{"id":19420,"date":"2022-08-02T08:19:05","date_gmt":"2022-08-02T08:19:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rdnews.al\/?p=19420"},"modified":"2022-08-02T08:19:05","modified_gmt":"2022-08-02T08:19:05","slug":"ironia-e-gjykates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/foltore.al\/index.php\/2022\/08\/02\/ironia-e-gjykates\/","title":{"rendered":"Ironia e gjykat\u00ebs"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>\u00c7far\u00eb ka prapa polemikave mbi institucionin suprem gjyq\u00ebsor t\u00eb Amerik\u00ebs. Nga skllav\u00ebria tek aborti, historia e transformimeve t\u00eb saj<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Nj\u00eb vendim i kontestuar i Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme deklaron jokonstitucionale nj\u00eb normativ\u00eb q\u00eb mbi nj\u00eb tem\u00eb jasht\u00ebzakonisht p\u00ebr\u00e7ar\u00ebse ishte tashm\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi prej rreth 40 vitesh. Krijohet k\u00ebshtu nj\u00eb mobilizim popullor q\u00eb p\u00ebrcakton t\u00eb ardhmen e Partis\u00eb Republikane dhe nj\u00eb klim\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb e till\u00eb se n\u00ebse n\u00eb luft\u00eb civile shp\u00ebrthen v\u00ebrtet, me nj\u00eb milion t\u00eb vdekur. N\u00eb fund konflikti 3 amendamente votohen, pik\u00ebrisht p\u00ebr t\u00eb penguar q\u00eb Gjykata Supreme t\u00eb mund t\u00eb afirmoj\u00eb s\u00ebrish se parime t\u00eb caktuara nuk jan\u00eb n\u00eb kushtetut\u00eb. Nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb fantapolitik\u00eb, por histori e 165 viteve m\u00eb par\u00eb. Faktikisht nuk po flasim p\u00ebr Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization: vendimin me t\u00eb cilin m\u00eb 24 qershor SCOTUS, Gjykata Supreme e Shteteve t\u00eb Bashkuara, ka p\u00ebrmbysur at\u00eb vendimin tjet\u00ebr Roe v. Wade me t\u00eb cilin m\u00eb 22 janar 1973 qen\u00eb gjykuar jokonstitucional\u00eb ligjet e Texas q\u00eb nd\u00ebshkonin abortin. Po flasim n\u00eb fakt p\u00ebr Dred Scott v. Sandford: vendim i 6 marsit t\u00eb 1857 n\u00eb baz\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00eb cilit zezak\u00ebt nuk qen\u00eb qytetar\u00eb t\u00eb Shteteve t\u00eb Bashkuara dhe ishte jokonstitucional vet\u00eb ai Kompromis i Missouri i 1820 n\u00eb baz\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00eb cilit shtetet e veriut mund ta ndalonin skllav\u00ebrin\u00eb. Nj\u00eb rezultat i zem\u00ebrimit popullor kund\u00ebr vendimit \u00ebsht\u00eb rifillimi i aksioneve t\u00eb armatosura dhe deri terroriste nga ana e nj\u00eb krahu t\u00eb antiskllav\u00ebrist\u00ebve ekstremist\u00eb eksponenti m\u00eb i njohur i s\u00eb cil\u00ebs \u00ebsht\u00eb John Brown, q\u00eb m\u00eb 2 dhjetor 1859 varet n\u00eb shtetin Virginia. Nj\u00eb tjet\u00ebr rezultat \u00ebsht\u00eb rritja e Partis\u00eb Republikane, e nd\u00ebrtuar m\u00eb 20 mars t\u00eb 1854 kinse p\u00ebr t\u00eb kanalizuar protest\u00ebn abolicioniste. Faktikisht m\u00eb 6 n\u00ebntor t\u00eb 1860 \u00ebsht\u00eb zgjedhur president republikani Abraham Lincoln, q\u00eb ulet n\u00eb zyr\u00eb m\u00eb 4 mars. Por qysh m\u00eb 20 dhjetor South Carolina ka deklaruar shk\u00ebputjen, e ndjekur nga shtete t\u00eb tjera. M\u00eb 6 shkurt Shtetet e Konfederuara t\u00eb Amerik\u00ebs adoptojn\u00eb nj\u00eb kushtetut\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrkohshme dhe m\u00eb 12 prill fillon lufta, q\u00eb do t\u00eb vazhdoj\u00eb deri m\u00eb 9 maj 1865, dhe ku nj\u00eb prej k\u00ebng\u00ebve m\u00eb t\u00eb njohura t\u00eb ushtris\u00eb nordiste do t\u2019i kushtohet pik\u00ebrisht John Brown.