Did Judge Dugan go too far?

[unicorn]

At first, when I heard the FBI arrested a judge for helping an illegal alien, I thought "...Another one of those Trump administration over-reaches...". Then, when I looked more into it, I felt a lot less sympathy for her. It's not the fact that he was still in the country well after a decade of being ordered to leave. Rather, it was the combination with his other, violent crimes, including battery and domestic abuse, which made me lose sympathy.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-hannah-dugan-arrested-fbi-allegedly-helping-undocumented/story?id=121161497

..."Just now, the FBI arrested Judge Hannah Dugan out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin on charges of obstruction — after evidence of Judge Dugan obstructing an immigration arrest operation last week," Patel said in the new post. "We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject — an illegal alien — to evade arrest."  ... Federal prosecutors allege Flores-Ruiz illegally entered the U.S. from Mexico and was issued an Expedited Removal order in January 2013, according to a criminal complaint. Bondi alleged that Flores-Ruiz beat his roommate and a woman so badly that they needed to be hospitalized and that he continued to be belligerent in the hospital before his arrest. According to the complaint, Dugan allegedly sought to help Flores-Ruiz evade arrest by federal officers from an ICE task force...

"The courtroom deputy then saw Judge DUGAN get up and heard Judge DUGAN say something like 'Wait, come with me,'" the complaint states. "Despite having been advised of the administrative warrant for the arrest of Flores-Ruiz, Judge DUGAN then escorted Flores-Ruiz and his counsel out of the courtroom through the 'jury door,' which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse."...After he was encountered by FBI and DEA agents outside the building, Flores-Ruiz "turned around and sprinted down the street" before he was ultimately apprehended, according to the complaint...

It would be one thing if his only crime were being in the country illegally. But the violent crimes add another, more significant layer, at least as far as I'm concerned. Judges shouldn't consider themselves immune from consequences if they break the law. 

[Suckrates]

40 minutes ago, unicorn said:

At first, when I heard the FBI arrested a judge for helping an illegal alien, I thought "...Another one of those Trump administration over-reaches...". Then, when I looked more into it, I felt a lot less sympathy for her. It's not the fact that he was still in the country well after a decade of being ordered to leave. Rather, it was the combination with his other, violent crimes, including battery and domestic abuse, which made me lose sympathy.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-hannah-dugan-arrested-fbi-allegedly-helping-undocumented/story?id=121161497

..."Just now, the FBI arrested Judge Hannah Dugan out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin on charges of obstruction — after evidence of Judge Dugan obstructing an immigration arrest operation last week," Patel said in the new post. "We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject — an illegal alien — to evade arrest."  ... Federal prosecutors allege Flores-Ruiz illegally entered the U.S. from Mexico and was issued an Expedited Removal order in January 2013, according to a criminal complaint. Bondi alleged that Flores-Ruiz beat his roommate and a woman so badly that they needed to be hospitalized and that he continued to be belligerent in the hospital before his arrest. According to the complaint, Dugan allegedly sought to help Flores-Ruiz evade arrest by federal officers from an ICE task force...

"The courtroom deputy then saw Judge DUGAN get up and heard Judge DUGAN say something like 'Wait, come with me,'" the complaint states. "Despite having been advised of the administrative warrant for the arrest of Flores-Ruiz, Judge DUGAN then escorted Flores-Ruiz and his counsel out of the courtroom through the 'jury door,' which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse."...After he was encountered by FBI and DEA agents outside the building, Flores-Ruiz "turned around and sprinted down the street" before he was ultimately apprehended, according to the complaint...

It would be one thing if his only crime were being in the country illegally. But the violent crimes add another, more significant layer, at least as far as I'm concerned. Judges shouldn't consider themselves immune from consequences if they break the law. 

She overreached, and acted outside her scope of duty AND the rule of law....   For that, there should be consequences,  but the Trump administration is so chaotic,  everything gets mixed up and becomes the same issue in public perception.   And I think Trump wants us to be CONFUSED..?.   

[Lucky]

When you have ICE closing in on the Courthouse, you sometimes decide to help the ones they plan to torture and deport to some country that they have never been to. I think the Judge acted for the greater good.

[unicorn]

4 hours ago, Lucky said:

When you have ICE closing in on the Courthouse, you sometimes decide to help the ones they plan to torture and deport to some country that they have never been to. I think the Judge acted for the greater good.

Well, maybe if he were arrested for something minor such as petty theft or reckless driving, but do you really feel that he deserves mercy after beating two people so badly they needed hospitalization? For the most part, I disagree with almost everything the Trump administration does. However, it's sentiments such as these which I think incensed the public enough to elect the orange buffoon--obviously with tragic consequences for not just the US, but probably the entire planet. 

