8 ms·

I updated my post with new information from the updated article, and in the context of that I think you're pretty much right. It sounds like the judge basically

• willis936 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • BizarroLand 1y ago
    For people who don't live in crazy town, this would be considered an oppressive action, arresting a judge for following procedure simply because it inconvenienced you.
    • ConspiracyFact 1y ago
      The judge wasn’t arrested for following procedure. Read the complaint.
  • bix6 1y ago
    Considering the ongoing due process deprivations this is the most concerning aspect to me. This is a sitting judge which is a significant escalation against the judiciary.
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    • ivape 1y ago
      I was talking to someone earlier about how we in America, today, are not entitled to anything. Just in the last hundred years, people lived under secret police, dictators, state-controlled media, occupation, you name it. Hundreds of millions of people lived their whole life under the KGB or Stasi. Hundreds of millions live in autocracy even today. Some straight up live in a warzone as we speak. The idea that "we" can't be going through this is beyond entitled. Nothing is guaranteed to us. We are being shown how fragile this all is by the universe.
      • bix6 1y ago
        The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. I expect America to be a beacon of light and I will fight for it. We all need to fight for it, especially the people who frequent this message board because we are among the most privileged and capable. It’s disappointing to me how many of our tech leaders forget what made them great in the first place and abuse us all in the pursuit of personal wealth.
  • intermerda 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • pjc50 1y ago
      Ah, but: freedom for "me". The libertarian HN posters are in favor of unlimited freedom for themselves and a police state for everyone else, especially non-Americans who dare to exist in America.
      • dingdongbong 1y ago
        [dead]
      • bodiekane 1y ago
        Libertarian is completely the opposite side of the political spectrum from police state/authoritarianism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart
        • ceejayoz 1y ago
          As is Communism. In both cases, mostly in theory.
        • mindslight 1y ago
          And yet many people calling themselves "Libertarian" signed themselves up for full-throated support of this fascist wannabe dictator. Their supposed interest in "freedom" doesn't extend past their own interest in oppressing others. The dynamic is especially pronounced in the surveillance industry, where digital authoritarianism gets a pass by appealing to the individual fantasy of creating your very own digital authoritarian startup. signed, an actual libertarian.
  • Spivak 1y ago
    If it turns autocratic then there's no discussion to be had. Judge will waterboarded in Gitmo and Trump is de-facto king. We are no longer a nation of laws, the USA is renamed to Trumpopolis and we all have to get government mandated orange spray tans. So assuming that doesn't happen, this is an action by a non-autocratic executive meant to have a chilling effect on low level judges who don't want to spend a few days in lockup just because. A knob that the executive is (mostly) allowed to turn but that is considered in poor taste if you wish to remain on good terms with the judiciary. The bar for arrest is really low and the courts decide if she committed a crime which she obviously didn't.
    • trealira 1y ago
      You seem to be quite blasé about the possibility of autocracy. But yes, there is a risk that Trump becomes a dictator and we're no longer a nation of laws. It depends on how people like us react to consolidations of power like this, or the illegal impoundment, or cases like Kilmar Abrego Garcia's. The law only matters insofar as we and our representatives can enforce it.
      • Spivak 1y ago
        I'm not so much blasé about it, more just nihilistic because I am the last person with any kind of power to stop it. I imagine most of HN falls into this bucket of people with no real political power or influence. My realistic option if it happens is to move.
        • trealira 1y ago
          I'm also making plans contingency plans to move, but I may not be able to. Individually, no, we don't have power, but if everyone actually protested, we would - the Ukrainian revolution[1] started out as just mass protests (Euromaidan), for instance. The problem is that not enough of us are doing it, maybe because too many people are apathetic, uninformed, or don't take the possibility of autocracy seriously. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
        • 1y ago
  • kemayo 1y ago
    I'm not saying it's good, for sure. But I don't think it's a sign that the push for autocratic authoritarianism is winning, either. My optimistic take is that this is the sort of stupid overreach that works to turn other arms of government against the executive. The judiciary tends to be prickly about its prerogatives, and Trump's far from the point where he can just push stuff through without some cover.
