By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent Supreme Court ruling, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, dissented against a decision allowing for the deportation of migrants to countries they are not from, criticizing the court for failing to uphold the basic human right against torture or death. The ruling specifically concerned eight men removed from the U.S. and slated for deportation to South Sudan, a nation with significant safety concerns. Sotomayor argued this action could lead to non-citizens being deported to dangerous countries without due process, while the DHS defended their actions as crucial for removing dangerous criminals. This decision sets a precedent for future deportations to third-party nations, despite potential risks to those deported.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump Has Supreme Court Justices on ‘Speed Dial’, Sotomayor Says. This statement, delivered in a dissenting opinion from Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, cuts to the heart of a growing concern: the perceived preferential treatment the Trump administration may have received from the Supreme Court. It’s a strong claim, implying an easy, possibly too easy, access to the highest court in the land, raising eyebrows about the integrity of the judicial process.
The crux of Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, co-signed by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, revolves around a ruling concerning the deportation of migrants. The core issue is deporting people to countries they may not be from. Sotomayor and Jackson highlight the potential for these deportations to place individuals in dangerous situations without proper due process, including the chance to express fear of torture. They express concern with the government deporting individuals to dangerous countries without notice or the opportunity to claim a fear of torture. Their argument underscores a fundamental principle of human rights and the importance of fair treatment under the law.
The implication of “having the Supreme Court on speed dial” is significant. It suggests an undue influence, a level of familiarity that could compromise the court’s objectivity. It’s a claim that goes beyond mere disagreement with a ruling; it challenges the fairness of the entire process. It’s as if the administration had a direct line, a preferred channel, to sway the decisions of the highest court.
This perspective immediately raises questions. How is it possible that this is even taking place? If the highest court in the land is seen as being susceptible to influence from a former president, it erodes public trust in the impartiality of the judicial system. The statement forces us to confront the possibility of a system where access and influence might trump the principles of justice.
The dissenting justices’ words also call attention to the government’s perceived disregard for the judiciary. This disdain is not just about the specific ruling; it’s about a broader pattern of behavior, where the administration seemingly expects the court to rubber-stamp its actions. This challenges the very foundations of the separation of powers, a cornerstone of the American system of government.
The implications of this are vast and unsettling. What happens when the court’s rulings are seen as predictable, swayed by a relationship rather than the law? It undermines the very essence of judicial review and the court’s role in safeguarding the rights of all citizens.
One of the critical concerns raised is about the ethics of such close contact. How can discussions between a former president, or any outside influence, and justices not be viewed as a conflict of interest? The integrity of a judge is paramount, and any hint of outside pressure, even just a phone call, could call this into question.
The discussion further brings up the issue of accountability. Are there checks and balances strong enough to prevent this kind of influence? The Supreme Court, with its lifetime appointments, is meant to be insulated from political pressures. But when the lines between the executive and judicial branches become blurred, it becomes difficult to hold the court accountable.
The conversation also makes an important point about the nature of deportation. The arguments focus on the question of whether deporting someone to a place they have never lived is not cruel or unusual, a consideration, in the context of the Eighth Amendment. The debate goes on to illustrate a deeper issue with the court, and how that can apply to cases based on legal technicalities.
This is not just a debate about legal technicalities; it’s a debate about human rights and the way our government functions. The notion of deporting people to countries where they face potential torture or death is a grave concern. The Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination and guarantees due process, is at the heart of these debates.
The implications of such a situation are far-reaching and strike at the heart of our democratic principles. It underscores the importance of an impartial judiciary. If the perception of a court on “speed dial” becomes widespread, it could undermine public trust, compromise the rule of law, and threaten the very foundations of our democracy.
The comments and debates around the issue also reflect a sense of frustration and disillusionment. There’s a sense that the system is broken, and that those in power are not being held accountable. The intensity of the response suggests a deep-seated fear that the principles of justice are being eroded.