unicorn

It's getting tougher now, as some airlines are actually doing away with boarding passes. And Lord help you if you get your boarding pass on your phone.

Yes, you did: "... I think it is also true that it would be stupid for Democrats, or judges, to defend wife beaters who break the law..." (your words). Having memory problems lately? And, yes, he did have a valid deportation order, even if it did date back to 2013 (in Obama's day). I'm certainly not here to defend Trump, whom I despise. But it's extremists such as yourself and that judge who cause people to rally behind Trump, which is most unfortunate. As for Dugan, she's been removed from the bench by Wisconsin's Supreme Court. So much for "legal nuances." We'll see what the Grand Jury says. Regardless, what she did was stupid (as you know), and feeds right into Trump's hands. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/29/wisconsin-supreme-court-suspends-judge-hannah-dugan-after-charges/83354123007/ "The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan because she was charged with two federal counts on allegations of trying to help an undocumented immigrant avoid arrest after he appeared in her courtroom. Under the Supreme Court's order, Dugan is not allowed to carry out her responsibilities as a Milwaukee County judge beginning April 29 "until further order of the court."...". https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/29/us/judge-hannah-dugan-suspended-immigrant-arrest/index.html https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/milwaukee-judge-suspended-hannah-dugan-rcna203629 "...The Wisconsin Supreme Court's order bars Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan from her position while the federal charges are adjudicated. The court, which said it was acting on its own and not in response to a request from anyone, said the order was intended to protect public confidence in Wisconsin courts...".

That much or that little?

Unless directed otherwise, it's considered respectful to wear black at a Catholic funeral--and he was the only one who didn't follow the dress code. I do agree that among the awful things he's done, this is far from the worst. One has to wonder, though: what did he think he had to gain by dressing so disrespectfully?

The point is that the "legal nuances," while perhaps an interesting subject for debate, are irrelevant in this discussion. Whether or not she had the legal right to ignore the warrant isn't the issue. Certainly she was not obliged to ignore the warrant. Therefore, the relevant questions are (1) Did the defendant receive due legal process prior to receiving a valid deportation order? and (2) Is he a violent criminal whose presence presents a danger to the public? The answer to both of those questions is plainly yes. As you stated, helping this criminal evade the law is stupid, and I'd also say immoral. I also agree that it's a black eye to any party who'd claim it's a good idea to help this man evade the law. Whether or not the judge will face legal consequences or not (such as losing her spot on the bench, or even her law license) is a separate debate, and is a smokescreen, rather than the important issue.

I see this thread was resurrected more than a year later! We did use a wedding planner, despite the so-so customer service. They weren't perfect, and we had to do our own research when it came to caterers--the one they suggested was egregiously expensive, and the one we chose had much more interesting food at a better price. That being said, the wedding came out smoothly (75 guests came), and it would have been tough to achieve this without the planners. Total cost for the wedding ran around $50,000 and was held in our backyard. It was a great success. Many ended up in the pool afterward. You know you've thrown a successful party when bras and other undergear are being picked up the next morning (as is common for most of our parties, though fewer bras and more swimsuits are lost during most of our parties). 😄

Especially since it's a job for life--not as if they need to save for retirement. I don't think most priests take a vow of poverty. I'm definitely no expert when it comes to Catholicism, but my understanding is that it's monks, nuns, and Jesuits who take a vow of poverty. I may be wrong, though.

That orange asshole didn't even dress in black at the funeral. He never misses a chance to show off what an ass he is, does he? Just when you thought he couldn't get any lower...

I hope I'm misunderstanding, but I'd assume he'd leave most of his fortune to the poor. That's a healthy salary if you're room and board are already taken care of.

No, the issue of whether or not the judge had the legal authority to ignore the warrant is irrelevant (and may take years to litigate). Whether she legally could or not ignore the warrant isn't the pertinent issue here, nor is it the issue either one of us is qualified to argue. Only a fanatic true believer, however, would argue that she should have ignored the warrant, and misdirected law enforcement authorities.

I wish I were boring. Whose mind I'd like to bore, I'll leave to your imagination. 😄

Walking my dog this afternoon, I thought of you, and the Gilbert & Sullivan tune came to my mind, which has the verse "I always voted at my party's call, and I never thought of thinking for myself at all...". As you said, neither of us is a lawyer, so neither of us can speak with authority as to whether or not the judge was within her rights to ignore the warrant. Another judge will decide that. What I think few would question, however, are: (1) whether the batterer had his due process prior to his deportation order, (2) whether or not this particular man is being deported legally, or (3) whether or not deporting him is a good idea. In other words, whether or not it was within her rights to ignore the warrant, only a fanatic would say it was the proper thing to do. She certainly had the option to avoid her (misguided and ineffectual) attempts to misdirect the FBI agents. Once again, you're factually incorrect when you stated that I had a "pre-determined conclusion" that the judge was in the wrong. When I first heard about the judge getting arrested, I literally gasped in outrage. Only after I looked into the full facts of this situation did I change my mind. Unlike yourself, I'm able to change my opinion upon learning new facts. I can predict your opinion as easily as I can predict a knee jerk.

That's your problem, when it comes down to it. You cling to the party line (or what you think is the party line), then adjust your "logic" to support your pre-determined conclusion. Do I vote Democrat as often as you do? It's probably pretty close--every few years, I will find a Republican running for a more minor office who I feel is the better candidate, but do vote for the Democrat over 95% of the time. Being a true believer, rather than a rational fact analyzer, can lead a person down the wrong path. If you haven't, you might want to read the old classic The True Believer by the late Eric Hoffer. I read it when I was in high school. That being said, I doubt many Democrats are fans of the wife batterer.

Even if it were the case that polls determine right from wrong (which they don't), your statements are misleading, as I very much hope you know. The polls are about Trump's general behavior towards deportation, which any reasonable person would agree are outrageous. There are no polls (as far as I'm aware) regarding this particular person. This person HAS had his day in the immigration court, and HAS had due process there. He has an active deportation order. As you also know, I was not defending Trump's usual behavior in the immigration sphere. Even the Thomalitos of the SCOTUS agree that snatching legal permanent residents from the streets and sending them to El Salvador without due process is super-illegal. However, in this case the defendant did have due process (over a decade ago, when Obama was POTUS), and he clearly represents a danger to society. You're confounding two completely separate issues (as I hope you know, unless there's seriously something wrong).