<\/p>\n<p>Ironi e historis\u00eb: mbi k\u00ebt\u00eb vet\u00eb Partia Republikane q\u00eb at\u00ebhere udh\u00ebhoqi protest\u00ebn kund\u00ebr nj\u00eb vendimi jopopullor t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme, peshon tani akuz\u00ebn se e ka shtyr\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn Supreme t\u00eb marr\u00eb nj\u00eb vendim jopopullor, pse ka caktuar me president\u00ebt e saj 6 an\u00ebtar\u00eb t\u00eb 9 an\u00ebtar\u00ebve aktual\u00eb. Hedhje dhe pritje historike: me 7 kund\u00ebr 2 qe vota e Dred Scott v. Sandford; me 7 kund\u00ebr 2 qe edhe vota e Roe v. Wade. Nd\u00ebrsa Henry Menasco Wade ishte avokati p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsues i Texas, Jane Roe n\u00eb realitet quhej Norma McCorvey. E lindur n\u00eb shtetin Louisiana n\u00eb 1947 nga prind\u00ebr <em>cherokee<\/em> dhe <em>cajun<\/em>; e martuar 16 vje\u00e7are me nj\u00eb burr\u00eb t\u00eb dhunsh\u00ebm pas nj\u00eb f\u00ebmij\u00ebrie t\u00eb trazuar; shtatzan\u00eb me 2 vajza; e p\u00ebrdorur si rast simbol nga nj\u00eb ekip avokatesh feministe nd\u00ebrsa \u00ebsht\u00eb shtatzan\u00eb me t\u00eb tret\u00ebn. Por i dhan\u00eb nj\u00eb em\u00ebr fals n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb privat\u00ebsis\u00eb dhe privat\u00ebsia q\u00eb efektivisht \u00e7el\u00ebsi i vendimit. \u201cT\u00eb gjith\u00eb personat e lindur apo t\u00eb natyralizuar n\u00eb Shtetet e Bashkuara dhe t\u00eb n\u00ebnshtruar juridiksionit p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs jan\u00eb shtetase t\u00eb Shteteve t\u00eb Bashkuara dhe t\u00eb shtetit ku banojn\u00eb. Asnj\u00eb shtet do t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb apo do t\u00eb v\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb ekzekutim nj\u00eb ligj t\u00eb \u00e7far\u00ebdosh\u00ebm q\u00eb kufizon privilegjet apo imunitetet e shtetasve t\u00eb Shteteve t\u00eb Bashkuara; as nuk do t\u00eb mund nj\u00eb shtet i \u00e7far\u00ebdosh\u00ebm t\u00eb privoj\u00eb \u00e7do person nga jeta, nga liria apo nga pron\u00ebsia pa nj\u00eb proces n\u00eb format e detyruara t\u00eb ligjit; as t\u2019i mohoj\u00eb \u00e7do personi n\u00ebn juridiksionin e saj mbrojtjen e barabart\u00eb t\u00eb ligjeve\u201d, thot\u00eb n\u00eb fakt Amendamenti i XIV, i propozuar m\u00eb 13 qershor 1866 dhe i ratifikuar m\u00eb 9 korrik 1868. SCOTUS p\u00ebrcaktoi se kjo \u201cklauzol\u00eb procesi t\u00eb drejt\u00eb\u201d t\u00eb jet\u00eb e p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb t\u00eb \u201cdrejt\u00eb fsheht\u00ebsie\u201d themelore dhe n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb privat\u00ebsi do t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshihet liria e nj\u00eb gruaje shtatzan\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb abortuar. Sigurisht, specifikonte Gjykata: nj\u00eb liri e bilancuar nga interesi i qeveris\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb mbrojtur sh\u00ebndetin e grave dhe jet\u00ebn paranatale t\u00eb fetusit. \u00c7ra, pasoj\u00eb e vendimit ishte se aborti duhej t\u00eb lejohej p\u00ebr \u00e7far\u00ebdo ar\u00ebsye q\u00eb gruaja e do, deri n\u00eb pik\u00ebn ku fetusi b\u00ebhet n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb mbijetoj\u00eb jasht\u00eb uterusit m\u00ebm\u00ebsor. 