Five years ago, I wrote about a federal judge who, in my view, had discarded any resemblance of judicial restraint and judgment in a public screed against Republicans, Donald Trump, and the Supreme Court. The Wisconsin judge represented the final death of irony: a jurist who failed to see the conflict in lashing out at what he called judicial bias in a political diatribe that would have made MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell blush.
His name is Lynn Adelman.
I was wrong in 2020. Irony is very much alive.
This week, a judge was randomly selected to preside at the trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan. A critic of Trump’s immigration policies, Dugan is accused of obstructing federal law enforcement and facilitating the escape of an unlawful immigrant.
The judge assigned to the Dugan case? You guessed it. Lynn Adelman, 85.
A judge is expected to come to a case like this one without the burden of his own baggage. Judge Adelman is carrying more baggage than Amtrak in Wisconsin.
The selection of Adelman shows how political commentary by judges undermines the legitimacy of the court system. Now, in a case that has divided the nation, the public will have to rely on a judge who discarded his own obligations as a judge to lash out at conservatives, Trump, and conservative jurists.
Adelman was a long-standing Democratic politician who tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to run for Congress during his 20-year tenure in the Wisconsin Senate. For critics, Adelman never set aside his political agenda after President Bill Clinton nominated him for the federal bench.
Adelman was sharply rebuked for ignoring controlling Supreme Court precedent to rule in favor of a Democratic challenge over voting identification rules just before a critical election. Adelman blocked the law before the election despite a Supreme Court case issued years earlier in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), rejecting a similar challenge.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a stinging reversal, explaining to Adelman that in “our hierarchical judicial system, a district court cannot declare a statute unconstitutional just because he thinks (with or without the support of a political scientist) that the dissent was right and the majority wrong.”
Adelman, however, was apparently undeterred. In 2020, he wrote a law review article for Harvard Law & Policy Review, titled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.”
Adelman attacked what he described as a “hard-right majority” that is “actively participating in undermining American democracy.” He also struck out at Trump as “an autocrat… disinclined to buck the wealthy individuals and corporations who control his party.”
Adelman was later admonished by the Civility Committee for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for his public political attacks as “inconsistent with a judge’s duty to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and as reflecting adversely on the judge’s impartiality.”
The costs of such extrajudicial commentary became vividly clear this week. Judge Dugan is being called a “hero” by Democratic politicians and pundits for helping an individual evade federal arrest. At least one judge has pledged to do the same in her courtroom. On the other side, many are appalled by Dugan’s conduct as fundamentally at odds with the role of a jurist in either the state or federal system.
There are weighty issues in the case and the public has a right to expect a fair trial with a judge who will not be swayed by his own political viewpoints. Dugan already had the advantage of a trial before a jury taken from one of the most liberal districts in the country. She will now have a judge who was himself sanctioned for political statements and reversed for ignoring controlling precedent.
Turley– “This week, a judge was randomly selected….:
Odd how random selection in political cases so often ends up in the hands of Boasberg type judges.
Is the system corrupt?
Odd how, “randomly selected” is always attached to the lie. Plainly reveals that it IS a lie….
the system is corrupt because it’s been “occupied” and ruled by the extreme-left. No wonder they were having massive seizures over the one-party lock they had over all government agencies. Trump’s administration didn’t fire nearly enough government workers.
True
Dianna: ” Trump’s administration didn’t fire nearly enough government workers.”
True, but I hope they are just getting started.
It is early, and I too hold out hope for the extreme leftists’ long-held and ever-growing monopoly of government agencies to come to an end. However, judging by the their manic meltdowns over the cuts that did take place, they will force MORE agitation and law-fare that inspires excessive and lawless reaction, like Dugan’s, and then MORE wild TDS on display at courthouses and on TV.
Rancid!
Conservatives have already lost as the normatives have been changed. There’s no winning at all now as the dems are abject losers dragging everyone down now and not just themselves.
It’s a split into States as nations and then wars. The feds are dead
Gee, how predictable! Faux News puts out a story criticizing the judge assigned to the Hannah Dugan case and Turley writes a piece saying the same thing. Instead of using his platform and qualifications to discuss something enlightening for non-lawyers, like judicial immunity, which, in all likelihood will be dispositive, Turley, like MAGA media requires, attacks the judge before he even issues any ruling. Turley is, of course, setting the stage for criticism of Judge Adelman even before he finds that Judge Dugan is shielded from prosecution because of judicial immunity. Turley also attempts to equate MAGA with “conservatism”–they aren’t the same thing–just ask the founders of the Lincoln Project. Oh, and Turley just HAS to throw in some criticism of Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. Turley, of course, has nothing to say about the obvious biases and conflicts of Thomas and Alito, and, ironically, says that the public can’t have faith in a legal system that is perceived to be unfair–all the while criticizing Judge Adelman before he even issues any ruling. Turley doesn’t discuss judicial immunity because he KNOWS that it should fully shield Judge Dugan–and he’s paid to attack her, not be objective.