[stevenkesslar]

6 hours ago, unicorn said:

Well, maybe if he were arrested for something minor such as petty theft or reckless driving, but do you really feel that he deserves mercy after beating two people so badly they needed hospitalization? For the most part, I disagree with almost everything the Trump administration does. However, it's sentiments such as these which I think incensed the public enough to elect the orange buffoon--obviously with tragic consequences for not just the US, but probably the entire planet. 

The polls on this are interesting, and a bit surprising.

So first I will make three points about why you are right, and then cite polls that say you are wrong.

1.  No one likes a wife beater or a woman beater.  A wife beater staying illegally in the country is worse.  A wife beater who also sends other to the hospital should be easy to ship off to be tortured in some place no one wants to go.

2.  This was a massive unforced error.  It was clear for at least a few years that chaos at the border that spread across the country was becoming more and more unpopular specifically among Democratic or D-leaning Independent constituencies in blue cities or states.  Trump's pollsters clearly figured that out, and honed in on it in all kinds of ways.

3.  The interest groups pushing the policies Trump lambastes are the ones Ruy Teixiera despises and says have to be purged.  Because they insist on forcing Democrats to adopt positions that are wildly unpopular.  He makes a good argument that even Hispanics don't buy what the pro-immigration interest groups push.  Which is why more and more will vote Republican.

So for all these reasons, these people just suck.  Please.  Torture them. They deserve what Joel just got in The Last Of Us.  😨  

And yet, survey says:

Trump is getting negative marks on immigration, polls show

Quote

The Post-Ipsos poll dove into more specific recent actions by the administration, asking Americans about Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran native who was deported to El Salvador by mistake. Their polling showed a plurality of respondents at 42 percent support his return to the U.S. The survey also revealed a majority 51 percent opposition to sending immigrants accused of being gang members to El Salvador without a court hearing.

It actually surprised me that half the country would say it's wrong to send people who somebody says are gang members to El Salvador with no court hearing.  It makes perfect sense to me that most judges, who probably think courts do support the rule of law, would say even a wife beater (Garcia) or a woman beater deserves a court hearing.  I would guess a majority of Americans might be fine with overlooking due process for gang members who do bad things.  But maybe not.

There is nothing "woke" or radical about a conservative SCOTUS telling Trump he went too far. Kudos to them.  It is probably partly why the polls are shifting.

 

 

[unicorn]

8 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

...

So first I will make three points about why you are right, and then cite polls that say you are wrong....

There is nothing "woke" or radical about a conservative SCOTUS telling Trump he went too far...

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). 

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

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.

Correct.  There are no polls about this particular situation.   And I specifically avoided commenting on it because, if I were on a jury, I would want to know about the details.

The relevant part of the polls, to me, is this.  There is more concern about due process, in general, than I might have guessed.  Forget about MAGA diehards.  I might guess some lifelong Democrat in NYC says there is too much crime.  So yeah.  If some wife beater who has been in this country for more than a fucking decade illegally is sent to El Salvador to be tortured, with no due process, I have no problem with that.  Hasta la vista, pendejo!

In terms of this specific case, I have no clue.  I'll repeat what I said.  If I were looking at it from the perspective of a judge, I would probably think the right way to do this is the legal process needs to play out.  If I were Tom Homan, and I believe what I read and hear 24/7, the right way to do this is just deport the son of a bitch.  He is a gang member.  He beats his wife.  He is a terrorist.  He is an illegal.  Fuck him.  He deserves no due process. 

I'm not sure whether I even fairly characterized what a judge would think, or what Tom Homan thinks.  I do think Tom Homan completely failed in his first act, in Trump's first term.  And he got tens of thousands of Americans killed by letting fentanyl flood through the borders.  So I am not particularly sympathetic to anything he says, or any "deport them now, no questions asked" strategy. It seems like a majority of Americans agree with me.

But, if you and I were on the jury in this particular case, I think we are both saying we would want to be fair, and we would want more information.  Was it reasonable for ICE to arrest the judge?  Based on what you posted, it seems so.  I hope the judge was aware of the risk she was taking when she did what she allegedly did. Does she deserve her day in court?  Yes, of course.

I'll also repeat that, in general, as a partisan and loyal Democrat, I think my party fucked up royally.   These are unforced errors.  Whatever the facts are, which I do not know, it sounds awful to say we are the party that wants wife beaters to run loose lawlessly.  That is not what anyone is actually saying.  But that is how Trump and his pollsters make it sound.

The good news to me, as a partisan and loyal Democrat, is that some leaders of my party are saying, "We are not for wife beaters.  We are for due process."   A conservative SCOTUS is saying the same thing.  And the polls suggest that resonates with a bare majority of Americans.

 

[Suckrates]

3 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

Correct.  There are no polls about this particular situation.   And I specifically avoided commenting on it because, if I were on a jury, I would want to know about the details.

The relevant part of the polls, to me, is this.  There is more concern about due process, in general, than I might have guessed.  Forget about MAGA diehards.  I might guess some lifelong Democrat in NYC says there is too much crime.  So yeah.  If some wife beater who has been in this country for more than a fucking decade illegally is sent to El Salvador to be tortured, with no due process, I have no problem with that.  Hasta la vista, pendejo!

