Supreme Court slapdown of Judge Boasberg sends message to federal judges on overreach

Jonathan Turley’s take on this decision is here:

Take Thyself to Texas: The Supreme Court Rules For Trump on Stay and Jurisdiction Over Deportations

“…It is a bit more difficult to discern Justice Barrett’s position, who again joined the liberal justices. However, Barrett only joined in Parts II and III-B of the dissenting opinion. Part II is merely a couple of paragraphs long and deals with the fact that these detainees must receive due process. However, the majority held that such due process must be afforded. The Court is unanimous on that point.

It is Part III-B that is curious. That section states in part:

Also troubling is this Court’s decision to vacate summarily the District Court’s order on the novel ground that an individual’s challenge to his removal under the Alien Enemies Act “fall[s] within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus” and must therefore be filed where the plaintiffs are detained. . . . This conclusion is dubious.

Dubious? What precisely does that mean? If it is not a habeas, what is it? Given the majority’s ruling in favor of due process for the detainees, Barrett’s adoption of a fraction of the dissenting opinion left much unclear as to her view on what standard applies to these detainees…”

Has Justice Barrett fallen to emotion as a deciding factor on judicial matters? This happens to conservative justices, but usually takes more time steeping in the liberal mindset prevalent in Washington.