|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 28 2025 23:17 Jankisa wrote:
As an European observer I would much, much rather live in Canada then the US, just because US is a heaven for Libertarian blowhards it doesn't mean it's a better place to live, as evidenced by many factors other then "I don't like paying taxes because I don't give a fuck about my fellow citizens".
this is a vast oversimplification. Firstly, it does not have to be an EITHER-OR. You can live in both countries. I spend 100 days a year in Canada. 90% of Canadians live within a 2 hour drive of the border. Like most Canadians I grew up an hour from the border.
I think sticking all of one's eggs in the Canada basket is a lazy move.
|
On April 28 2025 22:12 oBlade wrote:
What news are you reading that the judges were arrested for obstructing illegal deportation?
The news that you aren't reading and wouldn't take as a credible source. We know this because you are taking your information from a source I wouldn't find credible because its saying somehow that what they did was illegal.
If you can't find it in yourself to see that arresting judges based on their perceived political affiliation is a bad look you need to do a lot more introspection on what information you are consuming. You thinking that the only people that might object to kidnapping and exporting human beings to el salvador are democrats says a lot about more about repubicans than you think that it does.
I legitimately don't think you're being told about how the asylum process works and think that democrats for some reason intentionally let in migrants because they're just comically evil. A Judge saying "hey maybe you should be following due process if you want to make sure you're following the law" shouldn't be in your mind against the law.
|
On April 28 2025 04:23 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2025 17:08 decafchicken wrote:On April 26 2025 19:19 oBlade wrote:On April 26 2025 05:29 decafchicken wrote:
And now trump is arresting judges.
*constitutional crisis intensifies* Unfortunately, two judges seem to have done illegal things, and as we know no one is above the law. They are not even being arrested for belonging to the choir of district judges who have unilaterally taken up the power to override the executive branch since January. Has nothing to do with the interplay between branches which leads to constitutional crises, which is why it wasn't a constitutional crisis for example when Santos was investigated for... doing illegal things. Trump seems to do illegal things all the time. What have these judges done to you that warrants arrests, and why so in comparison to the contempt the executive branch has shown the judiciary? One obstructed federal agents and one hid a criminal in his house. That's why judges approved arrest warrants for them and they were arrested. I find it credible they broke the law which was the probable cause for them being arrested under warrant. They will have their day in court to show otherwise. There is no "in comparison." You are comparing apples to oranges. They were not arrested because they are judges and the law isn't supposed to apply to judges which everyone knows, except Drumpf who is so vengeful he had them arrested for breaking laws even though they're allowed to break laws. They are citizens who (allegedly and credibly enough to merit arrest warrants) broke laws.
No, an administrative warrant does not automatically give access to a courtroom. Administrative warrants, like those issued by agencies like ICE, are not court orders and do not mandate cooperation from judges or law enforcement. They are internal documents and do not carry the same legal weight as a judicial warrant
-Administrative warrants are not judicial: They are issued by agencies within the executive branch, not a court.
-They don't grant access to private spaces: Administrative warrants typically focus on immigration violations and don't authorize entry into private areas without consent or a judicial warrant
-They are distinct from judicial warrants: Judicial warrants, issued by a judge, have the authority to compel action and can be used to enter private spaces
-They are internal documents: Administrative warrants are primarily for internal agency use and don't create a legal obligation for other entities.
