• 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

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.
The former judge didn't dismiss the case. She adjourned the hearing without telling or consulting any of the other parties involved - likely to avoid telling them she was doing so. That was in furtherance of her criminal activity. Now it gets kicked to another judge to handle, and the victims have to wait longer for justice.

Flores-Ruiz didn't just 'use the wrong door'. They were directed to use a jury only door by the judge, who escorted them through a staff area to an exit away from her courtroom. The evidence they have from the complaint was pretty telling - and that was without testimony from the defendant or his attorney.
 
The facts:
- she dismissed the case
Dugan adjourned the case. She did not dismiss the case.
- she forgot to inform everyone she dismissed the case
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to substantiate this ^ claim.
- Flores-Ruiz used the wrong door
Flores-Ruiz and his attorney were personally led to the door by Dugan.
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.
I don’t, at all, disagree that the MAGAt AG has pounced on this case, and is using it in a pr scheme to paint all judges that don’t toe the MAGAt line however, none of that vindicates Dugan’s actions.
 
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.
What "overarching issue"? Just because she dislikes Trump or dislikes his immigration policy doesn't mitigate ANYTHING she CHOSE to do.
 
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.
There’s definitely a lot to considered.

Both sides have valid arguments.

For Dugan’s sake, some sort of agreement/deal between herself and DOJ to avoid a public trial might be the best option.
 
For Dugan’s sake, some sort of agreement/deal between herself and DOJ to avoid a public trial might be the best option.

No, there was a time and a place for that, and it was before they publicly arrested her.

There's really no advantage for her to avoid a "public trial" now.
 
What "overarching issue"? Just because she dislikes Trump or dislikes his immigration policy doesn't mitigate ANYTHING she CHOSE to do.

Not everything is about liking or disliking Trump and/or his policies. It’s more likely that Dugan viewed his proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act as a potential constitutional overreach.

The AEA hasn’t been widely used in modern history, and its application in immigration enforcement raises legitimate concerns about executive power. If she saw the proclamation as setting a precedent that bypasses legal safeguards, she may have felt compelled to intervene. She unfortunately went about it in the wrong way.

None of that excuses her obstruction, but dismissing the constitutional concerns outright ignores why she acted the way she did. Whether or not the AEA’s use is legally sound will likely become a contentious point around Judge Dugan's case.
 
There’s definitely a lot to considered.

Both sides have valid arguments.

For Dugan’s sake, some sort of agreement/deal between herself and DOJ to avoid a public trial might be the best option.

A public trial could also be beneficial to her case and the issues surrounding it. It might bring clarity to how the Alien Enemies Act was applied and whether executive overreach played a role in shaping her response. If the trial highlights these concerns, it could influence future interpretations of executive authority in immigration enforcement.
 
Last edited:
I don’t, at all, disagree that the MAGAt AG has pounced on this case, and is using it in a pr scheme to paint all judges that don’t toe the MAGAt line however, none of that vindicates Dugan’s actions.
Where do you get this from?
 
No, there was a time and a place for that, and it was before they publicly arrested her.

There's really no advantage for her to avoid a "public trial" now.
It wouldn't be to her advantage to enter a plea deal to a lesser charge? I would think of prime importance to her would be some type of agreement that gives her the opportunity to preserve her license.
 
A public trial could also be beneficial to her case and the issues surrounding it. It could potentially hurt President Trump if it helps reveal overreach by him and his administration.
There may be some tangential benefits to the cause of justice, but I question how a public trial will benefit Dugan personally or professionally.
 
Not everything is about liking or disliking Trump and/or his policies. It’s more likely that Dugan viewed his proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act as a potential constitutional overreach.

The AEA hasn’t been widely used in modern history, and its application in immigration enforcement raises legitimate concerns about executive power. If she saw the proclamation as setting a precedent that bypasses legal safeguards, she may have felt compelled to intervene. She unfortunately went about it in the wrong way.

None of that excuses her obstruction, but dismissing the constitutional concerns outright ignores why she acted the way she did. Whether or not the AEA’s use is legally sound will likely become a contentious point around Judge Dugan's case.
Why would the AEA play any role in Dugan's case?

She might claim it as a motivation - but it wouldn't be a defense. It's not even remotely involved here.
 
Not everything is about liking or disliking Trump and/or his policies. It’s more likely that Dugan viewed his proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act as a potential constitutional overreach.

The AEA hasn’t been widely used in modern history, and its application in immigration enforcement raises legitimate concerns about executive power. If she saw the proclamation as setting a precedent that bypasses legal safeguards, she may have felt compelled to intervene. She unfortunately went about it in the wrong way.

None of that excuses her obstruction, but dismissing the constitutional concerns outright ignores why she acted the way she did. Whether or not the AEA’s use is legally sound will likely become a contentious point around Judge Dugan's case.
You're still on the AEA. Do you have some kind of evidence that the removal was pursuant to that act instead of the INA?
 
A public trial could also be beneficial to her case and the issues surrounding it. It might bring clarity to how the Alien Enemies Act was applied and whether executive overreach played a role in shaping her response. If the trial highlights these concerns, it could influence future interpretations of executive authority in immigration enforcement.
Any decent judge would block any reference to Trump or the AEA. Again, they aren't even remotely connected to this case.
 