    • hypeatei 1y ago
      > My optimistic take is that this is the sort of stupid overreach that works to turn other arms of government against the executive This is your take given the blatant corruption and clear constitutional violations of this administration? Sure, let's hope that norms and vibes save us against an executive ignoring due process. Those other branches don't even have a way to enforce anything; the executive are the ones who arrest people.
      • kemayo 1y ago
        The power of the executive is constrained, ultimately, by what people let them do. Including people inside the executive branch -- the people who're doing the arresting, transporting the prisoners, gunning down the protesters, etc. There's a lot of people involved who aren't committed to some authoritarian project, they're just... doing their job. They can be swayed by vibes, and general unpopularity of the regime. The alternative to this view is either giving up or preparing for armed struggle. It's certainly possible that we could get there, but I don't think it's guaranteed yet. (I acknowledge that this position is quite the blend of optimism and cynicism.)
        • Hikikomori 1y ago
          Like this judge they're being ousted for the smallest pushback and are being replaced by project 2025 people, they even set up a system that you can apply to do exactly this. Trump (or Vance that is fully in with Thiel) will have full control over all agencies where all low level employees are on board with this Christo fascist takeover and the judiciary will be powerless.
• californical 1y ago
  > incredibly doubtful that they could be successfully prosecuted Strongly agree. But, as I’m sure we both know, some other less-politically-connected people will be a bit more afraid of getting arrested on ridiculous grounds because of this. So, mission accomplished.
• pjc50 1y ago
  > incredibly doubtful that they could be successfully prosecuted for this. But they can be successfully arrested. You can beat the rap but not the ride, etc. The US is not yet at the level of dysfunction where jurisdiction is settled with gunfire, but ICE seem to be determined to move that closer.
  • whats_a_quasar 1y ago
    "You can beat the rap but not the ride" is phrased like the judge actually did anything wrong. That seems very doubtful. This administration has shown they are not entitled to the presumption that they are acting in good faith.
    • hackinthebochs 1y ago
      "You can't beat the ride" is saying that cops can punish you regardless of whether what you did was illegal.
      • pc86 1y ago
        That's certainly one interpretation of it, and a pretty reasonable one. However, I typically interpret it as "if the police think you've committed a crime, you are going to jail and almost nothing is going to stop that." In that incredibly famous "Don't Talk to the Police" talk[0], the attorney asks the former-cop-turned-law-student if he's every been convinced not to arrest someone based on what the suspect said. Not a single time in his entire law enforcement career. This is also sort of the crux of the talk - if nothing you can say will convince the police not to arrest you, and things you do say can make things worse, your best bet is to just shut up and talk to an attorney if it gets to that point. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
        • QuercusMax 1y ago
          I think we're all agreeing here. "You can't beat the ride" means that if the cops want to arrest you, lock you up, etc., you can't do anything about it. Doesn't matter if you're guilty, innocent, or just a random bystander, you're not going to stop them from taking you and doing whatever they want in the process.
• alabastervlog 1y ago
  Successful prosecution isn't needed, the harassment and incurring high legal fees will discourage a dozen other judges who might be less than boot-licklingly helpful to the autocrat.
  • dylan604 1y ago
    I'm sure there will be plenty of attorneys willing to take on these cases pro bono.
  • potato3732842 1y ago
    That's the reality less equal animals have had to live under since basically forever. I have a hard time seeing it as a bad thing that state and local authorities would have to view the feds the way we have to view all three because it brings our incentives more in alignment.