Just my opinion, but it seems that the value of judicial immunity would be that a judge would be able to do their job without fear of penalty.
Helping a criminal evade capture is not part of a judge’s duty so that act should be outside of the shield provided by immunity.
Am I being illogical?
Not at all. But being logical with Gigi is like eating soup with a fork.
Well, noddle soup in a cup is easier with a fork.
Where did you get the idea that the man who was in Judge Dugan’s court is a “criminal”? He was there on a misdemeanor battery charge, and I’ve seen nothing indicating that he was ever convicted of anything. The Judge has the right to control what happens in her courtroom and is not required to honor an “administrative warrant”, which is not issued by a judicial officer. Excerpted from USA Today: “Judicial immunity is a legal doctrine that protects judges from liability for actions taken in the course of their judicial duties.
Dugan’s legal team is arguing that her actions were within the scope of her official duties to maintain control of her courtroom.
“Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court,” the motion wrote. “It is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset.”
Prosecuting Dugan, the motion argues, would violate the 10th Amendment, which has to do with states’ rights. The amendment states that any powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
The judicial immunity doctrine is rooted in English common law and was first established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1871 case Bradley v. Fisher. The doctrine is meant to allow judges to make decisions free from external pressures and political pressure.
“(A) judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself,” the Supreme Court’s opinion states.”
this is what happens when giggles tries to educate herself on the Internet, then authoritatively tries to educate us. How many times does she need to be told that none of this occurred in her courtroom.
giggles. YOu put two sentences in quotation marks. THen one final sentence in your last paragraph. All the rest is YOURs, likely copied from elsewhere and why did you think you were educating us about the origins of “judicial immunity doctrine is rooted in English common law” Where did you copy that from, giggles?
As I previously responded, and which comment was taken down: I quoted the Motion filed by Judge Dugan’s counsel that was published in USA Today–just HOW does that constitute trying to “educate myself on the internet”?
>>>Dugan’s legal team is arguing that her actions were within the scope of her official duties to maintain control of her courtroom.<<<
You should probably seek a refund from whatever school gave you your law degree.
She exercised that control first when she asked the agents to go into the hall, and then when she send them to the Chief Judge, so she could then violate the cannons of judicial ethics by spiriting him away through her jury room, rather than holding the DV hearing that he was in her courtroom for, thus denying the victims any opportunity for the justice they were there to seek.
She needs to be disbarred, and made an example of.
If the man entered this country without an invitation from our government then he is a CRIMINAL .
“Where did you get the idea that the man who was in Judge Dugan’s court is a “criminal”? ”
He twice entered the country illegally. That makes him a criminal. Any more dumb questions?
“The doctrine is meant to allow judges to make decisions free from external pressures and political pressure.”
Lets break this down to demonstrate just how ignorant you are.
“make decisions”:…what does that mean to you? To make decisions about what to have for breakfast? (No) To make decisions about whether to run a red light on the way to work??? (No) Or does it mean to make JUDICIAL decisions, such as the amount of bail or whether to hold someone in contempt? (Yes)
Or does it mean make a decision to leave the court room and interfere with a Federal Agent in the performance of his duties?? (No)
Or doesnt it mean make a decision with regard to what evidence can be presented at trial or who can testify? (Yes)
Or does it mean a decision to instruct a defendant as to which door they should exit the courtroom by??? (No)
Bradley vs Fisher concerns immunity from CIVIL ACTION, and has NO RELEVANCE to this case.
English common law is in reference to CIVIL ACTION, and has NO RELEVANCE to this case.
Presidential immunity from prosecution are for Presidential acts, and has NO RELEVANCE to this case.
A judicial officer, “excersizing the authority vested in them” is not what occurred here, and has NO RELEVANCE to this case.
And for the last time, NONE of these acts by the judge were official acts and none occurred inside “her courtroom”.
The only acts that occurred in the courtroom was her ranting and revealing her mens rea. Those words will also be used against her, because she is not the President.
Her emails and texts from the previous weeks will also be used against her, because she is not the President.
And that 10th Amendment garbage, are you kidding me??? So now a State employee can break Federal law because the 10th Amendment??
Please tell me this motion isn’t from that “superstar” lawyer she hired??? LMAO
It looks like a motion written by a first year law student
“Maintain control of her courtroom”?! There was no disruption in the courtroom. The agents were waiting outside to arrest the fugitive. Next time they will not be so courteous, and will exercise their right to enter the courtroom and make their arrest there.
Denied.
Seriously doubt judicial immunity will shield a judge from knowingly violating a federal statute. But I guess we’ll see.
1. Judges, just like the president, have immunity only for their official functions. Helping a wanted person escape arrest is not part of the judicial function, so no judge has immunity for it.