https://www.motionlaw.com/the-difference-between-judicial-and-administrative-warrants/
https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/articles/ices-fake-warrant-judge-hannah-dugans-arrest-political-stunt-trumps-autocratic-agenda/
The "contempt" you frame the executive currently showing the judiciary is reciprocal. Parts of the judicial branch are in brazen political mutiny in a departure from their constitutional role, which is a strategy explicitly admitted by Schumer. Many Democrats, to include many district judges, simply do not accept that the office of president exists or has any power when occupied by the orange devil. I'll give you a quick example. During Biden's administration, there was a border crisis, with caravans of 10k-15k people arriving per day from not only Central & South America but the whole world. These are called "inadmissible aliens." This is not a pejorative from me, it's a specific legal class, meaning people who have no reason to be let in, but if they walk across the border and call ollie ollie in free, due to lack of enforcement of the laws by the Biden administration, they would get a court date in 3 years and be let into the US on the basis of an asylum claim which has a 90%+ rate of being called BS and rejected in court if they ever bother to show up. However, after a certain point, that begins to make it look like you're being a bad president, at least on paper, because there's large numbers of hundreds of thousands or millions of people crossing the border illegally and many of them staying. In its infinite wisdom, the corpse of Biden directed Mayorkas to invent a program paroling the people into the US, so they could be brought directly to the US and wouldn't be counted as illegal border crossings and illegal immigrants, they would come under "parole" instead which makes the numbers look good on paper! The source of the authority is 8 USC 1182: + Show Spoiler +(5)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security may, except as provided in subparagraph (B) or in section 1184(f) of this title, in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States. So the Biden administration created a convenient app to turbo-let 500,000 inadmissible aliens into the country and dumped them on towns that never asked and weren't consulted. Sound like a case-by-case basis to you? Me neither. But good news, instead of 500,000 illegal border crossings by inadmissible aliens, we helped 500,000 people in a humanitarian stroke! Hooray! Trump ended the program and ended parole for people on it, giving them like a month to leave. A district presidentjudge stayed the order with this rationale: + Show Spoiler +Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 Fed. Reg. 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025), is hereby STAYED pending further court order insofar as it revokes, without case-by-case review, the previously granted parole and work authorization issued to noncitizens paroled into the United States pursuant to parole programs for noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (the “CHNV parole programs”) prior to the noncitizen’s originally stated parole end date. Emphasis mine. Conclusion: A Republican's evil hand may not undo that which a Democrat president did with the exact same power. Biden can mass import 500,000 people despite that the law specifically says it takes a case-by-case basis to admit them. Trump cannot end the parole because they or a Democrat somewhere might not like that. It's one after another of these. A president trying to run the country doing something that he thinks, and usually is, within his power to do. A progressive judge somewhere throws a wrench in it with the justification it might affect someone in a way they don't like.
Remember when republicans killed the bi-partisan border security bill to make biden look bad? lol
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-republicans-block-border-security-bill-campaign-border-chaos-rcna153607
|
On April 28 2025 23:56 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2025 22:12 oBlade wrote:
What news are you reading that the judges were arrested for obstructing illegal deportation? The news that you aren't reading and wouldn't take as a credible source. We know this because you are taking your information from a source I wouldn't find credible because its saying somehow that what they did was illegal. If you can't find it in yourself to see that arresting judges based on policy is a bad look you need to do a lot more introspection on what information you are consuming.
What policy?
The guy had an illegal immigrant living on his property who was a gang member, and he destroyed evidence that was part of an investigation into the person he was harboring. And he admitted to it. That's a serious crime. It's transparently evil, and it's corrupt, and it's a disgusting betrayal from a judge. So that is what led to a federal judge signing his arrest warrant.
This is not a lie. There is actually a judge in the US who is that fucking insane. I understand it's inconvenient to admit because it's sounds so far-fetched that it must be something we can dismiss as a Republican conspiracy. Unfortunately, it happened.
So I ask again: What policy? None of the acts he's accused of are the national policy of the US federal government. If you are representing to me now that any one of the things he did is the state policy of New Mexico, where he was a state judge, I would submit to you Trump should mobilize the national guard and declare martial law in New Mexico.
On April 29 2025 00:27 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2025 04:23 oBlade wrote:On April 27 2025 17:08 decafchicken wrote:On April 26 2025 19:19 oBlade wrote:On April 26 2025 05:29 decafchicken wrote:
And now trump is arresting judges.