28 jav\u00eb.<\/p>\n<p>Kur n\u00eb 2018 shteti Mississippi ka miratuar nj\u00eb ligj q\u00eb e ndalonte abortim pas jav\u00ebs s\u00eb 15, gjykatat federale e shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb ul\u00ebt kan\u00eb pezulluar menj\u00ebher\u00eb ligjin, duke shkaktuar rekursin n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn Supreme, por tani 5 kund\u00ebr 4, vet\u00eb Gjykata ka p\u00ebrcaktuar se e drejta e abortit nuk mbrohet nga kushtetuta e Shteteve t\u00eb Bashkuara. N\u00eb praktik\u00eb, kalimi logjik proces = t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e privat\u00ebsis\u00eb = e drejt\u00eb aborti \u00ebsht\u00eb konsideruar n\u00eb ngjitje e v\u00ebshtir\u00eb mbi an\u00eb t\u00eb gabuara, por k\u00ebshtu Gjykata Supreme ka hedhur posht\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn Supreme! Nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb hera e par\u00eb q\u00eb ndodh. Le t\u00eb kthehemi k\u00ebshu tek Dred Scott: nj\u00eb skllav i vitlindjes 1799 me grua dhe dy vajza nga ana e tyre skllave, \u201cpron\u00ebsi\u201d e nj\u00eb mjeku ushtarak q\u00eb i ka mbajtur prej nja dhjet\u00eb vitesh n\u00eb Illinois dhe Wisconsin. Si n\u00eb rastin e Jane Roe \u2013 Norma McCorvey rasti i tij sponsorizohet nga nj\u00eb lob q\u00eb d\u00ebshiron t\u00eb krijoj\u00eb nj\u00eb precedent. Kur vejusha e oficerit e refuzon ofert\u00ebn e tij p\u00ebr ta \u00e7liruar n\u00eb nj\u00eb pages\u00eb n\u00eb para, Dred i drejtohet gjykat\u00ebs, duke shpjeguar se duke qen\u00eb se kishte banuar n\u00eb territore ku skllav\u00ebria \u00ebsht\u00eb e ndaluar duhet t\u2019i njihet jo vet\u00ebm liria p\u00ebr t\u00eb dhe p\u00ebr familjen e tij, por edhe disa rrogave t\u00eb prapambetura. Gj\u00ebja shkon n\u00eb gjykat\u00eb p\u00ebr 11 vite t\u00eb mira, deri nuk nuk shkon n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn Supreme. Presidenti\u00a0 James\u00a0 Buchanan u k\u00ebrkon gjykat\u00ebve q\u00eb t\u00eb mos marrin vendime q\u00eb mund t\u00eb shkaktojn\u00eb at\u00eb shk\u00ebputje q\u00eb sudist\u00ebt ekstremist\u00eb evokojn\u00eb tashm\u00eb prej vitesh. Gjykata e prap\u00ebson, duke i shpjeguar se Scott nuk ka as t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn q\u00eb t\u2019i drejtohet gjykat\u00ebs, por shkon m\u00eb tej akoma, duke p\u00ebrcaktuar se skllav\u00ebria nuk mund t\u00eb ndalohet n\u00eb asnj\u00eb shtet. E bukura \u00ebsht\u00eb se nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb vejusha e pamposhtur \u00ebsht\u00eb martuar me nj\u00eb abolicionist, q\u00eb do t\u00eb ishte i gatsh\u00ebm ta \u00e7lironte familjes Scott, sikur t\u00eb mos ishte rasti q\u00eb ka ecur tashm\u00eb p\u00ebrpara i vet\u00ebm. 81 dit\u00eb m\u00eb pas \u201cvendimit m\u00eb t\u00eb keq n\u00eb historin\u00eb e Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme\u201d familja Scott b\u00ebhet e lir\u00eb, m\u00eb 26 maj. Dred gjen edhe nj vend pune si hamall, por fatkeq\u00ebsisht p\u00ebr t\u00eb vdes nga tuberkulozi n\u00eb kok\u00eb pas vet\u00ebm 