In terms of this specific case, I have no clue.  I'll repeat what I said.  If I were looking at it from the perspective of a judge, I would probably think the right way to do this is the legal process needs to play out.  If I were Tom Homan, and I believe what I read and hear 24/7, the right way to do this is just deport the son of a bitch.  He is a gang member.  He beats his wife.  He is a terrorist.  He is an illegal.  Fuck him.  He deserves no due process. 

I'm not sure whether I even fairly characterized what a judge would think, or what Tom Homan thinks.  I do think Tom Homan completely failed in his first act, in Trump's first term.  And he got tens of thousands of Americans killed by letting fentanyl flood through the borders.  So I am not particularly sympathetic to anything he says, or any "deport them now, no questions asked" strategy. It seems like a majority of Americans agree with me.

But, if you and I were on the jury in this particular case, I think we are both saying we would want to be fair, and we would want more information.

I'll also repeat that, in general, as a partisan and loyal Democrat, I think my party fucked up royally.   These are unforced errors.  Whatever the facts are, which I do not know, it sounds awful to say we are the party that wants wife beaters to run loose lawlessly.  That is not what anyone is actually saying.  But that is how Trump and his pollsters make it sound.

The good news to me, as a partisan and loyal Democrat, is that some leaders of my party are saying, "We are not for wife beaters.  We are for due process."   A conservative SCOTUS is saying the same thing.  And the polls suggest that resonates with a bare majority of Americans.

Eventhough "due process" is a principle and legal process as American as apple pie,  leave it to the Supreme Court to DISAPPOINT you when the shit hits the fan....

I am NOT betting they will make the "right" call here....although it should be a slam dunk, no brainer. 

Sis, you have more faith that I do,  but all these years of Trump Dump have "soured" me. 

[stevenkesslar]

2 hours ago, unicorn said:

This person HAS had his day in the immigration court, and HAS had due process there. He has an active deportation order.

So I was curious.  Here is some context you did not state.

This is a quote from Dugan:

Quote

“The rule of law is how we address our social issues, how we address our disputes, but also how we grow as people,” she said.

So right out of the gate, I agree with her statement completely.  If I were on a jury selection panel, and I were honest, my guess is I would be eliminated because I view the world the way she does.  I can live with that.

This is about the context:

Quote

The Justice Department has repeatedly asserted that it will investigate any local officials who do not assist federal authorities on immigration matters.

Quote

A Mexican immigrant, Flores-Ruiz had been removed from the United States in 2013, but immigration officials learned he was back in the country illegally because of his arrest in a local domestic abuse case.

Quote

After being informed of the agents’ presence by her courtroom deputy, the judge “became visibly angry, commented that the situation was ‘absurd,’ left the bench, and entered chambers,” court documents say.

Quote

Witnesses told investigators that Dugan confronted the federal agents in a public hallway, where she repeatedly demanded they leave, saying they needed a different kind of warrant to make the arrest. Dugan ordered the agents to speak with the chief judge of the courthouse.

So here is a test.   Which best describes this situation:

A.  This fucker is an asshole.  He was deported once, and he did not get the memo.  Now he is fucking with people again.  Get him the fuck out.  Send him to El Salvador.  Beat his fucking head with a golf club.  And, yes.  Take that last swing, so his fucking brains explode.  Teach the fucker a lesson, and everyone else like him.

B.  As a matter of law, this judge fucked up.   When immigration officials say, "Jump!", by law she has only one good legal response:  "How high?"  She fucked up.  By law, she has to do whatever immigration officials want her to do.  Trump wants to make a point here, and the law is on his side.

C.  ICE, Tom Homan, and these particular immigration officials fucked up.  They are not paying attention to the law.  They are grandstanding, while lots of Americans die of fentanyl they have no idea how to stop.  So, as the judge's attorney said, this has nothing to do with public safety.  The immigration officials had no legal right to arrest this guy in her court room.  She is correct that they needed a different kind of warrant to make the arrest.  She directed them to the chief judge, presumably to deal with the legal requirements involved in doing what they wanted to do.

I'm guessing all three answers would get lots of backers, if we did poll America with these three choices.

My guess is that "C" is closest to the correct legal answer.  This judge has her own convictions about due process, and has been around the block.  So, without the benefit of being a lawyer or judge, I would guess she knew what she was doing.  Both in terms of her own view of the world, and in terms of what the law actually says.  But there is no question that a lot of people would view this as abhorrent. And think the greater good is send the asshole to El Salvador and find a nice sturdy golf club to at least scare the shit out of him with.

Politically, I will restate my point a third time.  What I now know is this guy was deported in 2013 by the biggest bad ass of all. A total fucking sadist.  A cruel son a bitch.  And the fucking worthless Deporter In Chief of all time:  Barack Hussein Obama.  Fucker! 