2. Judicial immunity protects only from civil suits, not from criminal prosecution.
3. State judges have no judicial immunity in federal court.
I wonder how our s@@tlib friends would react if a judge helped an illegal alien White South African escape the clutches of the immigration authorities?
S@@tlibs aren’t anti-racist, they are anti-White and I would respect them more if they just admitted such.
antonio
As long as the Judicial branch wants to usurp the authority of the Executive branch, then just ignore their overreach. Molon Labe!
American history tells us local, state and even federal law lags behind (up to 10 years tardy) behind U.S. Supreme Court rulings (supreme law of the United States).
Now 7 years late, there appears to be no local, state or federal laws codifying “Carpenter v. U.S.” or “U.S. v. Jones” governing police departments.
Specifically the “warrantless personal mapping” prohibition clearly mentioned in the “Carpenter” ruling. The outcome trying to be prevented in the ruling.
Some states protect consumer privacy but “Carpenter” deals directly with 4th Amendment law breaking by government officials. Not aware of a single state clarifying the “Carpenter” ruling reaching any police chief.
Today in 2025, there are probably about 17,000 police departments violating the “Warrantless personal mapping” prohibition in “Carpenter”. This law breaking by police chiefs is especially evil since it creates non-confrontational blacklisting (robbing citizens of legal standing in court). Innocent citizens harmed can’t even challenge the most evil program ever created in the United States.
So how can the U.S. Supreme Court enforce rulings like “Carpenter” and “Jones”? That’s the entire premise of a constitutional rule of law system. Not aware of a single state legislature or Congress enforcing the high court’s order.
At yesterday’s Senate hearing.
Sen. Hassan: What is habeas corpus?
Kristi Noem: “Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their right too……
Sen Hassan: No, let me stop you, ma’am, That’s incorrect. Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people. If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason.
I expected her to say Habeas Corpus is a city in Texas
And this dimwit is in charge of DHS.
She is a DEI hire.
What do you expect
If Kristi Noem was qualified for her job she wouldn’t have it.
Trump only hires unqualified people.
Kristi Noem must have confused habeas corpus with hocus pocus!
Obviously the Botox and the plastic face and lip filler have leaked into her brain.
That presupposes she has a brain.
A bit of a stretch
The poor woman could benefit from a chimpanzee brain transplant.
In all fairness, it’s a big word in a foreign language.
She should spend some time in Latin America to brush up on her Latin.
“requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people”
LMAO what???
Looks like she and the senator have a lot in common. You too.
The City of Habeas Corpses (the City of the Walking Dead) is a City located in the State of New York.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell%27s_Kitchen,_Manhattan
Hmmmmm sounds like J6 to me
Dustoff
Only in the bizarre and twisted alternate reality of the MAGA cult.
Every single J6 rioter was charged with a crime and brought before a judge to plead his or her case.
That is what habeas corpus means, the right to appear before a judge and present a defense.
Clearly you do not understand this.
How long did they say in jail with-out a trail or seeing a lawyer.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Try again
And with speed
The public reason for detaining (illegal invaders, who have committed crimes) has indeed been publicly stated and repeatedly: violation of immigration policies under law, while defrauding taxpayers and rightful users of public assistance. Voter’s voted for this, and they expect action on it.
As for Noem, the context of her response is more in line with how Habeas Corpus operates in terms of the voter-mandate. She probably meant that Habeas does not apply, especially in cases where the offender has previously been given deportation orders. It is quite easy to conflate ideas and outcomes when under the malicious scrutiny of a longtime attorney looking to smear and embarrass a witness.
Concerning the extreme-leftists’ bogus claim, ” If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason”—they already did exactly that with all of their J-6 political prisoners. In light of the gross denials of Habeas Corpus for J-6ers and the flagrant miscarriage of due process for their, unlawful confinement, the virtue signaling over the rights of illegals is foul and hollow.
Diana Bec
Clearly you also do not understand habeas corpus.
Hardly surprising in the alternative reality of MAGA world.
You seem to making some bizarre claim that habeas corpus is somehow subject to voter-mandate, whatever that is.
Might I remind you that habeas corpus is enshrined in Article 1 of the constitution, and can only be suspended by an act of Congress.
My understanding of the Constitution does not allow for a “voter-mandate” to override its provisions.
You seem to have a somewhat different understanding of how the Constitution works.
Your also seem to think that the J6 rioters were denied their habeas corpus rights.
Every single J6 rioter was charged with a crime and brought before a judge to plead his or her case.
That is what habeas corpus means, the right to appear before a judge and present a defense.
Clearly you do not understand this.
Your stupidity is equal to that of Kristi Noem, and perhaps worse.
Clearly, you know how to misread, and not understand. I offered an alternative to the malicious interpretation given: Noem was under pressure with many other relevant and pressing factors in mind. She misspoke. has nothing to do with my own interpretation or understanding of HC.
