Supreme Court charts a strange path to counter Donald Trump’s policies
COMMENTARY
By Editorial Board - The Washington Times - Thursday, May 22, 2025
OPINION:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. can’t come up with a consistent response to President Trump’s creative moves to end the foreign invasion set into motion by his predecessor. On Monday, the high court issued an interim order allowing the Department of Homeland Security to revoke the temporary protected status that President Biden bestowed on 350,000 aliens from Venezuela.
Two of the far-left justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, had to acknowledge that such status would be permanent, not “temporary,” if future administrations lacked the power to cancel it and return those noncitizens to their home country.
That was a win for Mr. Trump, but it was easy. Ever reluctant to give the president a clean victory, the chief justice made sure to soften the blow for the left a few days earlier by delivering the administration a loss on the Alien Enemies Act.
The Homeland Security Department has been using this statute to evict violent members of the MS-13 and Tren de Aragua gangs, which have been designated as foreign terrorist organizations. Liberals fought this with a flurry of lawsuits the moment the administration began summarily deporting these thugs.
The Supreme Court chimed in to express irritation with the swiftness of Mr. Trump’s border enforcement agenda. “We decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given on April 18, and we grant temporary injunctive relief to preserve our jurisdiction while the question of what notice is due is adjudicated,” the majority wrote in the unsigned decision.
At a glance, that seems reasonable. Except to achieve this result, the majority had to throw U.S. District Judge James W. Hendrix, an appointee of Mr. Trump, under the bus because he didn’t leap into action at midnight to approve the relief sought by the gang members’ attorneys.
The failure of Judge Hendrix was that he woke up the next morning and gave administration attorneys 24 hours to respond. Suggesting this judge shouldn’t have a full briefing from both sides before deciding is an unreasonable position.
Judge James C. Ho, a member of the 5th Circuit appellate panel that unanimously backed Judge Hendrix, blasted the Supreme Court majority for implying that judges should be on call around the clock for such requests. “We seem to have forgotten that this is a district court — not a Denny’s,” he wrote on Tuesday.
...
READ MORE: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/may/22/editorial-supreme-courts-incoherence/
***
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog"
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc.
Kính Chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị.
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
25052025
__________________________
Cộng sản Việt Nam là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là ĐỒNG LÕA với TỘI ÁC
No comments:
Post a Comment