Why is he back in the US?  I don't know.  Maybe he snuck in while Sleepy Joe was at the beach.  Or maybe he snuck in while Tom Homan was failing to stop the fentanyl crisis. Beats me.  But I want Obama back.  Or, I want Andy Beshear in 2028.  Let him be the country boy from Kentucky who says the Democratic Party deports people who rape the daughters of good Trump voting country folk in Kentucky.  By the way, gotta add this.  Restore the Biden child tax credit, because in addition to not wanting illegals to rape your daughter, I want her to escape poverty and prosper. And this tax credit is money paid by Elon Musk, who can afford to pay more in taxes so your daughter is not poor.  And maybe next time vote for me, not Trump.   

That is the solution I want.  Ask Judge Dugan if she can do that.

[Suckrates]

The ISSUE is becoming far too convoluted, complicated and confusing for the American public to unravel.    We will be better served if we just stick to the issue of Due process, a concept  EVERYONE can understand and believes in as Americans, we might be OK with this.    but once again, I can NEVER trust the Supreme Court anymore after they created the Trump monster with their "Absolute immunity" ruling.  

It seems media wants to place the blame on everything and everyone EXCEPT on where and What it really belongs.    Seems right wing media is desperate to "find" fault and error with LEFT leaning actors, so they can escalate their rhetoric about the LEFT blocking their efforts to rid the country of criminals....  So far, the ONLY criminals presented to Americans are Trump, his GOP and cabinet.  

[stevenkesslar]

11 minutes ago, Suckrates said:

The ISSUE is becoming far to convoluted, complicated and confusing for the American public to unravel.    We will be better served if we just stick to the issue of Due process, a concept  EVERYONE can understand and believes in as Americans, we might be OK with this.    but once again, I can NEVER trust the Supreme Court anymore after they created the Trump monster with their "Absolute immunity" ruling.  

I think that is what at least some Democrats are doing.   The bumper sticker is:  DUE PROCESS.  And that is the bumper sticker of SCOTUS, too, at least some of the time.  But you are skeptical of whether they mean it.  Which seems rational to me.

My comments were directed to what @unicorn wants to discuss, which is the specific details of the case.  Neither he nor I are lawyers or judges.

From the very little I know, I like this judge.  Like if we were going to have a nationally televised debate between her and Tom Homan, I would bet on her to win.  Both on the specifics of the law, and the drama of some social justice Judge Judy ranting with conviction about due process while Tom Homan does his tough guy "I don't want him to rape your daughter" routine.  She would probe about how many American kids he stopped from being killed, since he is all about public safety.

That said, we all have to be honest.  Tom Homan is sexy as fuck!

[Suckrates]

2 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

I think that is what is what at least some Democrats are doing.   The bumper sticker is:  DUE PROCESS.  And that is the bumper sticker of SCOTUS, too, at least some of the time.  But you are skeptical of whether they mean it.  Which seems rational to me.

My comments were directed to what @unicorn wants to discuss, which is the specific details of the case.  Neither he not I are lawyers or judges.

From the very little I know, I like this judge.  Like if we were going to have a nationally televised debate between her and Tom Homan, I would bet on her to win.  Both on the specifics of the law, and the drama of some social justice Judge Judy ranting with conviction about due process while Tom Homan does his tough guy "I don't want him to rape your daughter" routine.

Supreme Court needs to walkback their "absolute immunity" decision.   It would save them a lot of headaches down the road, because Trumps "I am stronger and tougher than you, and theres nothing you can NOW do about it " attitude is just getting started.   Remember, we are only at day 100.  Trump is NOT the courts friend, no matter how much Trump, Alito and Thomas enjoy "circle jerks" together !    

[stevenkesslar]

41 minutes ago, Suckrates said:

Supreme Court needs to walkback their "absolute immunity" decision.   It would save them a lot of headaches down the road, because Trumps "I am stronger and tougher than you, and theres nothing you can NOW do about it " attitude is just getting started.   Remember, we are only at day 100.  Trump is NOT the courts friend, no matter how much Trump, Alito and Thomas enjoy "circle jerks" together !    

There is a lesson from the same sex marriage fight that applies here.

The bumper sticker is simple:  IT'S PUBLIC OPINION, STUPID!  The Supremes are captives of public opinion, and mostly see themselves that way.

For all I know, by 2028 Trump will be elected as permanent King in an 80/20 landslide.   Why?  Every Latino man wants to pay $100,000 to own a truck.  If Trump can figure this tariff shit out so that every middle class Latino guy has to pay $100,000 to own a truck, that's his ticket to love and royalty.

Just kidding.

Trump is a dumb ass, and his approval rating is dropping like a rock.  So not even his circle jerk buddies like Alito and Thomas think Trump will be a handsome young King by 2028.  Nor will JD. So they have to worry about what the public thinks about them.  I think they read the polls.  They know not even most Republicans want a King Trump.  That's my theory.