If she can’t take the pressure, then she has no business trying to do the job.
It was a very simple question that any high school student in a civics class could easily answer without much thought.
It was not a question that was laden with some subtle legal nuance.
She is an incompetent, poorly educated, poorly informed fool.
If she can’t take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.
Not a question laden with underhanded intent (subtle legal nuance), quite an [oxy]moronic statement in defense of a LAWYER. Noem doesn’t have to be a heat-stroked weakling in the kitchen, as you imply, to simply have a bad moment. Wonder if you could pass your own standards of perfection.
As for incompetent fools in government, the list is long, let’s start with AOC and the fact that extreme-leftists think she presidential material.
Ano
If he can’t take the pressure, then she has no business trying to do the job.
******************
Some how. That sounds just like Biden, which you libs have covered up since 2020.
Sharp as a tack
Dustoff
Interesting that you bring up Biden’s incompetence as a defense for Noem’s incompetence.
This is not quite the defense you think it is.
You are admitting that Noem is incompetent.
She made a mistake… get over it.
Biden on the other hand is non-thinking person.
So who used the Auto-pen???? Lying libs, you can be sure of
Act of congress? Well, who suspended J-6’ers rights? It was done, shall we say, creatively, sans Habeas Corpus concerning all rights against unlawful imprisonment, from bail, to speedy trial, to bizarre and malicious sentences. On the other hand, many of the illegals we’re talking about, like Maryland-man-Abrego, already had his due process, complete with court orders to skedaddle.
Be sure to visit religious prisoners who’ve been imprisoned for their religion alone for I was once a prisoner.
So, you were in prison for religion?—You don’t sound like a Christian….
There are no “religious prisoners” in the United States other than Christians, so please afford them the respect of calling them by name. Christians are persecuted and prosecuted simply because they are “conservative” by morally-biblical commission. And that is never sacred to any far-leftist courts.
Extreme leftist’s will also cry that the due process of Habeas Corpus is served in the prosecution of “religious” thought-crimes as they define them, and with all the legal trappings observed, something still stinks….Like Dugan’s “randomly selected” judge, being a far-leftist comrade.
There were no Christians at the time the words were spoken. They were spoken by a Jewish man.
Interesting, your thoughts on J-6 coincide with the extreme-left’s politburo in their version of “due process.” There were extreme improprieties in the way J-6ers cases were processed, thus deprived of liberty. They were not allowed to plead any of their cases in timely manner, but brought before extremely hatefully-political judges who already had their outcomes in hand.
“The right to appear before a judge and present a defense” in many cases dragged on into years before any of this basic requirement was lawfully met, and the eventual presentation of defense was railroaded into inordinately-threatening and oppressive plea bargains that included bizarrely unjust sentencing.
The sad fact that you THINK justice, via clean observance of Habeas Corpus, was properly observed and practiced shows your ignorance of the facts, your inability to read widely ALL accounts beyond the leftist politburo’s version. This event was historical, and needs to be questioned and held to stricter account, on many more grounds than the staged insurrection. Clearly, you do not understand this.
Clearly YOU do not understand habeas corpus.
It is not the right to a defense. Where did you get that nonsense? It has to do with unlawful detention.
In fact, its not a right at all.
From The Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 (please pay attention to the bolded words)
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
As you can clearly see, it is a privilege, not a right. And it is the WRIT that is the granted privilege, not habeas corpus. That means you are guaranteed the privilege of petitioning a court to “produce the body” Which can be DENIED.
Get educated with more than a 5 minute google search, then come back, Lawn Boy.
That’s a correct interpretation and application, understanding that Congress must invoke the suspension of habeas corpus during invasion or rebellion; it appears America has been suffering both for quite some time.
I think President Trump’s invocation of the Aliens Enemies Act of 1798 has been put on hold.
*afaict, no nation-state is invading .. . but there seems to be a lot of internal discontent!
Alien Enemies Act of 1798; while, indeed, there was no organized army, the invasion most certainly was coordinated by enemies our OUR state, seeking to crash our culture and economy—if that is not an act of war, I don’t know what is. It was a well-funded incursion that may, with proper analysis and judgement, meet the criteria of ‘alein enemies!” — Do you really think all these “recent arrivals,” wearing good clothes and decent shoes, using phones , and provided with transportation all along the way, got here without an enemy faction purposed upon the invasion? If you think that much influx was all random happenstance, like the appointment of that “randomly selected” Dugan comrade, then you are part of the problem.
Did you read “rebellion?”
What the —- do you call all the “lawfare,” Obama Coup D’etat in America, and various other illicit acts that have been perpetrated against conservatives since 2016?
REBELLION!
And what is “rebellion” if not refusal to enter a country to assimilate and pledge allegiance to that country?! Would you rather call it espionage?
