато років оскаржує приналежність чотирьох островів Курильської гряди – Ітурупа, Шикотану, Кунаширу і Хабомаї. Вони були окуповані СРСР наприкінці Другої світової війни. Через територіальні суперечки Росія і Японія досі не підписали мирний договір. У листопаді минулого року після зустрічі японського прем’єра Сіндзо Абе і російського президента Володимира Путіна стало відомо, що Японія готова повернутися до декларації щодо островів 1956 року. У ній СРСР погоджувався передати Японії Хабомаї та Шикотан після підписання мирного договору.

У січні 2020 року в Москві відбувся черговий раунд переговорів між президентом Росії Володимиром Путіним і прем’єр-міністром Японії Сіндзо Абе. Після переговорів Кремль заявив, що «поки не фіксує будь-яких змін в позиції Японії».
…

читати більше »