So far, Trump's disapproval is whatever it was in Act One, minus two points or one month.  So right now he is at 52 % disapproval.  He is actually catching up quickly to where he was in 2017, although right now he is still about one point better than his 53 % disapproval rate in April 2017.  And we know in 2017 it just got worse.  So is there any reason for the Supremes to think this guy will have an 80 % approval rating when we all figure out he really should be our king?  I doubt it.

Same thing with same sex marriage.  There are may Gay men who believe that victory was primarily or even exclusively a legal victory.  And there are many legal heroes in that war.  I can't find the quotes, and I wish I had written them down somewhere.  But I am pretty sure even SCOTUS members have discussed how they had their eyes on the polls.  It is not a coincidence that same sex marriage gained majority support in public opinion polls right around the time SCOTUS made it legal. Those two things were interactive, I think.  It was public opinion, stupid!  Of course, that was a different SCOTUS.  I agree with your skepticism about this gang of nine.

There are a few of the right wingers, like Thomas, who really do seem to not give a shit what people think about him.  Which is fine, since I have zero respect for him.  But I think most of the conservatives, and especially Roberts, have their eyes on the polls.  If it comes down to who is the asshole, and who is the reasonable moderate, Roberts is going to at least try to be the reasonable moderate, I think.

 

 

[unicorn]

2 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

...as a partisan and loyal Democrat...

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. 

 

[stevenkesslar]

20 minutes ago, unicorn said:

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. That being said, I doubt many Democrats are fans of the wife batterer. 

Thanks for the diagnosis, Doc.   Even though it ignores everything I said.  

Since you missed it, you are the one with a pre-determined conclusion.  You obviously think the judge is in the wrong.  There are a whole lots of facts that you either don't understand, or don't care about.

Was this judge under any legal obligation to help the immigration officers in her court room?

If so, why did she repeatedly demand they leave?  That implies she either was under no legal obligation to help them, or she is a judge who has no clue about the law.

Was this judge correct that they needed a different warrant to arrest the man?

Why did the judge direct the immigration officers to see the chief judge?

Does any of this matter, or does anyone on a jury who even thinks these questions matter get maligned as "fans of the wife batterer" in your mind?

I will repeat a political point you clearly do not get, because you are resistant to it, like a bacteria.  The point some Democratic leaders are making, seemingly effectively, is "We're not for wife beaters.  We're for due process.  And we're for judges who stand for due process."  SCOTUS is saying the same.  I say that because the poll I cited shows a majority, barely, support the concerns for due process.  Which, in this case, actually does relate to whether the immigration officers had a valid arrest warrant.

You've made it clear that you have decided how you feel, and these questions about facts don't really concern you or interest you.  That's fine. But don't malign me as a fan of a wife batterer.  I'm not.  I personally am good with the idea that the guy is deported, again, legally.

Still want to know whether Judge Dugan can arrange for Andy Beshear to be POTUS, so he can legally deport assholes like Obama did. And so we can move beyond these dumb and fact-resistant debates.

[stevenkesslar]

On 4/26/2025 at 2:35 PM, Lucky said:

When you have ICE closing in on the Courthouse, you sometimes decide to help the ones they plan to torture and deport to some country that they have never been to. I think the Judge acted for the greater good.

Do you know what the law actually says regarding what she did?

If this is just a narrow matter of what the law says, which I know is always up to a judge or jury, common sense tells me to never bet against a judge knowing what the law that governs her own court room says.  At the very least, I would guess it is ambiguous enough that she can argue that she followed the letter of the law.  That has nothing to do with whether or not the judge is a liberal or conservative.  It has to do with the common sense idea that no judge wants to lose her job, or go to jail.

[unicorn]

3 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

...as a partisan and loyal Democrat...

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.

 

[stevenkesslar]

24 minutes ago, unicorn said:

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.

 

 

I didn't bother to watch the videos, because you are boring and predictable.  It's always going to be some GIF or JPG with some insult that shows you are better at insults than facts.  Kudos to upgrading the insults with a video.  

Do you know what the law actually says regarding what the judge did?  Do you care?

Is there any small part of your professional experience or canon or ethics as a doctor that suggests in any way that a judge might know the law on this matter, better than you or me?  Or even better than immigration officials?  Do you care?

Do you actually even understand what happened?  It seems not.  Instead of trying to understand what happened, you just go off about "fanatics" and "fans of wife batterers" and whatever goofy insult you can come up with.

You keep referring to a "deportation order" which seems to be a figment of your imagination, or ego.  At least based on what you posted, and I read.  If the articles I cited are correct, we know this guy was legally deported in 2013, when Obama was POTUS.  Neither Obama, nor I, are fanatics or fans of wife batterers. So all you have are ignorant insults.  What I think we know is immigration officers had an arrest warrant, which is not a deportation order.  We know the judge said the warrant was not valid for some reason, and she referred them to the chief judge.  We have no idea when or how this guy got back in the US, at least based on what I read.

