Reposted by Stephen Malloy
Remember: ICE lied so often about people posing threats to them, to justify their violence in Chicago, that a Chicago federal judge wrote it was "difficult, if not impossible, to believe almost anything" ICE said.
Do you know what it takes to get a Fed district judge to WRITE THAT in a ruling?
![An archived copy of Michael Tracey's original Substack post includes a screenshot from "eCourt Records" and the commentary: "It's [name redacted]. Don't blame me -- the New York Court System just posted it. Seemingly inadvertently. Oh well."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6arqeda2f5piwu7zien3b2hq/bafkreiftgxhhfprcae33jlwnll3ycf3r4cwwqxkx4tryc7b2kvdsuzaeca)
![interest in [her] own life." Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1,
9 (1985).
In capital cases, "[a]ppreciation of our own fallibility, and respect for the judgment of an appellate tribunal," demand caution before "acting irretrievably." Bowersox v. Williams,
517 U. S. 345, 347 (1996) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). Indeed, this Court often states that it is "'a court of review, not of first view?" McLane Co. v. EEOC, 581 U.S. 72, 85 (2017) (quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7
(2005)). Today, the Court, as it has too often lately, chooses to overlook that principle precisely when it matters most.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreic2pj24tnxhjgzvpr7n777r27ac5liklla2vxxbiypqvjaouxvh4q)
