Assassin said:
KaiBear said:
Assassin said:
Sam Lowry said:
Assassin said:
Miller is a straight up racist and a sociopath. If he weren't getting paid to lie, he would lie just for the fun of it.
Boy, you just lost some credibility with me.
Sam couldn't care less about credibility on a free internet message board.
He is merely having fun trolling.
I'm just disappointed in him. I thought JR had stolen his sign-ins or something.
Miller is a bad guy. Apologies for the length of this article from National Review:
We're all used to implausible spins by White House officials. But White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller has stooped to a new level. An appallingly low one. And he has done so in the disservice of spurring the White House to defy a Supreme Court ruling.
One week ago, in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, the Supreme Court addressed the Trump administration's emergency application to block a district-court order that called for it to "facilitate and effectuate" Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia's return from its concededly unlawful deportation of him to El Salvador. The Court ruled unanimously that the district-court order "properly requires the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's 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." The Court's order states that the "intended scope of the term 'effectuate' in the District Court's order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority." It tells the district court to "clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs." It also states that "the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps."
This isn't complicated stuff. The Court's order (not including the separate statement of Justice Sotomayor) is three paragraphs long, and the operative portion (from which I draw all of my quotations) is one paragraph long. The Trump administration lost unanimously. The only respect in which its application was "granted in part" concerned the original deadline (end of day on April 7) in the challenged order, which had already passed and thus was no longer effective.
Yes, the Court said that the district court "should clarify" the term effectuate "with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs." But that statement says nothing about what "due regard" consists of, and it therefore does not speak to which definitions of effectuate would show due regard and which wouldn't. Further, the district judge immediately rendered the matter moot by revising her order to drop the term effectuate. (No, she did not thereby disobey the Court's order. The only intelligent reading of that order is that if the district judge were to continue to order the Trump administration to effectuate Abrego Garcia's return, she should clarify that term. It would be ludicrous to read the order as directing the judge to continue to use a term that the Court found unclear.)
In President Trump's meeting in the Oval Office on Monday with El Salvador president Nayib Bukele, here's how Miller absurdly summarized the Supreme Court's ruling four days earlier in Noem v. Abrego Garcia:
[(1)]The Supreme Court said the district-court order was unlawful and its main components were reversed 9-0, unanimously…. [(2)] The ruling solely stated that if this individual, at El Salvador's sole discretion, were sent back to our country, that we could deport him a second time.
On (1): The Court did not say that the district-court order was unlawful. On the contrary, it left that order in effect, with a request for clarification on effectuate.
On (2): The ruling states that the district-court order "properly requires the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's 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." Miller's assertion about what the ruling "solely stated" is ridiculous.
And here was Miller that same day on Fox News, with my italicized comments in brackets:
First, we won the Supreme Court case. Clearly. Nine-zero. [EW: Nope, you lost. Unanimously.]
A District court judge said unconscionably that the President and his administration have to go into El Salvador and extradite one of their citizens, an El Salvadorean citizen. [EW: The district judge never said anything remotely like this. She left entirely to the discretion of the Administration what steps it should take to comply with her order.]
So that would be kidnapping. That we have to kidnap an El Salvadorean citizen against the will of his government and fly him back to America. Which would be an unimaginable act and an invasion of El Salvador sovereignty. [EW: More delusional fantasizing about what the court actually ordered.]
So we appealed to the Supreme Court and it said clearly: No district court can compel the President to exercise his Article II foreign powers in any way whatsoever. [EW: The Court didn't say that. The proposition may well be right, depending on how narrowly you construe it. But Miller routinely invokes that proposition very broadly. On any defensible understanding, it wouldn't resolve this dispute.]
DOJ called me after that Supreme Court ruling and they said, "This is amazing. We won this case nine- zero. We are in excellent standing here." [EW: I don't believe that there is any attorney at DOJ who is so incompetent.]
So this has been portrayed wrong for 72 hours in the media. [EW: It is difficult to imagine that any mainstream media portrayal has been remotely as wrong as Miller's.]
They said the most a court could ever compel you to do would be to facilitate return. Which would basically mean if El Salvador voluntarily sends him back, we wouldn't block him at the airport. We would put him back into ICE detention and then he would be deported either back to El Salvador or somewhere else. The Supreme Court said that is the most the government can be expected to do. [EW: Again, the ruling states that the district-court order "properly requires the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's 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."]
If the White House is going to refuse to accept and abide by its losses on emergency applications, the Supreme Court might well decide to summarily reject those applications.