There may be some tangential benefits to the cause of justice, but I question how a public trial will benefit Dugan personally or professionally.

It may provide public sympathy, at least from those who understand her position. That's led to defendants getting more leeway in cases before. Public trials can sometimes shift narratives, especially if they highlight constitutional concerns or executive overreach that resonate with certain audiences.

Whether or not it benefits her professionally is another question, but the visibility of the trial could influence public perception and, in turn, impact how the case unfolds.
 
The former judge didn't dismiss the case. She adjourned the hearing without telling or consulting any of the other parties involved - likely to avoid telling them she was doing so. That was in furtherance of her criminal activity. Now it gets kicked to another judge to handle, and the victims have to wait longer for justice.

Flores-Ruiz didn't just 'use the wrong door'. They were directed to use a jury only door by the judge, who escorted them through a staff area to an exit away from her courtroom. The evidence they have from the complaint was pretty telling - and that was without testimony from the defendant or his attorney.
So your argument now is that her professional decision to adjourn is the entire case. That is what I said. And it’s weak.
 
So your argument now is that her professional decision to adjourn is the entire case. That is what I said. And it’s weak.
Don't be absurd.

The dismissal of the case is the only part that's connected to the case before her - and her official duties. And even then, concealing that from the prosecution, witnesses, and victims, is clearly not following normal judicial practice. The other actions she took to help the person evade arrest had zero connection to her official duties.
 
Dugan adjourned the case. She did not dismiss the case.
Yes, that is what I meant. Thank you for the meaningless correction.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to substantiate this ^ claim.
? Okay, then you have an even weaker case.
Flores-Ruiz and his attorney were personally led to the door by Dugan.
So she walked around in her courtroom.
I don’t, at all, disagree that the MAGAt AG has pounced on this case, and is using it in a pr scheme to paint all judges that don’t toe the MAGAt line however, none of that vindicates Dugan’s actions.
If it’s a sham case to intimidate judges, that is directly relevant. But ok.
 
I never said a judge’s mindset allowed for actions that undermine the law. The point is that Dugan’s reaction was influenced by broader concerns over how the Alien Enemies Act has been used, even if those concerns don’t justify her response.

The judicial integrity issue is pending before a higher court, but that doesn’t mean the conversation around its implications for immigration enforcement should be ignored.

Regarding deportations, my argument isn’t about keeping criminals in the country; it’s about ensuring due process is followed when determining someone’s status. The Alien Enemies Act has been used to deport individuals without clear evidence tying them to criminal activity or gang activity, setting a precedent that bypasses legal safeguards. That kind of executive overreach weakens legal governance, regardless of whether the specific case in question involved the AEA.
Illegal immigrants have no right to be in this country.
If immigrating is what these people want to do, then there are legally prescribed procedures to follow to do so.

This is all about cleaning up the large mess Biden's policies made of all this.

The discussion shouldn’t be framed as either supporting judicial misconduct or opposing deportation; the focus should be on ensuring that both judicial actions and federal enforcement remain legally accountable.
 
Illegal immigrants have no right to be in this country.
If immigrating is what these people want to do, then there are legally prescribed procedures to follow to do so.

This is all about cleaning up the large mess Biden's policies made of all this.

Look at you, pretending to give a **** about law and order and legal procedures.
 
It may provide public sympathy, at least from those who understand her position. That's led to defendants getting more leeway in cases before. Public trials can sometimes shift narratives, especially if they highlight constitutional concerns or executive overreach that resonate with certain audiences.

Whether or not it benefits her professionally is another question, but the visibility of the trial could influence public perception and, in turn, impact how the case unfolds.
A trial is the last thing that she wants. She stepped in it big time.

I'll bet her law team is telling her to hide and talk to no one, hoping that something happens politically that will give them the opportunity to deal this away.
 
Yes, that is what I meant. Thank you for the meaningless correction.
The difference between “dismiss” and “adjourn” is far from meaningless.
? Okay, then you have an even weaker case.
Nonsensical defense of a blatantly false claim.
So she walked around in her courtroom.
Yeah, with Ruiz and his attorney, straight to a door to a hallway not used by defendants.
If it’s a sham case to intimidate judges, that is directly relevant. But ok.
No honest review of the facts supports your claim.
 
Why would the AEA play any role in Dugan's case?

She might claim it as a motivation - but it wouldn't be a defense. It's not even remotely involved here.
You're still on the AEA. Do you have some kind of evidence that the removal was pursuant to that act instead of the INA?
Any decent judge would block any reference to Trump or the AEA. Again, they aren't even remotely connected to this case.

I am aware the removal was under the INA, not the AEA. My argument was never that the AEA was directly invoked in this case; rather, its broader application influenced judicial attitudes toward enforcement. Dugan’s reasoning may have been shaped by concerns over how executive power was being exercised, but she likely overstepped her authority when trying to address those concerns.

A judge might block references to Trump or the AEA as irrelevant to the direct legal proceedings, but that does not erase the fact that executive overreach in immigration enforcement has been a significant concern in judicial rulings. Ignoring that context does not make it disappear.
 
Back
Top Bottom