*constitutional crisis intensifies* Unfortunately, two judges seem to have done illegal things, and as we know no one is above the law. They are not even being arrested for belonging to the choir of district judges who have unilaterally taken up the power to override the executive branch since January. Has nothing to do with the interplay between branches which leads to constitutional crises, which is why it wasn't a constitutional crisis for example when Santos was investigated for... doing illegal things. Trump seems to do illegal things all the time. What have these judges done to you that warrants arrests, and why so in comparison to the contempt the executive branch has shown the judiciary? One obstructed federal agents and one hid a criminal in his house. That's why judges approved arrest warrants for them and they were arrested. I find it credible they broke the law which was the probable cause for them being arrested under warrant. They will have their day in court to show otherwise. There is no "in comparison." You are comparing apples to oranges. They were not arrested because they are judges and the law isn't supposed to apply to judges which everyone knows, except Drumpf who is so vengeful he had them arrested for breaking laws even though they're allowed to break laws. They are citizens who (allegedly and credibly enough to merit arrest warrants) broke laws. The "contempt" you frame the executive currently showing the judiciary is reciprocal. Parts of the judicial branch are in brazen political mutiny in a departure from their constitutional role, which is a strategy explicitly admitted by Schumer. Many Democrats, to include many district judges, simply do not accept that the office of president exists or has any power when occupied by the orange devil. I'll give you a quick example. During Biden's administration, there was a border crisis, with caravans of 10k-15k people arriving per day from not only Central & South America but the whole world. These are called "inadmissible aliens." This is not a pejorative from me, it's a specific legal class, meaning people who have no reason to be let in, but if they walk across the border and call ollie ollie in free, due to lack of enforcement of the laws by the Biden administration, they would get a court date in 3 years and be let into the US on the basis of an asylum claim which has a 90%+ rate of being called BS and rejected in court if they ever bother to show up. However, after a certain point, that begins to make it look like you're being a bad president, at least on paper, because there's large numbers of hundreds of thousands or millions of people crossing the border illegally and many of them staying. In its infinite wisdom, the corpse of Biden directed Mayorkas to invent a program paroling the people into the US, so they could be brought directly to the US and wouldn't be counted as illegal border crossings and illegal immigrants, they would come under "parole" instead which makes the numbers look good on paper! The source of the authority is 8 USC 1182: + Show Spoiler +(5)(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security may, except as provided in subparagraph (B) or in section 1184(f) of this title, in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States. So the Biden administration created a convenient app to turbo-let 500,000 inadmissible aliens into the country and dumped them on towns that never asked and weren't consulted. Sound like a case-by-case basis to you? Me neither. But good news, instead of 500,000 illegal border crossings by inadmissible aliens, we helped 500,000 people in a humanitarian stroke! Hooray! Trump ended the program and ended parole for people on it, giving them like a month to leave. A district presidentjudge stayed the order with this rationale: + Show Spoiler +Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 Fed. Reg. 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025), is hereby STAYED pending further court order insofar as it revokes, without case-by-case review, the previously granted parole and work authorization issued to noncitizens paroled into the United States pursuant to parole programs for noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (the “CHNV parole programs”) prior to the noncitizen’s originally stated parole end date. Emphasis mine. Conclusion: A Republican's evil hand may not undo that which a Democrat president did with the exact same power. Biden can mass import 500,000 people despite that the law specifically says it takes a case-by-case basis to admit them. Trump cannot end the parole because they or a Democrat somewhere might not like that. It's one after another of these. A president trying to run the country doing something that he thinks, and usually is, within his power to do. A progressive judge somewhere throws a wrench in it with the justification it might affect someone in a way they don't like. Remember when republicans killed the bi-partisan border security bill to make biden look bad? lol https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-republicans-block-border-security-bill-campaign-border-chaos-rcna153607
Thanks for at least pretending to care about border security. But Biden is the one who made himself look pretty bad by not being able to do in 4 years to the border what Trump could do in 1 month without a bill. Assuming what Biden did wasn't intentional. Nice vindication for every eagle-eyed political observer who realized the base problem wasn't the presence or absence of this or that law per se, but the execution of the laws.
Hopefully an upcoming monopartisan border bill will be a lot better. Just like the Secure the Border Act of 2023 was better than the "bipartisan" bill that Republicans didn't vote for. Turns out doing something good is more important than doing something shitty which is bipartisanly shitty.