16 muajsh: m\u00eb 17 shtator 1858. Sakt\u00ebsisht si tani, disa gjykata lokale nuk po i binden SCOTUS me bllokimin e ndalimit t\u00eb nd\u00ebrprerjes s\u00eb shtatzan\u00ebsis\u00eb, at\u00ebhere legjislator\u00ebt dhe gjykatat supreme e shteteve t\u00eb Veriut b\u00ebn\u00eb sikur vendimi t\u00eb mos ishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb kurr\u00eb. Shkoi k\u00ebshtu n\u00eb luft\u00ebn civile dhe kur nuk kishte mbaruar akoma, m\u00eb 31 janar 1865, u miratua Amendamenti i XIII q\u00eb hyri n\u00eb fuqi m\u00eb 6 dhjetor 1865 dhe q\u00eb e deklaronte skllav\u00ebrin\u00eb t\u00eb abroguar.<\/p>\n<p>Tre vite m\u00eb pas arriti ai Amendamenti i XIV t\u00eb cilit ju apelua edhe Roe v. Wade dhe sipas t\u00eb cilit t\u00eb gjith\u00eb t\u00eb lindurit dhe t\u00eb natyralizuarit n\u00eb Shtetet e Bashkuara jan\u00eb qytetar\u00eb t\u00eb tyre dhe m\u00eb 2 shkurt t\u00eb 1870 hyri n\u00eb fuqi ai Amendament i XV n\u00eb baz\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00eb cilit \u201ce drejta e vot\u00ebs e qytetar\u00ebve n\u00eb Shtetet e Bashkuara nuk mund t\u00eb mohohet apo kufizohet nga Shtetet e Bashkuara apo nga \u00e7do shtet p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb rac\u00ebs, t\u00eb ngjyr\u00ebs apo t\u00eb gjendjes s\u00eb m\u00ebparshme t\u00eb skllav\u00ebris\u00eb\u201d. Me pak fjal\u00eb, SCOTUS kishte th\u00ebn\u00eb se \u201cn\u00eb aasnj\u00eb pjes\u00eb t\u00eb kushtetut\u00ebs nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb e shkruar se zezak\u00ebt jan\u00eb qytetar\u00eb\u201d dhe at\u00ebhere Kongresi e shkruan tre her\u00eb. Dikush propozon q\u00eb edhe sot t\u00eb b\u00ebhet nj\u00eb amendament mbi abortin. Nuk do t\u00eb ishte krejt\u00ebsisht korrekt t\u00eb asimilohej lobi aktual abortist n\u00eb trash\u00ebgimtar t\u00eb lobit aolicionist, pasi n\u00eb realitet edhe shum\u00eb antiabortist\u00eb konsiderohen trash\u00ebgimtar\u00eb t\u00eb antiskllav\u00ebruesve. Pik\u00ebrisht pjes\u00ebrisht prej nj\u00eb precededentit t\u00eb nj\u00eb vendimi t\u00eb kontestuar, paraleli vlen edhe p\u00ebr konstatimin se Gjykata Supreme nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb aspak nj\u00eb organiz\u00ebm q\u00eb \u201cthot\u00eb fjal\u00ebn e fundit\u201d, por mund t\u00eb ndryshoj\u00eb pozicion. P\u00ebr shembull, p\u00ebrsa i p\u00ebrket rac\u00ebs, pasi ka pohuar n\u00eb 1857 se zezak\u00ebt nuk mund t\u00eb ishin qytetar\u00eb, n\u00eb 1880 p\u00ebrcaktoi n\u00eb t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt\u00ebn se nuk mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshiheshin n\u00eb juri si zezak\u00eb. Shum\u00eb e v\u00ebrtet\u00eb: nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb qen\u00eb tre amendamentet e cituar, por n\u00eb 1886, duke pritur rekursin e nj\u00eb kinezi t\u00eb cilit n\u00eb San Francisco i pat\u00ebn mohuar li\u00e7enc\u00ebn p\u00ebr nj\u00eb lavanderi, SCOTUS shton edhe parimin e mosdiskriminimit q\u00eb u zbatohej edhe joqytetar\u00ebve, por n\u00eb 1896 n\u00eb rekursin e Homer Plessy, i p\u00ebrz\u00ebn\u00eb nga nj\u00eb vagon treni vet\u00ebm p\u00ebr t\u00eb bardh\u00ebt prej motivit q\u00eb nj\u00ebri prej 8 st\u00ebrgjysh\u00ebrve t\u00eb tij kishte qen\u00eb zezak, u p\u00ebrgjigj se segregacioni ishte legjitim. \u201cT\u00eb ndar\u00eb, por t\u00eb barabart\u00eb\u201d: n\u00ebse ka vende n\u00eb tren edhe p\u00ebr t\u00eb zinj, nuk shkelet asnj\u00eb parim barazie!