Once a jury is impaneled, they aren’t supposed to continue following any reporting on the case they will decide on, so I’m not sure how public sympathy will help Dugan when it comes time for the jury to render it’s verdict.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.
A possible tangential benefit.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.
Thank you for agreeing with me about illegal immigrants. I'm not sure how Biden's enforcement, or lack thereof, addresses my concerns about constitutional overreach.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.
It plays zero part in the case that was in her courtroom, the federal case against the original defendant, or the case against Dugan. Why would it play any role in the trial of Dugan?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.
If she's concerned about executive overreach that STILL doesn't mitigate anything she CHOSE to do. It's not a material factor. You can argue emotions all you like but none of that changes the facts of the case. Furthermore, if emotions influenced her choices then that's REALLY bad for a judge because it completely belies impartiality.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.
Yes. I mean, the reasons why MIGHT be allowed in a sentencing hearing, but Dugan and her attorneys are going to try to avoid that.If she's concerned about executive overreach that STILL doesn't mitigate anything she CHOSE to do. It's not a material factor. You can argue emotions all you like but none of that changes the facts of the case. Furthermore, if emotions influenced her choices then that's REALLY bad for a judge because it completely belies impartiality.
Public trials don't directly influence jurors, but they can influence how prosecutors and defense attorneys carry out their arguments, leading to more sympathetic jurors if the defendant has a strong defense.Once a jury is impaneled, they aren’t supposed to continue following any reporting on the case they will decide on, so I’m not sure how public sympathy will help Dugan when it comes time for the jury to render it’s verdict.
A possible tangential benefit.
It plays zero part in the case that was in her courtroom, the federal case against the original defendant, or the case against Dugan. Why would it play any role in the trial of Dugan?
Sure, the AEA is a part of the broader discussion on immigration and deportation in the US, but that's not this case.
If she's concerned about executive overreach that STILL doesn't mitigate anything she CHOSE to do. It's not a material factor. You can argue emotions all you like but none of that changes the facts of the case. Furthermore, if emotions influenced her choices then that's REALLY bad for a judge because it completely belies impartiality.
A defense of "heat of passion" is often viewed as a mitigating factor in assault and murder cases but it doesn't really apply to matters of administrative action. The reason for that is that certain acts can easily be seen as justification for temporary insanity and that changes the mens rea of the subsequent action. In this case any feelings that the judge may have had regarding the apprehension were completely unreasonable. The agents, according to the affidavit, didn't exhibit any hostility and met with multiple officials in the courthouse to explain their purpose and process. There was nothing that a REASONABLE person could have construed as an imminent threat or egregious behavior by the agents.Yes. I mean, the reasons why MIGHT be allowed in a sentencing hearing, but Dugan and her attorneys are going to try to avoid that.
lol. You are the one that keeps bringing 'feelings' and 'anxiety' about the AEA into the conversation. Over and over. That her decisions were shaped by her emotions and feelings toward the Trump administration. That's not a defense, and should play no role in this case. It will likely also be excluded from any potential trial, as it's not relevant.You both are too focused on feelings and missing the legal implications influencing her choices.
While Dugan's actions were legally unjustifiable, it’s reductive to say they were purely based on emotions or partisan bias. Her response was likely shaped by concerns over executive overreach, specifically how enforcement mechanisms were being used beyond standard legal procedures.
The Alien Enemies Act’s invocation, while not directly involved in this case, contributed to broader judicial anxieties regarding executive power in immigration enforcement. Judges often consider the overall legal environment; if they believe procedural safeguards are being bypassed, it can influence their responses, whether or not that influence is appropriate.
None of this excuses Dugan's obstruction, but dismissing the context entirely ignores the legal and constitutional concerns that may have influenced her decision-making.
Again with the AEA. Why? Why do you insist on going back to that again and again? If the invocation of the AEA made Dugan "anxious" then that's on her, not the agents. It's a completely UNREASONABLE position for her to have taken and, as such, mitigates NOTHING. She may as well have been concerned about a martian invasion or the claws of Cthulu.You both are too focused on feelings and missing the legal implications influencing her choices.
While Dugan's actions were legally unjustifiable, it’s reductive to say they were purely based on emotions or partisan bias. Her response was likely shaped by concerns over executive overreach, specifically how enforcement mechanisms were being used beyond standard legal procedures.
The Alien Enemies Act’s invocation, while not directly involved in this case, contributed to broader judicial anxieties regarding executive power in immigration enforcement. Judges often consider the overall legal environment; if they believe procedural safeguards are being bypassed, it can influence their responses, whether or not that influence is appropriate.
None of this excuses Dugan's obstruction, but dismissing the context entirely ignores the legal and constitutional concerns that may have influenced her decision-making.
lol. You are the one that keeps bringing 'feelings' and 'anxiety' about the AEA into the conversation. Over and over. That her decisions were shaped by her emotions and feelings toward the Trump administration. That's not a defense, and should play no role in this case. It will likely also be excluded from any potential trial, as it's not relevant.