"Administrative warrants don't count." This is a hilarious one.
The reason you don't need judicial warrants in every immigration case is related to what people were arguing pages ago, 99% sure you included, that illegal immigration isn't against the law because in some cases it's "only" civil, not criminal violations.
That's why you don't need a judge to sign off on a warrant for a civil immigration violation when ICE can issue their own warrant. Okay? Choose which you want. Do you want it to be a crime or not? As long as it's "just" a civil violation, ICE can issue their own warrants. Amazing, isn't it?
So ICE issues warrants for immigration violations. A courthouse is a public place. Not a private place. You cannot be reasonably expected to fuck with federal agents, and whisk someone out the back just because there's no judicial arrest warrant for the guy being chased, and expect no consequences. For the same reason you can't drop buckets of slime and thousands of marbles in front of policemen chasing a guy who just crashed his car after a high speed chase just because the police don't have a judicial arrest warrant signed by a judge at that moment. The police officers have the right to go after the guy, and you do not have the right to interfere, and if you interfere, they are first of all going to win anyway, and you should know better especially if you're a judge yourself. Similarly, the federal agents have the right to execute their duties under the authority they get from federal law passed by Congress. Whether you should have to help them or not is its own question, but you definitely don't get to obstruct them.
|
On April 28 2025 23:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2025 23:17 Jankisa wrote:
As an European observer I would much, much rather live in Canada then the US, just because US is a heaven for Libertarian blowhards it doesn't mean it's a better place to live, as evidenced by many factors other then "I don't like paying taxes because I don't give a fuck about my fellow citizens".
this is a vast oversimplification. Firstly, it does not have to be an EITHER-OR. You can live in both countries. I spend 100 days a year in Canada. 90% of Canadians live within a 2 hour drive of the border. Like most Canadians I grew up an hour from the border. I think sticking all of one's eggs in the Canada basket is a lazy move.
And yet you are cheering on an administration who is actively and systematically destroying the alliance and partnership between these countries that allows you to live like that while pretending like the reality of vast majority of Canadians that find that shit appealing doesn't exist.
All the while you are trying to present your stances of Canada being a socialist hellhole who most Canadians can't wait to leave for the glorious USA as something that most Canadians share, it's very shitty, doesn't align with polling and reality and I don't think many people around here except maybe your fellow fascist sympathizers are buying it.
|
On April 29 2025 00:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2025 23:56 Sermokala wrote:On April 28 2025 22:12 oBlade wrote:
What news are you reading that the judges were arrested for obstructing illegal deportation? The news that you aren't reading and wouldn't take as a credible source. We know this because you are taking your information from a source I wouldn't find credible because its saying somehow that what they did was illegal. If you can't find it in yourself to see that arresting judges based on policy is a bad look you need to do a lot more introspection on what information you are consuming. What policy?The guy had an illegal immigrant living on his property who was a gang member, and he destroyed evidence that was part of an investigation into the person he was harboring. And he admitted to it. That's a serious crime. It's transparently evil, and it's corrupt, and it's a disgusting betrayal from a judge. So that is what led to a federal judge signing his arrest warrant. This is not a lie. There is actually a judge in the US who is that fucking insane. I understand it's inconvenient to admit because it's sounds so far-fetched that it must be something we can dismiss as a Republican conspiracy. Unfortunately, it happened. So I ask again: What policy? None of the acts he's accused of are the national policy of the US federal government. If you are representing to me now that any one of the things he did is the state policy of New Mexico, where he was a state judge, I would submit to you Trump should mobilize the national guard and declare martial law in New Mexico.
I said judges before I said policy so I don't know how you feel fixating on one word is in good faith but I'm going to act in good faith and assume you just made a reading mistake.
The person you're referring to is not a sitting judge, hasn't been a judge from march, but I'm going to act in good faith and assume the source you're putting faith in also made a mistake.