<\/p>\n<p>Por n\u00eb 1938 Gjykata sakt\u00ebsoi se \u201ct\u00eb ndar\u00eb, por t\u00eb barabart\u00eb\u201d nuk mund t\u00eb garantohej n\u00ebse shteti paguante p\u00ebr t\u00eb d\u00ebrguar zezak\u00ebt n\u00eb institucione ar\u00ebsimore t\u00eb shteteve t\u00eb tjera. Duhej t\u2019i ofronte n\u00eb territorin e saj, edhe pse t\u00eb segreguar. N\u00eb 1944 heksoi se zezak\u00ebt kishin t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e vot\u00ebs n\u00eb primare dhe imponoi t\u00eb drejta t\u00eb barabarta edhe n\u00eb p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsit\u00eb sindikale. N\u00eb kompensim, n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtin vit nj\u00eb tjet\u00ebr vendim juridik legjitimoi rendin e internimit p\u00ebr qytetar\u00ebt me origjin\u00eb japoneze pas Pearl Harbor. Por n\u00eb 1946 Gjykata kap segregacionin n\u00ebp\u00ebr autobus\u00eb. N\u00eb 1948 ndalon klauzolat raciale n\u00eb kontratat imobiliare. N\u00eb 1950 ndalon diskriminimet n\u00ebp\u00ebr hekurudha. N\u00eb 1954 sqaron se edhe ndaj hispanik\u00ebve dhe etnive t\u00eb tjera zbatohen dispozita antidiskriminim fillimisht t\u00eb menduara p\u00ebr zezak\u00ebt dhe deklaron s\u00ebrish antikonstitucionale shkollat e segreguara me dy vendime. N\u00eb Jug b\u00ebjn\u00eb rezistenc\u00eb, duke par\u00eb q\u00eb segregacioni n\u00ebp\u00ebr autobus\u00eb duhet t\u00eb deklaorhet s\u00ebrish antikonstitucional n\u00eb 1955, n\u00eb 1956 dhe n\u00eb 1960. Duhet q\u00eb qeveria federale t\u00eb d\u00ebrgoj\u00eb trupa p\u00ebr t\u00ebgarantuar tejkalimin e segregacionit n\u00eb Jug dhe duhet pritur 1967 dhe dalja e filmit \u201cGjeni kush vjen p\u00ebr dark\u00eb?\u201d q\u00eb Loving v. Virginia t\u00eb shpall\u00eb antikonstitucional\u00eb ligjet q\u00eb ndalojn\u00eb martesat nd\u00ebrracore. \u00cbsht\u00eb dy vjet pas nj\u00eb vendimi q\u00eb deklaron antikonstitucional ndalimin e kotraceptiv\u00ebve, por do t\u00eb duhen pes\u00eb vite t\u00eb tjera q\u00eb t\u00eb shtohet se nuk mund t\u2019u ndalohen kontraceptiv\u00ebt \u00e7ifteve t\u00eb pamartuar. Edhe k\u00ebtu th\u00ebrritet n\u00eb loj\u00eb privat\u00ebsia. U bujsh\u00ebm p\u00ebrmbysja midis asaj Bowers v. Hardwick, ku n\u00eb 1986 5 gjykat\u00ebs kund\u00ebr 4 p\u00ebrcaktuan se nj\u00eb ligj antisodomo i Goergia \u00ebsht\u00eb kushtetues, dhe asaj Lawrence v. Texas t\u00eb 2003 ku thuhet e kund\u00ebrta. Gjithmon\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e privat\u00ebsis\u00eb. N\u00eb 2013 deklarohet antikonstitucionale diskriminimi ndaj martesave homoseksuale, pas nj\u00eb rekursi t\u00eb nj\u00eb gruaje banore e New York q\u00eb pasi ishte martuar me shoqen e saj n\u00eb Kanada kishte mbetur vejush\u00eb dhe kishte refuzuar shmangien nga taksa e suksesionit t\u00eb parashikuar nga ligji federal n\u00eb favor t\u00eb bashk\u00ebhsortit mbijetues. N\u00eb 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges shpall antikonstitucional mosparashikimin e martesave homoseksuale dhe n\u00eb 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County e shtrin tek geit mbrojtjen kund\u00ebr diskriminimit ndaj pun\u00ebs.