I can imply that the law is of no concern to you.  Basically you think this guy is an asshole.  So ICE should just cart his ass away, and let's not worry about the law.  Fine.  But you have no evidence that most people agree with you.  I posted evidence that a bare majority of Americans want due process, even with assholes who should be deported - legally.  I hope SCOTUS, as conservative as it is, upholds judges who uphold due process.  To me, that actually is a conservative idea.

[unicorn]

5 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

...you are boring...

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

[unicorn]

55 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

...Do you know what the law actually says regarding what the judge did?  Do you care?...

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. 

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

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. 

So thanks for answering my question.

2 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

Do you know what the law actually says regarding what the judge did?  Do you care?

No, and no.

2 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

Do you actually even understand what happened?  It seems not.  Instead of trying to understand what happened, you just go off about "fanatics" and "fans of wife batterers" and whatever goofy insult you can come up with.

You do not understand what happened.   And you confirmed that you think there is only one way to view this, regardless of the facts or the law.  I do not agree with you.  So now you have told me I am a "fanatic" twice.

While I am not a judge or lawyer, it is clear that there is both a general issue about due process, which SCOTUS and a majority of Americans say Trump is inattentive to, and a specific issue about due process in the case you cite.  Again, you don't care about the law, or due process, or the legality or morality of what the judge did.  You have judged her already, and reached a verdict.  Because I am interested in the facts and the law and don't agree with your pre-determined verdict, I am a "fanatic".

I don't know that your verdict would stand up in a court of law.  First, you said something about a deportation order.  I don't think such an order exists, and now you seem to have dropped the idea.  The guy was legally deported once, during Obama's Presidency.  And we probably agree he should be deported again - legally.  Nothing fanatical about that. 

Your post is about what the judge did.  What she said, according to the news reports, is that the arrest warrant was not legal.  This is a key point, which you don't care about or view as relevant.

Quote

Witnesses told investigators that Dugan confronted the federal agents in a public hallway, where she repeatedly demanded they leave, saying they needed a different kind of warrant to make the arrest. Dugan ordered the agents to speak with the chief judge of the courthouse.

I have no way of knowing whether the judge is correct, and they did not have a legal arrest warrant.  But she certainly was not "ignoring" it.  She was saying she is a judge, and this arrest warrant is not legal.  That does not sound like the actions of a "fanatic" or a fan of wife battering to me.  But thanks for your opinion.

I have been a landlord for 25 years, with hundreds of tenants.  And I can count the number of evictions I ever needed on one hand.  The first and only time I tried to do it myself, as a young and ignorant landlord, I got a book on landlord/tenant law in my state and copied verbatim a draft eviction notice.  The notice was thrown out as illegal because in the year since the book was published the law changed.  And specified that the notice must not only state the day the tenant must leave by, but the time of day.  It was a minor technicality. But the lesson I learned was always have a lawyer do it for me.  Of course, the great thing about El Salvador is these legal nuances don't matter, at least in some cases.  You can do lots of fun stuff with golf clubs, and the heads of assholes with no legal rights.

So if your point is that these details of the law are irrelevant, and the judge is guilty and ICE should be free to arrest the guy because they want to deport him and he has no rights, you are entitled to your opinion.  But the more you write the more you are exposing that you are the one who does not understand, or care about, the law.

The thing that turned me off the most about the story, at least in the brief explanation you initially gave, is the idea that this guy was issued an "Expedited Removal Order" in 2013, and he is still here.  How expedited is that?  It sounds like a joke.  

This is not accurate.  The source you cited, ABC, is technically not wrong.  They just left out this key fact, which USA Today did not:

Quote

Flores-Ruiz lived in the United States and was issued a notice and order of expedited removal by United States Border Patrol Agents on January 16, 2013. He was arrested and deported to Mexico through the Nogales, Arizona, Port of Entry shortly after.

Again, this is when Deporter In Chief Obama reigned.  He was not a fanatic, nor am I.  He legally deported a lot of people, including this guy.  I want Andy Beshear or someone like him as POTUS, who will make it incredibly clear, with a handsome farm boy Southern drawl, that we Democrats will legally deport your ass if you are an undocumented Mexican who beats your wife.  I think the Mexican women I know would generally agree.  Obama did, and in fact deported his ass.  Legally.

I am curious about this issue about an arrest warrant.  You are not.

I think this is why Tom Homan was an abject failure in Act One, and seems like he is well on his way to being a failure again.  And it may be why Americans are now turning against Trump even on immigration, and saying they don't approve of his actions. 

I am way more concerned about fentanyl flooding in and killing over 100,000 Americans than I am about some Mexican guy who beats someone up for playing loud music.  That is not either/or.  But Homan opened the floodgates that killed huge numbers of Americans.  It is not acceptable.  So if he instead wants to grandstand because he can't stop Americans from being killed, he better make sure his agents understand the law, and follow it.  Maybe they did.  But they may not have.  And, either way, you don't give a shit.