• adolph 1y ago
  > It sounds like the judge basically said "you need permission to arrest someone in the middle of my hearing, go get it" and then didn't change anything about the process of their hearing while that permission was being obtained. This is untrue if the FBI affidavit is believed. The judge adjourned the case without speaking to the prosecuting attorney, which is a change to the process of the hearing regarding three counts of Battery-Domestic Abuse-Infliction of Physical Pain or Injury. Later that morning, Attorney B realized that FloresRuiz’s case had never been called and asked the court about it. Attorney B learned that FloresRuiz’s case had been adjourned. This happened without Attorney B’s knowledge or participation, even though Attorney B was present in court to handle Flores-Ruiz’s case on behalf of the state, and even though victims were present in the courtroom. A Victim Witness Specialist (VWS) employed by the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office was present in Courtroom 615 on April 18, 2025. The VWS made contact with the victims in Flores-Ruiz’s criminal case, who were also in court. The VWS was able to identify Flores-Ruiz based upon the victims’ reactions to his presence in court. The VWS observed Judge DUGAN gesture towards Flores-Ruiz and an unknown Hispanic woman. [...] The VWS stated that Judge DUGAN then exited through the jury door with Flores-Ruiz and the Hispanic woman. The VWS was concerned because Flores-Ruiz’s case had not yet been called, and the victims were waiting. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.111629/gov.uscourts.wied.111629.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11...
• pseudo0 1y ago
  That is not what is alleged in the complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.111629/gov.uscourts.wied.111629.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11... The allegation is that the judge got upset that ICE was waiting outside the courtroom, sent the law enforcement officers to the chief judge's office, and then adjourned the hearing without notifying the prosecutor and snuck the man with a warrant out through a non-public door not normally used by defendants. If those facts are accurate, it sure sounds like obstruction. Judges have to obey the law just like everyone else.
  • ClumsyPilot 1y ago
    You are basically saying that everybody has to help ICE for free and on occasion do the job of ICE for free. That’s very totalitarian. At the same time, it is settled law that a police officer cannot be held liable for not protecting citizens or not arresting someone. So you have more obligations than a police officer yet getting none of the pay or legal protections Imagine you were a private tutor, in a private school on private land. ICE barges into the class trying to arrest one of the kids, but their paperwork is not in order so they promised to come back in 20 minutes Do you imagine it will be possible to continue with the lesson as normal after such an event? It is your discretion, when to start or stop a lesson, you work for yourself. Do you imagine you should be obligated as a teacher to continue the lesson as if nothing has happened? And if children want to leave to hold them by force? why is it your problem That ICE isn’t competent and can’t get their shit right the first time?
    • pseudo0 1y ago
      ICE had a warrant. They were being courteous to the court by waiting until after the hearing instead of scooping the guy up on his way in. And no, you don't have to help ICE, you just can't obstruct them. Sneaking a suspect out a back door while you stall the police is textbook, classic obstruction.
      • frognumber 1y ago
        You're downvoted because ICE did not have a warrant. ICE prints pieces of paper which they call "administrative warrants." Those were never reviewed by a judge and are internal ICE documents. An administrative warrant is not an actual warrant in any meaningful sense. It's a meaningful document (contrary to what you might read; it's not something one can just print on a laser printer and called it a day), but the "administrative" changes the meaning dramatically. It seems like there were plenty of errors all around, in this situation, both on the judge's side and on ICE's side. However, I can't imagine any of those rose to the level of criminal behavior. Sneaking a suspect out a back door while you stall the police is textbook, classic obstruction, but that changes quite a bit when it's a government employee operating within their scope of duty. Even if they make a mistake. Schools don't want students scared to be there. Courtrooms want to count on cases not being settled by default because people are scared to show up. There is a valid, lawful reason for not permitting ICE to disrupt their government functions. That's doubly true when you can't count on ICE following the law and might ship someone off to El Salvador. Asking an LLM, whether or not the judge broke laws is ambiguous. It is unambiguous that they showed poor judgment, and there should probably be consequences. However, what's not ambiguous is that the consequences should be through judicial oversight mechanisms, and not the FBI arresting the judge. As a footnote, a judge not being able to rely on ICE following lawful orders significantly strengthens the government interest argument.