Again with the AEA. Why? Why do you insist on going back to that again and again? If the invocation of the AEA made Dugan "anxious" then that's on her, not the agents. It's a completely UNREASONABLE position for her to have taken and, as such, mitigates NOTHING. She may as well have been concerned about a martian invasion or the claws of Cthulu.
What does a REASONABLE person do when confronted with uncertainty about a new law or a new application of existing law? They do a little research, ask a few questions and then seek to apply that law based on the circumstances at hand. What does an unreasonable person do? They panic and choose actions based on the panic rather than on the law. That's where Dugan seems to have been when she CHOSE her course of action. It was an EMOTIONAL response rather than a rational response and now she's going to pay the price.You two are so focused on President Trump and what you see as anti-Trump sentiment. I have expressed the concerns here purely from a logistical perspective and how that impacts judicial actions. You two seem too involved in feelings about President Trump to look at it objectively.
Why do I keep bringing the AEA up? Because its unintended use creates an unfamiliar legal environment across all immigration enforcement. Judges are expected to work within established legal frameworks, and when a rarely invoked law is suddenly applied in a way that expands executive power, it shifts the landscape in ways courts have to address.
Dugan may have reacted improperly, but dismissing the influence of executive decisions on judicial responses ignores how legal uncertainty affects case law and enforcement procedures. Whether you agree with her or not, the broader implications remain relevant.
Note: I wasn't referring to anxiety in the sense you or I would experience anxiety. It was a metaphorical interpretation of the volatility that currently exists within immigration rulings.
This doesn’t make sense. If it’s not her job to inform the prosecution etc., then how is it not an official act?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.
He didn’t evade arrest.The other actions she took to help the person evade arrest had zero connection to her official duties.
Insofar as it relates to my point, it is.The difference between “dismiss” and “adjourn” is far from meaningless.
Nonsensical defense of a blatantly false claim.
Yeah, with Ruiz and his attorney, straight to a door to a hallway not used by defendants.
Ironic.No honest review of the facts supports your claim.
What does a REASONABLE person do when confronted with uncertainty about a new law or a new application of existing law? They do a little research, ask a few questions and then seek to apply that law based on the circumstances at hand. What does an unreasonable person do? They panic and choose actions based on the panic rather than on the law. That's where Dugan seems to have been when she CHOSE her course of action. It was an EMOTIONAL response rather than a rational response and now she's going to pay the price.
He most certainly did evade arrest, with the help of a certain Judge.This doesn’t make sense. If it’s not her job to inform the prosecution etc., then how is it not an official act?
He didn’t evade arrest.
So what?Don't be absurd. You know better.
They caught him, but again, rather than arresting him in a controlled environment, screened for weapons, with his attorney present, the arrest exposed the suspect, agents, and the public, to a potentially dangerous chase and arrest.
I am sure they did. That does not have anything to do with what the judge did. She willfully and purposely helped a detainee escape.So what?
The ICE agents caught their man. (I assume they receive training re HOW to arrest a person in a "non-controlled environment"....)
He was successfully apprehended by ICE. But they want to send a message to all judges to obey our dictator Trump.He most certainly did evade arrest, with the help of a certain Judge.
So Dugan didn’t obstruct the ICE agents because they caught him? If the money is recovered that means the bank robbery never happened?He was successfully apprehended by ICE. But they want to send a message to all judges to obey our dictator Trump.
Well, the good news for Dugan is that she'll get the opportunity to explain her legal rationale for her choices when this thing goes to trial. If that goes well then she'll be able to contemplate those choices for a long time in her next career as a coffee shop barista.I don't completely disagree, but I don’t think it’s as simple as that either. Legal uncertainty doesn’t always lead to panic; it can also lead to decisions made under pressure when procedural norms feel unclear. While she may have reacted improperly, dismissing it entirely as emotional rather than influenced by the legal storm occurring oversimplifies the situation.
I’m also curious to hear how she explains her actions. Her colleague, who requested clarification, handled it the right way overall, though the language at the end of their email was unprofessional.
He was indeed apprehended by ICE, but not with the help of a judge who swore to uphold her oath. And yes, a message should be loud and clear. NO ONE is above the law. Even Judges.He was successfully apprehended by ICE. But they want to send a message to all judges to obey our dictator Trump.
So sorry, not playing your game.Now THAT comment has to be the most ironic I have read in a while. Read it again, slowly, to yourself, and see the irony.
View attachment 67569833
She will get her day to explain herself, and why she did not uphold her oath.Well, the good news for Dugan is that she'll get the opportunity to explain her legal rationale for her choices when this thing goes to trial. If that goes well then she'll be able to contemplate those choices for a long time in her next career as a coffee shop barista.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?