Or maybe it’s insurrection, a-la Soros-sponsorship. In any case, rebellion means refusal to accept authority, code, or convention of—you don’t need an army uniform if you have a socially sanctioned, and financed multitude of invaders, rogue entrants refusing to obey laws, while flying the flags of the countries they left behind.
The illicit acts have been perpetrated against all Americans, not just conservatives, you nincompoop! Obama is only a mid-level manager in the NWO, and he doesn’t get full credit, despite his arrogant emperor facade. Rebellion or subversion? Obama, more like Nero watching Rome burn.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Communism is unconstitutional and must have been struck down every step of the way.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
“We will eliminate private property.”
– Karl Marx
______________
All of this redistribution of wealth, illicit regulation, and social engineering is unconstitutional:
Admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, PBS, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then, and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
Not only our judiciary, but our institutions and our entire social compact, are at risk. Could the Founding Fathers have imagined the Disinformation Governance Board? Could they have imagined mobs being permitted to burn down cities? Could they have imagined Harvard and Penn having rules of conduct that permit mobs to forcefully occupy the campus and call for the genocidal extermination of the Jewish people?
Could the Founding Fathers have imagined the judiciary we now have? How much longer can the Supreme Court survive?
In February 2020, Justice Sotomayor wrote in a Dissent: “this Court is partly to blame for the breakdown in the appellate process. [Wolf v. Cook County Illinois] In March 2020, Senator Schumer formed a mob and threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. In November 2020, Speaker Pelosi declared Justice Amy Coney Barrett to be illegitimate. The June 8, 2022 attempted assassination of Justice Kavanaugh quickly fell out of the news. On April 9, 2021, President Biden created the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States to change to the Court. In July 2021, Justice Kagan wrote in a Dissent: “What is tragic is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten — in order to weaken — a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness”. [Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee] On May 25, 2022, Speaker Pelosi said: “Let’s not take our eye off the ball. The ball is this Court [the Supreme Court], which is dangerous to the freedoms of our country.”
Thank goodness for Professor Jonathan Turley.
Is there no mechanism to challenge the judge?
Motion to recuse Congress should impeach that judge. We also have way too many old judges hanging around.
OT
It’s official:
The British feel like strangers in their own country???
What the —- do actual Americans feel like?
Most likely they feel unlucky?
Dear Prof Turley,
All rise. Be seated. .. the court of public opinion, the highest court in the land, is now in session.
Are we sure Judge Dugan helped “an individual evade federal arrest”? As I understand it, the judge is in charge of the courthouse, not the DHS or ICE.
*special note. DHS Sec. Noem said yesterday habeas corpus was ‘a right of the president to deport people’ .. . but I’ll be the judge of that.
There are no Democrat judges, there are no Republican judges .. . there are only United States of America judges
*eat the tariffs
I suppose per your argument the judge could just pull out a gun and shoot a defendant if they thought them guilty “as long as they are in there courtroom, they are in charge!”
Don’t be silly. That’s the jury’s duty .. . after weighing the evidence.
*the judge is there to make sure the evidence is weighed.
I think Tim’s point was that a judge being in charge of court room does not mean the judge can commit a crime in the court room and get away with it. It’s a valid point.
No, but the President can.
It appears she is arguing just that.
Wisconsin judge argues prosecutors can’t charge her with helping a man evade immigration agents
Attorneys for Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan argue in their motion that her conduct on the day in question amounted to directing people’s movement in and around her courtroom, and that she enjoys legal immunity for official acts she performs as a judge. They cite last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case that found that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” and are presumptively entitled to immunity for all official acts.
“The problems with the prosecution are legion, but most immediately, the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts,” the motion says. “Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court; it is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset.”
https://apnews.com/article/dugan-trump-wisconsin-judge-arrested-f2925c313e06f62324079e650d82a6ac
What is curious about her argument is that she could literally do anything in court while “on the clock” as a Judge, legal or illegal, and claim she is immune because her actions are part of her performance duties as a judge. Thus, if a child molester, a rapist, a “hate crime” violator (e.g. Nazi White supremacist), were being sentenced in her court, and immigration came after him, and she were to let him flee while obstructing immigration officials, she could argue, “I was just doing my official acts as a judge”. I suppose technically she could argue that and get away with it, but from a 30,000 feet view, we know this is so wrong.
Laws can’t govern peoples every behavior. Our inner conscience is for that. I’ve said this many times. But when a country has lost their conscience, then expect post-modernist relativism, self-referentialism and cynicism, dictate our society. The faces of post-modernism belong to Judges Dugan, Lynn Adelman, Justices Sotomayor & Jackson, et al.
My point is, in this case, the DHS or ICE does not have the authority to determine if this judge was committing a crime in her courtroom.
That’s what courts of law are for. To prevent the full force and power of the U.S. government from arbitrarily assigning criminal conduct. .. especially in a courthouse.