<\/p>\n<p>Me pak fjal\u00eb, vet\u00eb Gjykata sot e p\u00ebrmendur se \u00ebsht\u00eb reaksionare prej vendimit t\u00eb abortit \u00ebsht\u00eb n\u00eb fakt progresiste n\u00eb l\u00ebmin LGBT, por mbi arm\u00ebt, ajo New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen q\u00eb m\u00eb 23 qershor ka abroguar ligjin kufizues mbi arm\u00ebt e shtetit New York sh\u00ebnon n\u00eb p\u00ebrmbysje t\u00eb plot\u00eb t\u00eb atij vendimi t\u00eb 1876 sipas t\u00eb cilit, p\u00ebrderisa q\u00ebllimi i Amendamentit t\u00eb II \u00ebsht\u00eb ai i kufizimit t\u00eb qeveris\u00eb federale, nuk buron aspak nj\u00eb e drejt\u00eb e pakusht\u00ebzuar p\u00ebr mbajtjen e arm\u00ebve. N\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn linj\u00eb, n\u00eb 1886 \u00ebsht\u00eb gjykuar konstitucionale nj\u00eb ligj i Illinois q\u00eb u ndalon privat\u00ebve t\u00eb krijojn\u00eb milici, dhe n\u00eb 1939 qeveria federale autorizohet t\u00eb kufizoj\u00eb aksesin ndaj arm\u00ebve q\u00eb nuk kan\u00eb \u201casnj\u00eb raport t\u00eb ar\u00ebsyesh\u00ebm me ruajtjen apo efikasitetin e nj\u00eb milicie t\u00eb mir\u00ebrregulluar\u201d. Dometh\u00ebn\u00eb, automatike dhe t\u00eb r\u00ebnda. Vet\u00ebm n\u00eb 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller ka garantuar t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e mbajtjes s\u00eb arm\u00ebve edhe jo t\u00eb lidhur me sh\u00ebrbimin n\u00eb nj\u00eb milici t\u00eb autorizuar dhe n\u00eb 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago ia ka bashkangjitur deri k\u00ebt\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebs ruajtje t\u00eb privat\u00ebsis\u00eb t\u00eb thirrur n\u00eb loj\u00eb p\u00ebr abortin dhe geit. Akoma, n\u00eb 1927 \u00ebsht\u00eb autorizuar nj\u00eb sterilizim i detyruar i t\u00eb pamundurve m\u00eb pas e ndaluar nga nj\u00eb ligj i 1990. I nj\u00ebjti d\u00ebnim me vdekje \u00ebsht\u00eb pezulluar n\u00eb 1972 dhe s\u00ebrish i autorizuar n\u00eb 1976, por n\u00eb fund, sikur t\u00eb mos ishte pik\u00ebrisht kjo aft\u00ebsi kamaleonike sekreti i jet\u00ebgjat\u00ebsisi\u00eb s\u00eb nj\u00eb institucioni t\u00eb krijuar m\u00eb 1789? Me p\u00ebrshtatje t\u00eb ndryshme, t\u00eb gjitha gjykatat kushtetuese sot ekzistuese n\u00eb bot\u00eb vijn\u00eb nga aty. Megjithat\u00eb, kur u krijua nuk ishte krejt\u00ebsisht e qart\u00eb se p\u00ebr \u00e7far\u00eb duhej t\u00eb sh\u00ebrbente. I pari <em>Chief Justice<\/em>, John Marshall ishte eksponent i t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebs Parti Federaliste q\u00eb qeverisi p\u00ebr tre mandatet e para. Por n\u00eb 1801, kur Adams mundet nga demokrati Thomas Jefferson, p\u00ebrpara se t\u00eb largohet nga Sht\u00ebpia e Bardh\u00eb b\u00ebn nj\u00eb bresh\u00ebri em\u00ebrimesh midis t\u00eb cilit at\u00eb t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebsit federal p\u00ebr William Marbury. Jefferson urdh\u00ebron sekretarin e Shtetit James Madison t\u00eb mos ia caktoj\u00eb. Marbury i drejtohet Marshall, shokut t\u00eb tij t\u00eb partis\u00eb. Marshall kupton se n\u00ebse jep urdh\u00ebrin dhe Madison nuk bindet, p\u00ebr Gjykat\u00ebn \u00ebsht\u00eb fundi. E riadreson \u00e7\u00ebshtjen n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb mjesht\u00ebrore. Faktikisht, nga nj\u00ebra an\u00eb thot\u00eb se ka nj\u00eb kontrast midis ligjit sipas t\u00eb cilit Gjykata duhet t\u00eb