berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 25,143
- 21,139
- 2,320
I would love to be in the presence of a MAGAist while reading this aloud.Despite MAGA's characteristically dishonest attempt to make this about Garcia, it's not. It's about something much bigger.
Well, in fairness, maybe they're not being dishonest. Maybe they don't even have the ability to see it.
The Supreme Courtās decision remains, as always, our guidepost. That decision rightly requires the lower federal courts to give ādue regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.ā Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949,slip op. at 2 (U.S. Apr. 10, 2025); see also United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299U.S. 304, 319 (1936). That would allow sensitive diplomatic negotiations to be removed from public view. It would recognize as well that the āfacilitationā of Abrego Garciaās return leaves the Executive Branch with options in the execution to which the courts in accordance with the Supreme Courtās decision should extend a genuine deference. That decision struck a balance that does not permit lower courts to leave Article II by the wayside.
The Supreme Courtās decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing. It requires the government āto āfacilitateā Abrego Garciaās release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.ā Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2. āFacilitateā is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear. See Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2 (ā[T]he Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.ā). The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be diluted by its constriction, as the government would have it, to a narrow term of art. We are not bound in this context by a definition crafted by an administrative agency and contained in a mere policy directive.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25900477/25-1404-ruling.pdf
I'd love to watch them struggle to explain how a rock solid conservative jurist could write such a blistering opinion.