*the 4th Amendment has a valid point.
They do too have authority to make that determination. Where on earth did you hear otherwise?
If the judge conspires with another person in her own courtroom to assassinate the president, that’s a federal crime, and are you saying the feds have no authority to determine otherwise?
Plus her offensive conduct wasn’t limited to her courtroom. Again, the courthouse is not the same as her courtroom. You seem to be confused about that. A courthouse has multiple judges and multiple courtrooms in it. Judges don’t have unilateral power to decide what conduct is or isn’t criminal in the court house.
Federal authorities may determine, with probable cause, if Judge Dugan was conspiring to ‘assassinate the president’. They may even arrest her for that too.
However, as I understand it, courts of law ultimately determine guilt or innocence. Not the DHS or ICE.
*if the courts determine Dugan did not conspire to assassinate the president .. . that’s a pretty big matzah ball hanging out there, old man!
However, as I understand it, courts of law ultimately determine guilt or innocence. Not the DHS or ICE.
Law enforcement agencies charge people with crimes when evidence comes to light that they committed a crime. If the case goes to trial, the fact finder – a jury (or the judge if it’s a bench trial) – determines whether the person is guilty. How is this case any different from that?
OldManFromKS,
Well said.
Problem is, with this “randomly selected judge” in a well known liberal area, even with overwhelming evidence and no defense at all, I get the feeling it will just be another leftist circus. We will see.
So, you’re saying she’ll waive her right to a jury, and have the case decided by the judge, who will acquit no matter the evidence?* Given this judge’s expressed views, you may be on to something.
*Under the Sixth Amendment, defendants have the right to a jury trial. That provision does not give the government the right to a jury trial.
OMFK, that is not true. A jury trial can only be waived with the consent of BOTH parties AND the court.
Dgsnowden is often confused; his comments are worthless. They are generalizations, missing the essential point. “courts of law ultimately determine guilt or innocence. Not the DHS or ICE.” All recognize that it is the court of law where guilt is decided, but will the Judge end up in jail? There is a strong possibility that she won’t because of the politics of the presiding Judge and the community.
Isn’t the courtroom a church and the judge the presiding minister of justice? Isn’t the courtroom the secular church of atheism?
Tsk tsk
Neither DHS nor ICE will determine her guilt. That will be a federal jury, drawn from the Milwaukee section of the Eastern District of Wisconsin (NOT just Milwaukee).
But DHS and ICE have the absolute right to enter any courtroom in the nation, and certainly any courthouse in the nation, to execute an arrest. And anyone interfering with them is a felon.
The judge can influence the jury by ruling on what evidence is presented as well as ruling on what witness can be heard. Just look at Judge Merchan in Trumps NY case.
Also, by inventing his own FL real estate appraisals.
The problem is with the scales some Judges use to “weigh” the evidence.
Judges are in charge of court rooms, not entire court houses, which are run by the US General Services Administration.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, J. Dugan was elected a Wisconsin circuit court judge in 2016, and she primarily oversees cases in the court’s misdemeanor division. So a state court judge’s courtroom/courthouse is unlikely to be overseen by the USGA; however, I agree that whatever passes for Wisconsin’s version of a judicial administration/commission is unlikely to agree that a misdemeanor “…judge is in charge of the courthouse.”
She’ll be re-elected?
Your judges became political when they were first elected.
The judge was in control of the courtroom not the courthouse. Police are not prohibited from arresting someone in the courthouse. The Chinese caved to Trump when all tariffs on ethane imported from the U.S. were removed because ethane is essential in the making of plastic. Leverage to protect American investment in China is necessary to stop China from ripping off American intellectual property. I suppose that the other alternative is to just continue to let them get away with it which is akin to thinking like a box of rocks. China is not the only nation that has high tariffs on American made goods. For some the real world is just so hard to contend with.
Nobody has been ‘ripping us’ off. .. most likely the other way around, TiT.
Trump’s big beautiful Tariff war is the stupidest thing since light bread. You can’t eat tariffs.
*No police, DHS, ICE, FBI, DoJ or Pam Bondi can arrest anyone without a valid warrant.
If the judicial branch had simply adjudicated enforcement of original legislation, illegal aliens would have been compassionately repatriated and these problems would not exist.
The American Founders established a Nation, its Law, and its Population in 1789.
Yes, it is sure that Dugan “helped an individual evade federal arrest.” As you SHOULD understand it, a judge has control “her” specific courtroom” not the entire domain: hallways, jury rooms, back doors, and parking lots.
You should be very-very-very wary of handing extreme-leftist judges infinite fiefdom. This kind of sanctioning of highly-appropriate extra-judicial behavior should never be encouraged, no matter what party a “judge” represents.
