Meng is an interesting case that you raised. The argument is always made by the Department of Justice lawyers who work in this field that, “Oh, we need to cut down these rights”, or “These won't be expeditious hearings.”
They are not expeditious hearings. They're not expeditious because there is so much argument all the time about what exactly a judge is allowed to assess here.
Look at the Meng case. How long did that go on? It went on forever, because China could pay for interminable arguments about reliability and so on. I say “China” because I know a little more about that case.
If we had a clear-cut system with a clear-cut onus on the requesting state to establish reliability on a balance of probabilities, judges know how to deal with that. They do it all the time. That's the judicial function. A judge would control that kind of hearing. It would move more expeditiously than the way they're unravelling now, with lawyers desperate to find something to argue in the current system. They are not expeditious hearings. That's a lesson from the Meng case.