Michael Schellenberger

Rank 40 of 47
|
Score -112
4/8/2025, 12:49:41 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
72d
Justices Barrett, Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor agree that, "That means, of course, that the Government cannot usher any detainees, including plaintiffs, onto planes in a shroud of secrecy, as it did on March 15, 2025."
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
72d
They stress this point again: "The Court’s order today dictates, in no uncertain terms, that “individual[s] subject to detention and removal under the [Alien Enemies Act are] entitled to ‘judicial review’..."
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 engages in public discourse by discussing the application of the Alien Enemies Act and its implications on legal and constitutional grounds. It critiques the court's decision and suggests a broader interpretation to limit the Act's use during peacetime and against non-state actors.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to prevent potential misuse of the Alien Enemies Act, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By advocating for a more restrictive interpretation of the Act, it promotes understanding and empathy towards those who might be unjustly affected. [+1]
  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 criticism of the court's decision without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]