Trump is an asshole and largely to blame.  One of the best parts of that bipartisan immigration law Trump got killed in 2024 is they wanted to empower judges, and hire more of them, to expedite these legal processes. Trump killed that. If you cared, which you don't, you would know that the authors of the bill, like Lankford and Sinema, stressed that with immigration law in particular, it is all about the legal details.  So once you say you don't care about the details, you make yourself irrelevant to any pragmatic and workable solution.

I am actually glad to know that when this guy was ordered deported in 2013, they did deport him quickly.  I spent lots of time in Mexico at that time.  And it aligns with my general understanding.  Obama was seen as a bad ass deporter.  Lots of stories about that.  If Trump wants to argue the problem is judges who believe in due process and won't let a murderous failure like Homan do whatever the fuck he wants, he is just planning his own failure in Act Two.  The polls already are starting to reflect this.

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

I am curious about this issue about an arrest warrant.  You are not.

For anyone actually interested in the law, I found what appears to be a long and thoughtful analysis of this issue.   Specifically, did Judge Dugan break the law, which her attorney already says she did not do?

Of course, we should always be suspicious of what we read on the internet.  But, in a nutshell,  this poster argues that this is a legal grey area.  After reading this, it clarifies to me why Judge Dugan asked if ICE had a judicial warrant. If they had one, which arguably they should have if they wanted to do this right, it seems to me (I'm not a lawyer) like she would have had little or no legal space but to help ICE.  Since they did not have a judicial warrant,  she may have decided this was her call, in her courtroom. And clearly she did not feel she had to, or wanted to, help them.

Instead of using the quote function, for ease of reading I am just going to cut, paste, and italicize this long post from Reddit that hopefully outlines what the law says about this situation, and specifically about the arrest warrant.

 

Did ICE have a warrant? Let's find another source.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-hannah-dugan-arrested-fbi-allegedly-helping-undocumented/story?id=121161497%C2%A0

When the officer replied they were there to make an arrest, the complaint alleges Judge Dugan asked if they had a judicial warrant, to which the officer responded, "No I have an administrative warrant."

Let's see what the difference is.

A judicial warrant is issued by a court (judge or magistrate) and requires probable cause to authorize actions like arrests, searches, or seizures, including in private spaces. An administrative warrant, on the other hand, is issued by an agency (like ICE) and authorizes civil actions, such as arrests or seizures, but generally doesn't allow searches of private places without consent. 

Compliance is typically mandatory for judicial warrants, but not always for administrative warrants, as they may only authorize civil actions

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/hannah-dugans-arrest-brings-up-judicial-vs-administrative-warrant-debate-key-differences-101745615265117.html

The core of the controversy lies in the distinction between judicial and administrative warrants. A judicial warrant is issued by a neutral judge or magistrate, backed by probable cause, and authorizes arrests, searches, or seizures, including in private spaces like homes or non-public courthouse areas. It must specify the person or place targeted and be signed by a judge.

An administrative warrant, used by ICE, is issued by a federal agency like the Department of Homeland Security and signed by an immigration officer, not a judge. It does not grant authority to enter private spaces without consent and is primarily for immigration violations, not criminal acts.

Darryl Morin of Forward Latino told the Milwaukee Journal: “Administrative warrants lack the constitutional rigor of judicial warrants. They don’t allow entry into private spaces without permission.”

If they want access to a non-public space, they need a judicial warrant. I'm going to assume it's not advised practice for ICE to arrest people at the courthouse as it disincentives people from actually showing up for their trial. This administration and their cult following don't really care about procedures though or due process.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, however, argued that Judge Dugan’s actions obstructed justice. “She helped a criminal defendant evade arrest, putting officers at risk,” Bondi said on ABC News.

If they're a criminal defendant, it should have been easy to get a judicial warrant. Instead, they wanted to create a spectacle with ICE because Trump supporters eat that up.

In conclusion, it's a grey area. That won't stop them from saying it's clear and they should have more room to arrest "activist judges" which the Trump cult will naturally defend.

 

Obviously that post is from someone left of center, but who bothered to try to explain some legal nuances.  

The thread itself is interesting.  Most of the posts are attacks on Trump and his authoritarian or even "Nazi" proclivities.  But others point out a very sensible question:  why is this a hill Democrats want to die on?  The guy was already deported once, and he entered the US illegally again.  And he now has a criminal complaint.  It was the criminal complaint that enabled ICE to do their job and match fingerprints and plan to arrest this guy.  Nothing wrong, so far.  Just ICE doing its job.  And even targeting a bad hombre, not some poor farm worker.  

It is interesting that ICE did not have a judicial warrant.  The author implies ICE had an intent to purposely target an "activist" judge.  I would not assume that.  Whatever the reason, which could have been they did not have the time, or maybe it was just easier to sign their own arrest warrant, it clearly ended up making a legal difference as this played out with this particular judge.

