Michael Schellenberger

Rank 40 of 47
|
Score -112
4/8/2025, 12:55:32 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
72d
I would have liked to see the Justices go further and rule that the administration cannot invoke Alien Enemies Act during peacetime and against non-state actors, given its clear language and intent.
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.'"

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing judicial decisions related to the Alien Enemies Act, focusing on due process and judicial review. It expresses approval of a unanimous decision supporting due process and highlights a specific 5-4 decision involving Justice Barrett.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement supports due process, aligning with the principle of doing no harm by advocating for fair legal procedures. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By acknowledging a judicial decision that promotes due process, the statement fosters understanding and respect for legal rights. [+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 dialogue by focusing on judicial decisions without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]