Seems my specific words are being hijacked. Here is the text of the original post:
Yes, it is sure that Dugan “helped an individual evade federal arrest.” As you SHOULD understand it, a judge has control “her” specific courtroom, not the entire domain: hallways, jury rooms, back doors, and parking lots.
You should be very-very-very wary of handing extreme-leftist judges infinite fiefdom. This kind of sanctioning of highly-INappropriate extra-judicial behavior should never be encouraged, no matter what party a “judge” represents.
Isn’t it more accurate that they have control over their court proceedings, not their courtroom
She suspended the proceedings which means her involvement with the defendant ceased to be exist from a legal standpoint
Furthermore how was this only a misdemeanor when he put two people in the hospital with severe injuries
Apparently, The courtroom video has now been released, and she clearly shows her guiding him through a no public exit clearly with the intent to avoid observation by the agents
I find it impossible to believe that anyone with eyes, ears, and a working brain, would believe that this is the way justice should work. I would guess that the Chinese judges, all members of the CCP, would be acceptable as well.
I reckon the administration of ‘justice’, the ‘best beloved’, as well as the judges in China are acceptable in China .. . at least, it seems to be working for them.
*China GDP is 5.9%
What has their GDP got to do with anything? And no, their “justice” is not acceptable, anywhere. I don’t give a **** what they think of it. Right and wrong are absolute and the same everywhere, and the Chinese government has no right to exist.
Judges are not “in charge” of a courthouse. Even state law enforcement are free to enter courthouses and arrest people. Certainly federal officers are allowed to enter state courthouses. And yes, she intentionally helped the person evade arrest. She was aware that the officers were there to arrest him, and helped him evade that arrest. That is a felony for which she belongs in prison. There is no judicial immunity for it, even if she were a federal judge, which she isn’t.
She has no possible defense, but that won’t make a difference to Adelman.
Funny how these “random selections” work.
The likelihood of locating a neutral judge in Wisconsin is already slim to none. I think they meant ‘random (wink-wink, snicker-snicker) selection’.
Why would that be? Did Trump appoint no judges in Wisconsin in his four years in office? Did the Bushes appoint none? Reagan?
IT is Expected and Obvious in the people’s Republic of Wisconsin. The leadership and the courts are led by Left Wing Woke Radical DEMS, with a nut for Governor.
Why would the federal courts in Wisconsin be any different from those anywhere else in the USA?
Professor Turley writes, “We have the greatest legal system in the world, but it cannot survive long without the faith and support of the public.”
I doubt the problem is bias, Professor. The problem is that Democrats want to destroy the greatest legal system in the world by hijacking it. If it wasn’t immigration, it would be something else. If it wasn’t Trump, it would be someone else.
What is well underway in Europe is starting here. The Left believe the Thucydides Trap for conservatives has arrived, and the Left is destined to win the showdown–not just with us–but with existing institutions. Their actions betray their intentions.
I would add that Aristotle and Polybius predicted exactly this thousands of years ago. In the last stage of a civilization, pseudo-intellects take their freedoms for granted, and democracy collapses into anarchy. A stroll through Baltimore or Birmingham, England provides an early taste–if one can stomach it.
Our founding fathers took this threat seriously, so they founded a republic of diverse institution to prevent it. Looking around, I can’t help but wonder if our founders underestimated the power of human frailty.
The necessary ingredient is vigilance perhaps. Unresting vigilance is wearisome. Perhaps…
True. My best guess, only 20% of humanity has that trait. The rest are back-sliders.
After the hijacking is fully realized, implemented, what will the US look like?
Britain. At that point, Britain will look like Romania does now, and Romania will look like Detroit.
Charles Kindleburger and Graham Allison cited? Where did you study this?
The trap can apply within a nation and isn’t restricted to international as we see? Easily seen internationally?
Good comment
Agreed, this is a civilizational shock for sure. Anarchists without borders are all over Europe.
What do they want? What is the motive?
You’re right, Diogenes, the Left isn’t just after Trump or any one issue. They want control of our constitutional Republic and those of our allies. The Thucydides reference sets the stakes, though this feels more like internal sabotage than a clash of powers. Trotsky may have lost to Stalin, but his dream of world revolution lives on in today’s Left. I don’t think they’ll win this round, but entropy always pulls toward disorder. Even the Constitution won’t last forever.
“Even the Constitution won’t last forever.” True, and it would be unrecognized today by those that drafted and enacted it. The fatal mistake was lifetime appointments of Federal Judges followed by the 17th amendment essentially nationalizing the election of Senators.
That is so much nonsense. The founders intended judges to be independent, and the idea of elected judges would have shocked them. And the 17th amendment did not “nationalize” the election of senators, it merely took it from a small cabal of legislators who were supposed to represent the people of the state and gave it directly to those people themselves, so THEY can choose whom THEY want to represent THEM. It’s still entirely a state matter. And someone wanting to manipulate the election has to persuade hundreds of thousands or even millions of voters, rather than just a few dozen legislators. It’s a lot harder to buy them all off.
