Can someone tell me if I am wrong.
Would this not set a precedent, if the Supreme court agrees with the White House, that if one man can be “wrongly deported” this gives the White House and ICE the ability to “wrongly deport” anyone they don’t like since we don’t have to bring them back?
Yep, it would be ceding habeas corpus. It would effectively agree that anyone secretly kidnapped out of the country and handed to another authoritarian state was a totally legal and cool end run around the Constitution.
If the Supreme Court agrees to this, it’s knocking a pretty huge block of the foundation out of our democracy.
Can someone tell me if I am wrong.
Would this not set a precedent, if the Supreme court agrees with the White House, that if one man can be “wrongly deported” this gives the White House and ICE the ability to “wrongly deport” anyone they don’t like since we don’t have to bring them back?
Yep, it would be ceding habeas corpus. It would effectively agree that anyone secretly kidnapped out of the country and handed to another authoritarian state was a totally legal and cool end run around the Constitution.
If the Supreme Court agrees to this, it’s knocking a pretty huge block of the foundation out of our democracy.
Democracy?
Oh, you sweet, sweet summer child…
Basically.
A temporary stay by one justice does not create a legal precedent. Whatever the full supreme court rules in this case will create a legal precedent.