I understand the legal system is complex but if you are not compelled to release information to the court, like how Trump was with the documents he was storeing in his bathroom, you are under no obligation to preserve it. If you were under an obligation the government could claim they were investigating everyone at all times and would have to preserve all data and information available to them.
And to be clear nothing that the person has done that the government has claimed is a crime. Labeling people as "illegal immigrant" when they claim asylum isn't true and I'm going to act in good faith that you understand the implication of that label based on your "transparently evil" line there.
No I'm talking about the other judge in Wisconsin that the government arrested because they let someone not be kidnapped by the government with the legitimate expectation that they may be shipped to el salvador without due process. Allowing someone to escape people who you have reasonable suspicion are not following the law and will traffic them over state and national lines is not an evil act. Where you get the idea that its obstruction is 100% policy that the judge was targeted for. ICE agents are not the FBI and you should have a higher standard of respect for the courts than to arrest a sitting judge because they don't agree with your interpretation of the law. There is a place for that and you're not going to believe me but its called a court.
You need to do a lot of reflection on the sources of information that you are consuming and how they are making you feel. They are not rational and they make you irrational.
|
On April 29 2025 02:26 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 00:50 oBlade wrote:On April 28 2025 23:56 Sermokala wrote:On April 28 2025 22:12 oBlade wrote:
What news are you reading that the judges were arrested for obstructing illegal deportation? The news that you aren't reading and wouldn't take as a credible source. We know this because you are taking your information from a source I wouldn't find credible because its saying somehow that what they did was illegal. If you can't find it in yourself to see that arresting judges based on policy is a bad look you need to do a lot more introspection on what information you are consuming. What policy?The guy had an illegal immigrant living on his property who was a gang member, and he destroyed evidence that was part of an investigation into the person he was harboring. And he admitted to it. That's a serious crime. It's transparently evil, and it's corrupt, and it's a disgusting betrayal from a judge. So that is what led to a federal judge signing his arrest warrant. This is not a lie. There is actually a judge in the US who is that fucking insane. I understand it's inconvenient to admit because it's sounds so far-fetched that it must be something we can dismiss as a Republican conspiracy. Unfortunately, it happened. So I ask again: What policy? None of the acts he's accused of are the national policy of the US federal government. If you are representing to me now that any one of the things he did is the state policy of New Mexico, where he was a state judge, I would submit to you Trump should mobilize the national guard and declare martial law in New Mexico. I said judges before I said policy so I don't know how you feel fixating on one word is in good faith but I'm going to act in good faith and assume you just made a reading mistake.
You're the one who said it was based on policy. That's what based on means. It's the base. What did you mean if not the policy of the judges? Whose policy?
On April 29 2025 02:26 Sermokala wrote:
The person you're referring to is not a sitting judge, hasn't been a judge from march, but I'm going to act in good faith and assume the source you're putting faith in also made a mistake.
Yes, he's not a judge anymore. He resigned and was arrested. Since he's not a judge anymore, we don't have to bother defending his right to his behavior? You specifically said "judges." Were you referring to only one person? Like what is the point of this self-nitpick? If we were to impeach and fire judges, they're fairer game to arrest because they're not technically judges anymore? Not seeing any point.
On April 29 2025 02:26 Sermokala wrote:
I understand the legal system is complex but if you are not compelled to release information to the court, like how Trump was with the documents he was storeing in his bathroom, you are under no obligation to preserve it. If you were under an obligation the government could claim they were investigating everyone at all times and would have to preserve all data and information available to them.
Trump quite memorably got in trouble for keeping things and not surrendering them. The government took by force them because they knew where they were at all times and were sick of Trump not giving them to them despite demanding them. If you knowingly destroy evidence, that's a crime. Because the government can't take it anymore despite needing it. And a judge would know that. But he'll have his day to prove otherwise, that he smashed the guy's phone with a hammer out of mere reputational concern. Just like Hillary assumed wiping an email server meant with a cloth. In fact, didn't she smash phones with hammers too? Where do these people come from?