Allen, it is internal, but strangely, it is internal to every Western country now, so it’s a civilizational shock–even bigger than a clash of powers and more insidious.
You have hit the nail on the head. Were the problem only “bias,” our legal framework could keep it in check. However, the problem is systemic and is spreading over the globe like a turbo-cancer. We’re not simply contending against a minority of extremists, it is a minority that is bankrolled with endless indoctrination and resources.
These fools will not wake up until the boot is on their neck or they become the parasites that inform on their neighbors.
This!
Everytime we experience these immigration issues the separation of powers issue comes to the front. Politicians trying to influence the supreme court or its inferiors has always been present but objectivity must be the preferred standard if impartiality is to remain intact and in turn the preservation of the separation of powers philosophy.. Choosing to psychologically abandoned objectivity for the sake of vanity is a sign of intellectual weakness in any judge. It is evidence of, as it always is with the vain, a forfeiture and loss of the discipline to call it like it is. If one does not have the discipline to engage in objectivity and conceptual discipline then one is lapsing into vanity. Unfortunately we have to accept vanity as a part of what constitutes a politician. We have to tolerate their conceptual deficits. We should not however tolerate those deficits in the judiciary. If a judge is affected by the dubious benefits of vanity, the judge should be rehabilitated. This is the responsibility of the presiding judge and the civil committees that oversee judicial conduct. Perhaps a referral should be made.
Trump gets judges that hate him, that have daughters making millions off of people running against his party, that have actually supported his political opponent while not recusing himself…and Dems get friendly judges.
Welcome to Doublestandardstan.
Is it a double standard? I need 100 watt bulbs and can afford them. Another says I do also but buy 25 watt because of cost. I then see I always have less. I’ll steal your 100 watt but give you my 25 watt. I now have what I wanted and made money doing it. After all everyone needs 100 watts so why always me with 25 watts. That’s the logic. Theft doesn’t exist or is rationalized.
In addition if I don’t need it then I’ll just break what you have so you’ll be the least, too, and that’s the activist or advocacy of Dugan and Alderman.
Rationale is, if it is a “principle” then all have it like 100 watt bulbs. Merit doesn’t exist.
It’s an ocean. Buy as little as possible.
Dear Mr. Turley, the left complained ad nauseum about Judge Cannon before she even began to look at the President Trump document case. Thankfully, she quickly realized the case was a set-up and an overreaction. She was proven correct once it was discovered Mr. Bidne has kept classified documents for YEARS at VARIOUS places. Why didn’t the director of the National Archives notice these documents were missing for10 years, plus? Yet, President Trump was pounced on almost as soon as he left office. The folks complaining about Judge Adleman are only doing what the Left has done for years when they don’t get their way. The Left can’t stand seeing their playbook used by the Right.
Thanks Dr Turley, for creating new content while juggling the education of students with educating the public. Is the underlying cause of Biden’s dementia a pandemic among eftists? Greed for power
Leftist Democrats by their words and actions put on full display how lawless they are. Now Dugan breaks the law by aiding and abetting a known criminal by helping him evade federal law officers from carrying out their duty, she gets assigned a “random” judge with a long history of political bias. Yet another circus trial.
What seems to be happening, beginning with the US district court system is a slow, inexorable march to a Venezuelan-type judiciary. This is how civil societies begin to destroy themselves, slowly and in pieces at first then, when the citizens are numbed and distracted, rapidly.
We were warned by Tail Gunner Joe (who probably was the worst messenger for this message) that this was happening even back in the mid 20th century but we were lulled into a state of complacency by our media/education industry even back then.
We have no one to blame but ourselves for keeping our heads down so long and avoiding the poison within our nation. We counted on enough of us being true to the constitution why ignoring the growing influence of European socialism and the expanding interesting in Asian cultural influences that diluted our original ethos.
Now, how do we undo all of this short of a method akin to the Reconquista of Spain?
method akin to the Reconquista of Spain… seriously? You just like to see your screeds, think it attest for your intellect. What c r a p.
Then explain how you would flush the insanity and cultish behaviors from a constitutional federal republic? We are passed the point where we have enough justices that are not ideologically driven, just how do you turn that around – talking about it had gotten us nowhere and you can see the massive use of lawfare to stifle any change to their system by utilizing what legal methods available (sparse at best). Now put your money where your mouth is and reach back to your massive knowledge of past civilizations and proffer a better solution – and – please cite historical examples where talking to the enemy worked.
whimsicalmama,
Seems to me, the leftists are the ones pushing for a violent confrontation. We see it by their words and actions. The good news is while it may excite and inspire a group of people, they are a very small minority. At the same time, sane and normal moderate Democrats and Independents are put off by their words and actions. As they display their desire for lawlessness, more and more will find them not compatible with the leftist Democrat party.