vendos\u00eb n\u00eb shkall\u00eb t\u00eb par\u00eb dhe kushtetut\u00ebs. K\u00ebshtu, Gjykata nuk mund t\u00eb vendos\u00eb, por vendos k\u00ebshtu se kjo ka t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e p\u00ebrcaktimit t\u00eb konstitucionalitetit t\u00eb ligjeve. <em>Judicial Review<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>\u00cbsht\u00eb e nj\u00ebjta aft\u00ebsi p\u00ebr t\u2019u p\u00ebrshtatur q\u00eb kthehet n\u00eb momentin e p\u00ebrplasjes s\u00eb ashp\u00ebr midis Gjykat\u00ebs dhe Franklin Delano Roosevelt, q\u00eb n\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje t\u00eb shpalljeve t\u00eb ndryshme t\u00eb jokonstitucionalitetit t\u00eb masave t\u00eb New Deal k\u00ebrc\u00ebnon p\u00ebr nj\u00eb reform\u00eb q\u00eb mund t\u00eb em\u00ebroj\u00eb nj\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs ti ri \u00e7do her\u00eb q\u00eb nj\u00eb prej t\u00eb moshuarve mbush 70 vje\u00e7. Vet\u00eb partia e tij p\u00ebr\u00e7ahet, por n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb mazhoranca republikane e Gjykat\u00ebs kupton se duhet t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb l\u00ebshime. Jo vet\u00eb asnj\u00eb prej gjykat\u00ebsve nuk dor\u00ebhiqet, por konservator\u00ebt e mbetur zbuten. Epokale \u00ebsht\u00eb sidomos ndryshimi i papritur i linj\u00ebs mbi rrog\u00ebn minimale e Owen Roberts n\u00eb 1937, mbi t\u00eb cil\u00ebn nj\u00eb humorist krijon nj\u00eb batut\u00eb n\u00eb rim\u00eb q\u00eb ka hyr\u00eb n\u00eb histori: \u201cThe switch in time that saved nine\u201d. Ndryshimi n\u00eb koh\u00eb q\u00eb i shp\u00ebtoi t\u00eb n\u00ebnt\u00eb.<\/p>\n<p>(nga <em>Il Foglio<\/em>)<\/p>\n<p><strong>P\u00ebrgatiti<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>ARMIN TIRANA<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u00c7far\u00eb ka prapa polemikave mbi institucionin suprem gjyq\u00ebsor t\u00eb Amerik\u00ebs. Nga skllav\u00ebria tek aborti, historia e transformimeve t\u00eb saj Nj\u00eb vendim i kontestuar i Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme deklaron jokonstitucionale nj\u00eb normativ\u00eb q\u00eb mbi nj\u00eb tem\u00eb jasht\u00ebzakonisht p\u00ebr\u00e7ar\u00ebse ishte tashm\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi prej rreth 40 vitesh. Krijohet k\u00ebshtu nj\u00eb mobilizim popullor q\u00eb p\u00ebrcakton t\u00eb ardhmen e Partis\u00eb &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":19421,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/foltore.al\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19420"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/foltore.al\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/foltore.al\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/foltore.al\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/foltore.al\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/foltore.al\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19420\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/foltore.al\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/19421"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/foltore.al\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/foltore.al\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/foltore.al\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}