On April 29 2025 02:26 Sermokala wrote:
And to be clear nothing that the person has done that the government has claimed is a crime. Labeling people as "illegal immigrant" when they claim asylum isn't true and I'm going to act in good faith that you understand the implication of that label based on your "transparently evil" line there.
This is too unclear for me to know what "the person" is or what you're talking about. Labeling someone a nugget of gold as soon as they say the magic word "asylum" isn't true.
On April 29 2025 02:26 Sermokala wrote:
No I'm talking about the other judge in Wisconsin that the government arrested because they let someone not be kidnapped by the government with the legitimate expectation that they may be shipped to el salvador without due process.
Allowing someone to escape people who you have reasonable suspicion are not following the law and will traffic them over state and national lines is not an evil act. Where you get the idea that its obstruction is 100% policy that the judge was targeted for.
Who is to enforce federal immigration law, if not federal agents, on your planet? Do you believe anyone at all has the authority to enforce federal immigration law? Read this.
On April 29 2025 02:26 Sermokala wrote:
ICE agents are not the FBI and you should have a higher standard of respect for the courts than to arrest a sitting judge because they don't agree with your interpretation of the law. There is a place for that and you're not going to believe me but its called a court.
Don't know what the first part of this sentence means. Dugan was arrested by the FBI because there was a warrant approved by a federal judge because there was probable cause she had committed a crime. Now, she may have committed the crime because she has policy qualms with the government - but that's her own problem.
County judges don't get to interfere with federal agents in the performance of their legal duties in a public place just because they wear black robes. You should have realized your objection equally applies to she's a judge and if she witnessed a kidnapping she has a huge network and expertise in the legal profession and could file a complaint leading to yet another TRO or injunction assuming the asylee's rights have actually been violated.
|
On April 29 2025 03:34 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 02:26 Sermokala wrote:On April 29 2025 00:50 oBlade wrote:On April 28 2025 23:56 Sermokala wrote:On April 28 2025 22:12 oBlade wrote:
What news are you reading that the judges were arrested for obstructing illegal deportation? The news that you aren't reading and wouldn't take as a credible source. We know this because you are taking your information from a source I wouldn't find credible because its saying somehow that what they did was illegal. If you can't find it in yourself to see that arresting judges based on policy is a bad look you need to do a lot more introspection on what information you are consuming. What policy?The guy had an illegal immigrant living on his property who was a gang member, and he destroyed evidence that was part of an investigation into the person he was harboring. And he admitted to it. That's a serious crime. It's transparently evil, and it's corrupt, and it's a disgusting betrayal from a judge. So that is what led to a federal judge signing his arrest warrant. This is not a lie. There is actually a judge in the US who is that fucking insane. I understand it's inconvenient to admit because it's sounds so far-fetched that it must be something we can dismiss as a Republican conspiracy. Unfortunately, it happened. So I ask again: What policy? None of the acts he's accused of are the national policy of the US federal government. If you are representing to me now that any one of the things he did is the state policy of New Mexico, where he was a state judge, I would submit to you Trump should mobilize the national guard and declare martial law in New Mexico. I said judges before I said policy so I don't know how you feel fixating on one word is in good faith but I'm going to act in good faith and assume you just made a reading mistake. You're the one who said it was based on policy. That's what based on means. It's the base. What did you mean if not the policy of the judges? Whose policy? Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 02:26 Sermokala wrote:
The person you're referring to is not a sitting judge, hasn't been a judge from march, but I'm going to act in good faith and assume the source you're putting faith in also made a mistake. Yes, he's not a judge anymore. He resigned and was arrested. Since he's not a judge anymore, we don't have to bother defending his right to his behavior? You specifically said "judges." Were you referring to only one person? Like what is the point of this self-nitpick? If we were to impeach and fire judges, they're fairer game to arrest because they're not technically judges anymore? Not seeing any point. Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 02:26 Sermokala wrote:
I understand the legal system is complex but if you are not compelled to release information to the court, like how Trump was with the documents he was storeing in his bathroom, you are under no obligation to preserve it. If you were under an obligation the government could claim they were investigating everyone at all times and would have to preserve all data and information available to them. Trump quite memorably got in trouble for keeping things and not surrendering them. The government took by force them because they knew where they were at all times and were sick of Trump not giving them to them despite demanding them. If you knowingly destroy evidence, that's a crime. Because the government can't take it anymore despite needing it. And a judge would know that. But he'll have his day to prove otherwise, that he smashed the guy's phone with a hammer out of mere reputational concern. Just like Hillary assumed wiping an email server meant with a cloth. In fact, didn't she smash phones with hammers too? Where do these people come from? Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 02:26 Sermokala wrote:
And to be clear nothing that the person has done that the government has claimed is a crime. Labeling people as "illegal immigrant" when they claim asylum isn't true and I'm going to act in good faith that you understand the implication of that label based on your "transparently evil" line there. This is too unclear for me to know what "the person" is or what you're talking about. Labeling someone a nugget of gold as soon as they say the magic word "asylum" isn't true. Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 02:26 Sermokala wrote:
No I'm talking about the other judge in Wisconsin that the government arrested because they let someone not be kidnapped by the government with the legitimate expectation that they may be shipped to el salvador without due process.
