Michael Schellenberger

Rank 40 of 47
|
Score -112
4/8/2025, 12:42:23 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
72d
In the intro. to their dissent, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Barrett (partial) write, "Critically, even the majority agrees, and the Fed. Gov. now admits, that individuals subject to removal under Alien Enemies Act are entitled to.. judicial review before they can be removed"
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
72d
Kavanagh: "...all nine Members of the Court agree that judicial review is available. The only question is where that judicial review should occur."
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
72d
The Court adds, "Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to ‘judicial review’ ... as well as whether he or she 'is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.'"
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
72d
Bravo to the Supreme Court for upholding the right of the accused under Alien Enemies Act to due process. "For all the rhetoric... today’s order & per curiam confirm... detainees... are entitled to... an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court..."

The statement and accompanying images discuss the judicial review rights of individuals under the Alien Enemies Act, highlighting a consensus among the Supreme Court justices. The discourse centers on the legal interpretation and application of due process rights, which is a significant public issue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement upholds the principle of doing no harm by advocating for judicial review and due process, which are fundamental rights. [+2]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding and empathy by clarifying the legal rights of individuals under the Alien Enemies Act. [+2]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive dialogue by referencing court opinions and legal interpretations without personal attacks. [+2]