• 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

[deflection removed]

Nothing I’ve posted could honestly be argued as backpedaling.
Really it's just deflection and trying to grasp at straws.

Dugan is still a judge. I’ve already proven so.

[deflection removed]

I've explained it - and you absolutely understood. She's only on the books because the court is not going to take a personnel action until the legal case is resolved. Her judicial career is behind her.
 
Really it's just deflection and trying to grasp at straws.
The deflections, as proven, and straw grasping is all being done by you.
I've explained it - [irrelevant deflection removed]
Dugan is still a judge.
No, [irrelevant deflection removed]
[irrelevant deflection removed] She's not a judge now [irrelevant deflection removed]
The fact that Dugan remains a judge at this point is irrefutable.

She has not resigned, and the state has not initiated impeachment proceedings.
 
She is no longer a judge. I’m sorry.
What proof do you have to offer that Dugan is no longer a judge?

Has she resigned?

Has she been impeached and removed from her elected office as a circuit court judge?

Even in the state’s Supreme Court decision to “temporarily suspend” Dugan, nowhere does it state, in any terms, that Dugan is no longer a judge.


Eventually, once the legal process takes it’s course, Dugan may well end up resigning or being impeached.

Probably should be impeached and removed, IMO, but for now, Dugan remains a judge.
 
What proof do you have to offer that Dugan is no longer a judge?
She was removed from the bench. She isn’t a judge any longer.
Has she resigned?

Has she been impeached and removed from her elected office as a circuit court judge?

Even in the state’s Supreme Court decision to “temporarily suspend” Dugan, nowhere does it state, in any terms, that Dugan is no longer a judge.
Meaning she isn’t a judge any longer. She may later be reinstated, but she is not a judge any longer.
Eventually, once the legal process takes it’s course, Dugan may well end up resigning or being impeached.

Probably should be impeached and removed, IMO, but for now, Dugan remains a judge.
She’s not a judge any longer. She may be again if she is completely found not guilty, but likely not.
 
She was removed from the bench. She isn’t a judge any longer.

Meaning she isn’t a judge any longer. She may later be reinstated, but she is not a judge any longer.

She’s not a judge any longer. She may be again if she is completely found not guilty, but likely not.
I’m sorry that you don’t understand the difference between a person being “temporarily relieved” of their official duties, and someone permanently removed from their official duties.

The difference between the two isn’t a matter of semantics.
 
I’m sorry that you don’t understand the difference between a person being “temporarily relieved” of their official duties, and someone permanently removed from their official duties.

The difference between the two isn’t a matter of semantics.
In this case, it absolutely is. It's like a police officer being relieved after a bad shooting and paced on leave pending the outcome of legal proceedings. They paused actions on her employment to allow the legal proceedings time to work out. Once that's complete, she'll have to deal with a review by the appropriate judicial conduct board and bar association. Given her conduct, it's unlikely that she'll ever be a judge again. She'll probably have to make a deal to have a chance at keeping her license.
 
Last 10 pages have been the dumbest I've read on DP for quite a while.
 
I’m sorry that you don’t understand the difference between a person being “temporarily relieved” of their official duties, and someone permanently removed from their official duties.
There’s no difference in her status. She isn’t a judge any longer. She may be again one day in the unlikely event she is acquitted.
The difference between the two isn’t a matter of semantics.
I know. The current result is the same. She isn’t a judge.
 
Stop embarrassing yourself with lies.

Nothing I’ve posted could honestly be argued as backpedaling.

Blah, blah, …..

Dugan is still a judge. I’ve already proven so.

Again, stop embarrassing yourself with lies.
Is your stance that her 'title ' of judge has not yet been revoked?

Because she most assuredly is NOT performing the duties of judge, as of now.
 
You guys should inform HR, because Judge Dugan is still being paid as a judge.
She’s no longer a judge. If she is acquitted, which she almost certainly will not be, she may become a judge again.
 
She’s no longer a judge. If she is acquitted, which she almost certainly will not be, she may become a judge again.
Like I said, you should contact HR to tell them to stop Judge Dugan’s pay.
 
You guys should inform HR, because Judge Dugan is still being paid as a judge.
Do you have a source for that?

Not sure you read what you quoted. They paused any action on her employment - this would be the HR side - for the legal action. Once they resolve that, or at least get a little further along in the process, they will address her permanent status.

Her 'powers' as a judge have been suspended. She's not currently a judge, and she's unlikely to be one again.
 
Do you have a source for that?
Yes.
[deflections and irrelevant opinion deleted]
“Dugan will continue to be paid her $174,512 annual salary while on administrative leave.”

“Court officials emphasized that this is not a disciplinary action but an administrative one.”
 
Yes.

“Dugan will continue to be paid her $174,512 annual salary while on administrative leave.”

“Court officials emphasized that this is not a disciplinary action but an administrative one.”
Interesting. Thank you.

And yes, the county court - as the employer - is going to let the criminal proceedings play out further before taking disciplinary action. They'll may let the board that governs judicial conduct, and bar association, complete their review as well. Similar to the process involved when an officer is brought up on charges.
 
If she’s being paid and hasn’t been fired, she’s still a judge
Nope. It’s why she has no authority of any kind as a judge. Because she is no longer one. In the extremely unlikely event she’s acquitted, she might become one again.
 
Nope. It’s why she has no authority of any kind as a judge. Because she is no longer one. In the extremely unlikely event she’s acquitted, she might become one again.
If she's acquitted, she'll still have to go through some type of judicial conduct board and the bar association. Given that those have a lower evidentiary standard, and a higher standard for conduct, she's going to have trouble. They will take into account the conduct in her own case, which is a problem.

I'd bet she makes a deal at some point to try to save her license.
 
Really it's just deflection and trying to grasp at straws.



I've explained it - and you absolutely understood. She's only on the books because the court is not going to take a personnel action until the legal case is resolved.

Her judicial career is behind her.

Let's hope so. I also hope they revoke her license.
 
If she’s being paid and hasn’t been fired, she’s still a judge

She's technically still a judge but because of the trouble she finds herself in, she is not actively serving in that capacity as of now because she's been suspended.
 
Back
Top Bottom