Allowing someone to escape people who you have reasonable suspicion are not following the law and will traffic them over state and national lines is not an evil act. Where you get the idea that its obstruction is 100% policy that the judge was targeted for. Who is to enforce federal immigration law, if not federal agents, on your planet? Do you believe anyone at all has the authority to enforce federal immigration law? Read this.Show nested quote +On April 29 2025 02:26 Sermokala wrote:
ICE agents are not the FBI and you should have a higher standard of respect for the courts than to arrest a sitting judge because they don't agree with your interpretation of the law. There is a place for that and you're not going to believe me but its called a court. Don't know what the first part of this sentence means. Dugan was arrested by the FBI because there was a warrant approved by a federal judge because there was probable cause she had committed a crime. Now, she may have committed the crime because she has policy qualms with the government - but that's her own problem. County judges don't get to interfere with federal agents in the performance of their legal duties in a public place just because they wear black robes. You should have realized your objection equally applies to she's a judge and if she witnessed a kidnapping she has a huge network and expertise in the legal profession and could file a complaint leading to yet another TRO or injunction assuming the asylee's rights have actually been violated.
Oh I as assuming in good faith that you knew we were talking about immigration and the federal government arresting judges. Are you legitimately confused about the topic we're talking about? You go onto talk about it very specifically in the following parts of your post.
I'm glad you now understand and can appreciate how due process is a good thing. Its good to see movement from you in this discussion. If a judge does do something wrong that warents an impeachment they should be impeached, through the due process of impeachment and charging someone.
Yes, Trump got in trouble for keeping things he was ordered to return to the government, after he was ordered by a court to return them. I'm glad you now also have shown you understand the difference between the two situations. I don't know why you feel the need to bring in hillary into this but are you making the argument somehow that not preserving all information at all times implies guilt?
Labeling someone an asylum seeker when they seek asylum in your country is accurate. Are you confused about what an asylum seeker is or the concept of asylum?
You are correct the federal government does have the sole authority to enforce immigration law, and are granted that authority by the laws in place and empowered to do this by the constution. We are in agreement here and I'm glad to see you also want them to enforce the immigration laws as they have been written and abide by the constitution. Its brave of you to go against the trump administrations stance on this issue.
ICE and the FBI are two different agencies. I'm glad to clear that up, you may have been told that the people who were, in this interpretation being interfered with, are the FBI but they were ICE. They are not the same and do not carry the same authority.
County judges do not get to interfere with federal agents of their performance of their legal duties legal duties I'm glad we agree on this case. If you think that denying people of due process by taking them off the street, never identifying who they are, transporting them across state lines so they cannot access legal council or any form of support, and then transporting them to a central American prison is a legal act I would like you to confirm that please. Trump has said repeatedly and shown repeatedly that he is not following court orders, meaning that your solution isn't legitimate.
Can you confirm for us that Trump and ICE should abide by the court orders they receive in your opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
