• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Milwaukee County Judge Dugan indicted, grand jury meets Tuesday

j brown's body said:
I suspect she was acting as an advocate for the independence of the court itself.
Click to expand...
It’s reasonable to think that Dugan did/does believe her actions were justified/justifiable.

An excellent analysis by one of the best (IMO) resources online;

The Judge Dugan Case Is More Complicated Than It Seems

Some see the prosecution of the Wisconsin circuit court judge as vindicating the rule of law, and others as an attack on it. They’re both wrong.
www.lawfaremedia.org www.lawfaremedia.org
 
Absentglare said:
Who, then? Explain a little please, if this understanding is so obvious.
Click to expand...
Explain that criminal law is to protect the People and so does not require a victim to press the offense. That's a foundational principle of the rule of law.
 

There seems to be some speculation that that reaches the legal definition of harboring a criminal.
 
Josie said:
Was it a police state when Obama and Biden deported illegal immigrants?
Click to expand...
No because they followed the ****ing legal process and respected the rights of people.

Another stupid question that'd been answered 400 dozen times on here
 
I think a lot of people, including, apparently, a lot of judges, need to understand what "due process" involves when it comes to removal under both the INA and the AEA. The guidance is readily available and even folks in the media can access it.

8 CFR 235.3 covers "expedited removal" under the INA and a quick perusal of the statute shows that a full blown criminal hearing process IS NOT required.
 

I understand the distinction between expedited removal under the INA and deportations under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). However, the key issue is whether the AEA properly applies in the cases it has been used for and, if so, whether sufficient evidence is presented to justify deportation under the President’s Proclamation.

Recent rulings have shown divided judicial opinions on the matter. While Judge Stephanie Haines upheld the use of the AEA for deporting Venezuelan nationals identified as members of Tren de Aragua, she also ruled that the administration must provide at least 21 days' notice and allow individuals to challenge their deportation. Other federal judges have blocked the use of the AEA, arguing that the gang does not meet the legal threshold for a government-backed incursion.

Even if the AEA is deemed applicable, the burden of proof should be well established before expulsion. The administration has faced criticism for deporting individuals without clear evidence of gang affiliation, sometimes based on unverified accusations. Without proper safeguards, this approach risks bypassing due process and setting a precedent for executive overreach.

The question isn’t whether deportation is appropriate for criminals—it’s whether the legal framework is being applied correctly and whether individuals are given a fair chance to contest their designation before removal.

As far as this case specifically applies, I'm fine with expedited removal in this and similar cases where the identity of the individual is well known. Expedited removal has, in rare cases, resulted in misidentification and unlawful detainment of legal citizens.
 
Last edited:
gman said:
You should’ve stopped after your first 2 sentences.
Click to expand...
Nah, I hit the nail on the head. This judge is just the newest toy for Righties to play with now that Hunter Biden is old news. What she did was illegal and wrong. But the thirst for locking her up (or worse) being demonstrated on this thread speaks volumes. Righties need a target to go riled up about. In the end, she may get stripped of her law license and won't be able to continue as judge, but for those hoping she will face a long jail sentence, they are going to be disappointed. AND after she becomes old news, Righties will find a new target to get riled up about.
 
Josie said:
I'm not for deporting people without due process so don't lump me into a generalization box.

What about this specific case was fascist?
Click to expand...
You are defending it with your usual tactics.
Oh dont blame me im just asking questions
 
Let me try this again.

This particular case, to the best of my knowledge, has NOTHING to do with the AEA. The individual at the center of this was subject to removal under the INA and the judge actively, knowingly and intentionally obstructed his removal. Using this case to litigate AEA concerns is ridiculous.
 
Wait what....no state rights?
What load of backwards logic is this you are trying to push on us.
 
j brown's body said:
The incredible hypocrisy of Trump supporters calling for the rule of law is mind boggling.
Click to expand...
Been talking outta both sides of their mouths more than ever during the post-truth Traitor Trump era.
 
This is a discussion forum. You are upset about people discussing a current event on it? Really?

Glad you acknowledge what she did was illegal and wrong - many here are having difficulty with that. But what is the 'thirst for locking her up (or worse)?' Most people are talking about her deserving a fair trial.

I absolutely think that she shouldn't be a judge any more - and should be evaluated by the bar for her ethical issues. Personally, I would expect a plea deal - that doesn't involve jail time but sends an example.
 

I wasn't arguing that this case should be used to litigate the AEA directly. However, it's also likely to come up in the litigation of this case, given that the broader executive overreach through the AEA influenced Judge Dugan's judgment.

The INA was the legal basis for removal here, but Dugan's resistance was shaped by concerns over the application of immigration enforcement in other cases, including those tied to the AEA. That influence may be examined when evaluating the reasoning behind her obstruction. Whether or not it should play a role in the legal process, it's relevant to understanding the mindset that led to her actions.

I’m not saying her actions were defensible since she actively undermined lawful enforcement. But given the unprecedented nature of a sitting judge obstructing federal agents, it’s a topic worth analyzing beyond just the immediate legal ramifications.
 
SO, basically we agree she needs to be punished but no jail time. Fine by me. Doesn't change the fact that this is not the first nor last thread about this judge and that it will be thoroughly "debated" (which means Righties will find ways to constantly ridicule or demean her) because SHE IS the subject du jour and that once she becomes old news, a new target will be found. Maybe David Hogg?
 
That’s all entirely consistent with no intent to obstruct justice.

Normally you have to prove intent. If he had a Jew immigrant she was hiding in hiding in her attic for months or years, intent could be demonstrated. The official acts made by government officials are generally protected, even moreso than ordinary actions. For example, congress is protected by the speech and debate clause, similarly a judge has authority over the proceedings in their own courtroom.
 
Well, if Dugan was concerned about the AEA when the issue at hand was the INA then she was doing it wrong, that's number one. Number two is that whether she was concerned about the AEA or the INA she STILL obstructed the removal process and THAT is criminal.
 
Last edited:
Your posts are redundant. We all know where you stand but you just keep repeating the same old, same old.
 
Seriously, you have a strange take on this. You are deflecting. No one is 'ridiculing or demeaning' her.

Interesting that you do agree that what she did was wrong - many here are disputing that. That's the discussion.
 
Gonna have to agree to disagree.
 

I think her actions warrant the indictment and legal repercussions. I'm not disputing any of that.

I also don't want the overarching issue that led to all this to be dismissed because, whether you like it or not, it is pertinent to what happened. The broader immigration enforcement landscape played a role in shaping judicial responses, even if those responses were misguided. Ignoring that context doesn’t change its influence.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Gonna have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
The facts:
- she dismissed the case

- she forgot to inform everyone she dismissed the case

- Flores-Ruiz used the wrong door

The case is shamefully incomplete on the basis of what we know. As your source pointed out, it doesn’t make sense to rush this case in a few days on the basis of a criminal complaint. The purpose is to intimidate judges, to subordinate our criminal justice system to our new dictator.
 
You don't have to do something for months to obstruct justice. Her actions were pretty clear.

There is no official action involved - other than the questionable decision to adjourn her own hearing without talking to any of the other parties involved. The federal case wasn't in her court.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Gonna have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
I read your link and your back-and-forth. At this point, I think she obstructed federal agents, but I'm also curious if her defense will change my mind. It is more complicated than I originally read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.