There's a separate issue cited in articles and posts about whether it is bad form for ICE to arrest undocumented immigrants at their own court proceedings, since it "disincentivizes" them from appearing in court.  I am glad no one identifying themselves as a Democratic leader is making THAT argument.  The guy beat the shit out of his room mate.  That was what got ICE involved.  I have no problem with the idea that if you beat the shit out of anyone and end up in court after already being deported once, of course we will bust your ass at the court house.  And please.  Tell your bad hombre amigos, asshole.  As a practical matter, of course the word will get out and other undocumented immigrants who allegedly commit crimes will simply avoid the court house.  But that is not ICE's fault.  And arguably it just helps build an even clearer legal case against some asshole who doesn't show up in court when he is supposed to.

I won't weigh in on the legal question of what Dugan did.  Some MAGA judge likely would have done the opposite, and congratulated ICE for doing their job.  So some of this is about dissent.  Can people disagree with Trump, or does anyone who does not agree have to worry about being arrested?  I'm pretty sure Dugan was thinking that through as it played out.  If I had to bet, she covered her ass legally.   Although if it is a grey area, she also must have decided she was willing to take some risk.  She has a history as a social justice advocate.  So one way to look at this is, "Why piss this person off?  Why make her the bad hombre, instead of the asshole who appeared in her court?"

Whatever the legal verdict, I have reached my political verdict.  This actually explains why Trump and Homan are stupid and reckless.  They constantly make unforced errors.  Someone thorough and cautious would have probably had the judicial warrant in hand.  But, had he not, why target an activist judge?  They got the bad hombre, anyway.  Why make the activist judge the issue?  She clearly is a hero to a lot of people now.  It is just a fact that it is easier to go after a bad hombre who breaks the law and assaults people than it is to go after any judge of any political ideology who is a warrior for due process, at least in her own mind.  Why this fight?

Two opposing things can be true in politics at the same time.  I think it is also true that it would be stupid for Democrats, or judges, to defend wife beaters who break the law.  And no doubt many people will be just like @unicorn, and conclude very quickly that legal nuances mean nothing.  And this judge is just wrong for not helping ICE.  But she is not defending a criminal, or his behavior.  She is defending due process.  If she said, "You are Nazi scum, ICE should be abolished, and you are picking on a nice guy," she is defending an alleged criminal. If she makes the issue the arrest warrant, and says go talk to the chief judge, she has made the issue due process.

At the very least, once the target is a judge who says she is passionate about due process, you are on a much more slippery slope.  And whether this judge actually woke up that morning itching for a public fight that shifted the focus from the male wife beater to the female judge, she clearly decided to embrace it as it was happening.  She sounds like she knows what she is doing.

Why make the target judges?  It just seems like the same kind of incompetent unforced political error Trump makes constantly, that erodes public confidence in him.  And that's not my theory.  The polls already reflect growing disapproval, specifically on his immigration policies.  I think this is why.  It would be far smarter to embrace the bill a moderate Democrat and a conservative Republican wrote that empowers judges to deport people, and hires more of them.

[Goober]

Does anyone think the judge will actually be prosecuted? I doubt she will. Simply based on the incompetence donOLD's administration has shown so far, I can't imagine they have a winning case against the judge. I expect they'll drop the charges after milking their performative politics for all it's worth with some explanation of leniency for dropping the charges.

[stevenkesslar]

9 minutes ago, Goober said:

Does anyone think the judge will actually be prosecuted?

They may prosecute her.  Will they win?  I'm not a lawyer.  But I doubt it.  I know I went overboard on posting.  But this is one where the devil is in the details.  With the law, the devil is always in the details.  And she is a judge with a background as a social justice warrior.  So that right there strongly suggests she knows what she is doing. 

There is no way she could have planned this.  I also think it is unlikely that ICE planned to target the judge as an "activist judge".  I don't think ICE is that organized.  If they were, they would have had a judicial warrant, which they did not.  I think a lot of this is just how it happened to work out, in the moment.  That said, since the judge has a history as a social justice activist, I would not be surprised if she wants this to go to a trial.  

In the eyes of many MAGA folks, she is the Wicked Witch.  In the eyes of a lot of people, who are not fanatics, she is a hero fighting against Trump and for due process.  And it seems clear that Team Trump is making unforced errors by shifting the target from bad hombres who beat their wife to a female judge who is devoted to due process.  Depending on how strong her beliefs are, she may want to ride this thing and use it as a vehicle to push back against Trump.  Certainly there are a lot of people, including many moderates, who feel that way on this issue.

[unicorn]

On 4/27/2025 at 8:51 PM, stevenkesslar said:

... I think it is also true that it would be stupid for Democrats, or judges, to defend wife beaters who break the law.  And no doubt many people will be just like @unicorn, and conclude very quickly that legal nuances mean nothing...

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.